Then why not market it as a 3GHz or 3.2GHz part? You argument makes little sense to me. Are you saying that you speculate that most manufacturers will overclock this CPU or do you have a precedent for this?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Intel announces 2.8 GHz notebook processor
- Thread starter 4God
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Then why not market it as a 3GHz or 3.2GHz part? You argument makes little sense to me. Are you saying that you speculate that most manufacturers will overclock this CPU or do you have a precedent for this?
Um... arguing with me about whether things make sense is not really going to make what's real outside of the highly limited Appleworld any different.
Overclocking is something that is part trial and error, and depends greatly on how you cool the processor. All Intel does is to unlock the multiplier, and tell you "this will definitely do the Ghz the we printed on it. Beyond that, it's your problem." The X-series is specifically intended for this. The E-series desktop processors for example can be overclocked, but that is not the stated intention of the processors.
Now, that performance is not achieved by bunging the stock fan on it. For example, my main home machines - the Dell XPS 710 H2C - uses a two-stage refrigeration system to crank the speed of the X-series desktop processor up to almost a Ghz beyond the nominal speed of the processors with absolute reliability (and just as importantly, with more or less the silence of the Pro despite packing two 8800GTX's as well). That is the sort of headroom the X-series processors give you. But Apple uses that purely as a heat-management tactic.
Overclocking is something that is part trial and error, and depends greatly on how you cool the processor. All Intel does is to unlock the multiplier, and tell you "this will definitely do the Ghz the we printed on it. Beyond that, it's your problem." The X-series is specifically intended for this. The E-series desktop processors for example can be overclocked, but that is not the stated intention of the processors.
Now, that performance is not achieved by bunging the stock fan on it. For example, my main home machines - the Dell XPS 710 H2C - uses a two-stage refrigeration system to crank the speed of the X-series desktop processor up to almost a Ghz beyond the nominal speed of the processors with absolute reliability (and just as importantly, with more or less the silence of the Pro despite packing two 8800GTX's as well). That is the sort of headroom the X-series processors give you. But Apple uses that purely as a heat-management tactic.
Let's not get into that discussion here.There are many threads already discussing the abilities of the new GPU in the iMac and pretty much all of them are quite intense and heated discussions!
I wasn't really going after the graphics... I was just wondering if 400MHz was worth the hefty price of the top end iMac. Is it a dramatic difference in performance?
If you game in native res, than the 24" will add extra burden to the video card. Will the 2.8 give you more gaming for the money? Depends if the game is CPU limited or GPU limited.
Sorry. The burden of proof is on you. You made a claim and now refuse to substantiate it.
I think the fact that the Extreme (X) series is the only series of Intel chips with unlocked multipliers is pretty good proof.
Not really. I suspect that it will be marketed as overclockable by the manufacturers but most of them will leave it at 2.8GHz. Most laptop configurations won't be able to handle the extra heat.
Where do you see the new 24" iMac are with cheaper screens? The new 24" iMacs are using H-IPS LCD panels...they are not cheap!
Proof => https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/344204/
So THAT explains the delay in getting my iMac
Finally. An explanation of why Apple has been stringing me along since 8th. with story after story, delay after delay, with respect to my iMac 2.8GHz. In the 24 years I've been using Macs, I've NEVER had such bad service or delivery. I've never had so many Apple people lead me along or give me such misleading comments, or been so patently unable to find reliable information about delivery.
The web store says 5-7 days for delivery, but Apple itself just told me it would be another THREE WEEKS for a computer that entered their production schedule on 8th. August.
For a Mac 'bigot' who has used exclusively Apple computers for all the right reasons for 26 years, I'm ticked off by Apple's premature announcement of a product 'available now,' when it is evidently not yet in the supply chain. What's even more galling is that my first G5 iMac arrived a couple of days after its date of announcement (and all the way from China. I tracked it). My dealer has lost all of his his margin on this box, as he tried to sort this out, which ticks me off even more....
Let's hope that Steve reminds those in manufacturing and the supply chain that they have not met his exacting standards with this product release.
Apple has severely tarnished its image with this product release.
Finally. An explanation of why Apple has been stringing me along since 8th. with story after story, delay after delay, with respect to my iMac 2.8GHz. In the 24 years I've been using Macs, I've NEVER had such bad service or delivery. I've never had so many Apple people lead me along or give me such misleading comments, or been so patently unable to find reliable information about delivery.
The web store says 5-7 days for delivery, but Apple itself just told me it would be another THREE WEEKS for a computer that entered their production schedule on 8th. August.
For a Mac 'bigot' who has used exclusively Apple computers for all the right reasons for 26 years, I'm ticked off by Apple's premature announcement of a product 'available now,' when it is evidently not yet in the supply chain. What's even more galling is that my first G5 iMac arrived a couple of days after its date of announcement (and all the way from China. I tracked it). My dealer has lost all of his his margin on this box, as he tried to sort this out, which ticks me off even more....
Let's hope that Steve reminds those in manufacturing and the supply chain that they have not met his exacting standards with this product release.
Apple has severely tarnished its image with this product release.
Ah, ok, but to get full advantage, shouldn't the memory bus match the FSB or is that bypassed between the Processor and video card?
As to v-cards, Well, with the size of the housing, I wonder why they are limited to a mobile card? From the benchmarks I saw so far, its in some cases slower than the last gen one.. I have the 256meg x1600 now, but would like as fast as I can get. The desktop cards get a whole lot faster than the mobile ones.
Dunno really, but thought the top of the line would have a BTO option to get a better card like they used to..
I want to be able to run exactly one game, but I have to overclock my video to at least 500/500 to get playable frame rates (I run it under XP on bootcamp)
Is 44 Watts Too High A TDP For The 17" MBP?
I've been trying to get an answer to these questions for two weeks already. So please somebody know?
Is that too hot for the 17" MBP? What's the max TDP 17" MBP can withstand?This is the chip that's in the high-end iMac now, 4God.
And it has a TDP of 44 watts...it's not showing up in a Macbook near you, unless it ships with an external heat shield for your body!
I've been trying to get an answer to these questions for two weeks already. So please somebody know?
The reason Intel developed the FSB-multiplier lock was to prevent unscrupulous OEMs and computer shops from selling overclocked CPUs falsely identified as higher-performing parts.
Intel fully expects the X7800 and X7900 to be overclocked. There is no reason to pay the price premium for them, otherwise, because the stock performance isn't worth it. However, by not warrantying them beyond their "rated" spec, Intel shifts the support costs to the OEMs and end-users.
Intel could just improve their binning a bit and find the X7800s/X7900s that can run reliably faster then 2.6/2.8GHz, but then they might not be able to meet demand for these "faster" chips depending on each wafer's yield. But as the process improves, speeds naturally rise, so now that the majority of Core2 Extreme Mobiles coming off the wafer reliably run at (least at) 2.8GHz, Intel has now created the X7900. When the majority reliably run at 3.0GHz, we will see the "X8000" or somesuch. Then the "X8200" when they hit 3.2GHz.
But before they officially launch from Intel, folks will be running X7800s at 2.8GHz (or beyond), X7900s at 3.0GHz, X8000s at 3.2GHz, and so on. How far "beyond" will depend on cooling and other factors.
So we end up where I said we would. Manufacturers will "normally" sell the X7900 as a 2.8GHz part and interested parties in the know will buy them for their overclocking performance, taking all blame if something goes awry.
Is that too hot for the 17" MBP? What's the max TDP 17" MBP can withstand?
I've been trying to get an answer to these questions for two weeks already. So please somebody know?
In short, probably not.
http://techgage.com/article/intel_core_2_extreme_qx6850_quad-core/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Core_2
Rocketman
I am the ****** who predicted 4 core iMacs by now
Rocketman
That Was Not An Answer Rocketman
I read all those links and they tell me nothing about maximum TDP for the 17" MBP. Can someone say it will or won't work?
Is that too hot for the 17" MBP? What's the max TDP 17" MBP can withstand?
I've been trying to get an answer to these questions for two weeks already. So please somebody know?
That's not an answer. Is it or is it not too hot for the 17" MBP?
I read all those links and they tell me nothing about maximum TDP for the 17" MBP. Can someone say it will or won't work?