Sidebar Sidebar
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

From what I remember reading somewhere Apple is the 2nd largest computer manufacturer behind Dell - and being #2 has obviusly helped them get a degree of preferential treatment.

On a side note, does anyone know if Apple are investing in Intel in terms of R&D to help bring better chips to market and to then get first bite of the apple (no pun intended)?
 
CWallace said:
Yes, but when the iMac launched, the X7900 entry didn't exist on that page. Believe me, I Googled far and wide to find a 2.8GHz Core2 Duo Extreme mobile chip and came up with nada. All I found was articles on the X7800 being FSB-multiplier unlocked and OEMs selling them at 3GHz plus.

I know a few folks gutted the iMac when it came out. Did anyone gut a 2.8GHz model and if so, did any of the pics show the processor top with the part number and stepping info? Easiest way to know for sure.
Click to expand...

Just ordered--

iMac, 24-inch, 2.8GHz Intel Core 2 Extreme
Part Number: Z0FC
Apple Keyboard (English) + Mac OS X
1TB Serial ATA Drive
2.8GHz Intel Core 2 Extreme
2GB 667MHz DDR2 SDRAM - 2x1GB
SuperDrive 8x (DVD±R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW)
Built-in Display
Apple Mighty Mouse
Accessory kit
 
Sure-why not

Worth the money? I thought so. I'm typing this on the glossy screen of my brand spanking new 24" running a 2.8 GHz C2D outfitted with maxed ram and a 750 GB HD.

Here is my thinking on the purchase. Most of my use for this machine will be for Video, Illustration and Photography. Considering the iMac cannot be upgraded in the sense that a pro model can, I think getting the maxium specs isn't a bad plan. It will translate to a longer useful lifespan for the product and better performance.

In terms of what runs this pup-7800 or 7900-it doesn't really matter because Steve was right-it screams. The glossy screen takes a bit of getting used to, but I can say, with confidence, it is a step up from anything I've used to date including my office G5 mac tower. I don't game, so I have noting to say on that front. In terms of performance though, it is really an astounding machine. Even emulated (Rosetta) apps work better than on my fastest PPC. The FW 800 works perfectly and the second screen makes this something of a dream system for me.

My surprises for the new iMac included, the speakers, which sound better than any machine I've ever heard, the brightness of the display and the thinness. I know they say it's slim, but you gotta see it to appreciate it. So far I'm very happy with this machine and would recommend it to anyone who wants to upgrade their computing life.
 
mkrishnan said:
No worries. It's confusing, but this part:

The first customer to get this high-end processor was once again Apple, which quietly began offering the chip two weeks ago for its new iMac. A 2.8 GHz iMac with a 24" monitor is currently offered from $2300, which translates into a $250 premium over a 2.4 GHz (non-"Extreme") model.
Click to expand...

...is talking about the new 7900 chip and not the 7800.

(As a side note, the Intel iMacs have all, as far as I know, used "laptop" chip designs -- Yonah and Merom, before this one. Although, in this chip's case, it's a bit of a stretch to call it a laptop design!)
Click to expand...

The problem comes in that the X7900 was just released at the same price as the X7800. The X7800 hasn't seen an official price cut, but a T7800 (same basic chip,) was released at the same time as the X7900, at $530. (Basically, the X7900 has caused all the chips below it to drop a price notch, with the former X7800 now being called the T7800 as part of the price drop.)

What's really amazing is that the X7900 is $851, while the T7700 (the 2.4 GHz chip that the iMac ships with stock,) is $361 (source). That means that Apple is charging a $250 upgrade fee for a chip that costs $490 more. (In all fairness, the T7700 is only hitting $361 officially at the same time the X7900 is officially released; until now, the T7700 was $530, which makes the release price of the X7900 only a $321 difference; although that's the same price as the now-depricated X7800, too, so theoretically, the X7900 should have cost more before now as well.)
 
ehurtley said:
The problem comes in that the X7900 was just released at the same price as the X7800. The X7800 hasn't seen an official price cut, but a T7800 (same basic chip,) was released at the same time as the X7900, at $530. (Basically, the X7900 has caused all the chips below it to drop a price notch, with the former X7800 now being called the T7800 as part of the price drop.)

What's really amazing is that the X7900 is $851, while the T7700 (the 2.4 GHz chip that the iMac ships with stock,) is $361 (source). That means that Apple is charging a $250 upgrade fee for a chip that costs $490 more. (In all fairness, the T7700 is only hitting $361 officially at the same time the X7900 is officially released; until now, the T7700 was $530, which makes the release price of the X7900 only a $321 difference; although that's the same price as the now-depricated X7800, too, so theoretically, the X7900 should have cost more before now as well.)
Click to expand...

Price varies with volume. For every 10k chips bought by Apple they'll get a different price point than a single cpu for a consumer. This goes for any OEM.
 
Mustafa Monde said:
Worth the money? I thought so. I'm typing this on the glossy screen of my brand spanking new 24" running a 2.8 GHz C2D outfitted with maxed ram and a 750 GB HD.

Here is my thinking on the purchase. Most of my use for this machine will be for Video, Illustration and Photography. Considering the iMac cannot be upgraded in the sense that a pro model can, I think getting the maxium specs isn't a bad plan. It will translate to a longer useful lifespan for the product and better performance.

In terms of what runs this pup-7800 or 7900-it doesn't really matter because Steve was right-it screams. The glossy screen takes a bit of getting used to, but I can say, with confidence, it is a step up from anything I've used to date including my office G5 mac tower. I don't game, so I have noting to say on that front. In terms of performance though, it is really an astounding machine. Even emulated (Rosetta) apps work better than on my fastest PPC. The FW 800 works perfectly and the second screen makes this something of a dream system for me.

My surprises for the new iMac included, the speakers, which sound better than any machine I've ever heard, the brightness of the display and the thinness. I know they say it's slim, but you gotta see it to appreciate it. So far I'm very happy with this machine and would recommend it to anyone who wants to upgrade their computing life.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the input good to hear about the speakers . As you say the iMac cannot be upgraded in the sense that a pro model can. I will be getting an iMac as soon as Leopard comes out and I'm thinking the higher specs. would be a good move.
 
flopticalcube said:
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.
Click to expand...

No - factory overclocked and machines sold as overclockable are warranted when overclocked.

You know, I have to take my hat off to Apple.

If any other manufacturer drops an X7800 or X7900 into a desktop, people are going to be wondering a) why they've crippled a desktop with a laptop chipset and b) why it's not overclocked. As I said, the iMac can have the doors blown off it in terms of overall performance by a Dell or similar desktop (an actual desktop) costing practically half as much, and it's going to be just as quiet in real life as you're not going to have the system unit sitting on your desk.

Instead, for the Jobsitized it's "Hooray! it's an Extreme something which we've got before anyone else! Praise Apple!"

Ah... Applemaniacs, it's so cute.
 
Sesshi said:
As I said, the iMac can have the doors blown off it in terms of overall performance by a Dell or similar desktop (an actual desktop) costing practically half as much, and it's going to be just as quiet in real life as you're not going to have the system unit sitting on your desk.
Click to expand...
Sesshi, you obviously look at things from a very different perspective than most Mac users (and our Great Leader). I for one am a pro who's always used the latest and greatest beast Apple created (starting in the Macintosh II era, to Macintosh FX all the way to the Mac Pro quad core). This is the very first time I'm going "consumer" and so far it looks great (24" iMac C2D Extreme). It's finally quiet in the office, less heat being produced, and not very obvious for many 'hardcore PC fans': this iMac uses about a third of the power that my Mac Pro does.
Instead of suggesting that we're zealots, could it be you just don't quite get it? Oh, and here's another newsfact for you: like many other pros, I hardly ever did any upgrading on my machines ever, I just bought the new one with better specs. So I don't care a *#$! that this machine isn't really upgradable (apart from the 4GB of RAM I plugged in).
 
Sesshi said:
ou know, I have to take my hat off to Apple.

If any other manufacturer drops an X7800 or X7900 into a desktop, people are going to be wondering a) why they've crippled a desktop with a laptop chipset and b) why it's not overclocked. As I said, the iMac can have the doors blown off it in terms of overall performance by a Dell or similar desktop (an actual desktop) costing practically half as much, and it's going to be just as quiet in real life as you're not going to have the system unit sitting on your desk.

Instead, for the Jobsitized it's "Hooray! it's an Extreme something which we've got before anyone else! Praise Apple!"

Ah... Applemaniacs, it's so cute.
Click to expand...

I don't buy Apple products for the hardware specs... ;)
 
pimmie said:
Sesshi, you obviously look at things from a very different perspective than most Mac users (and our Great Leader).
Click to expand...

From what I've seen so far, I clearly do, pimmie.

I for one am a pro who's always used the latest and greatest beast Apple created (starting in the Macintosh II era, to Macintosh FX all the way to the Mac Pro quad core). This is the very first time I'm going "consumer" and so far it looks great (24" iMac C2D Extreme). It's finally quiet in the office, less heat being produced, and not very obvious for many 'hardcore PC fans': this iMac uses about a third of the power that my Mac Pro does.
Instead of suggesting that we're zealots, could it be you just don't quite get it? Oh, and here's another newsfact for you: like many other pros, I hardly ever did any upgrading on my machines ever, I just bought the new one with better specs. So I don't care a *#$! that this machine isn't really upgradable (apart from the 4GB of RAM I plugged in).
Click to expand...

I'm not actually a 'hardcore PC fan'. I don't actually spend hours obsessing over heatsinks, etc although I do know a fair amount of the mechanics of all that stuff simply because I'm an informed consumer, heavy professional user and enthusiast. If I was a hardcore PC fan, I would for example have built my own overclocked desktop rather than buy a Dell XPS 710 H2C off the shelf - which by the way rivals similar Apple hardware for quietness, despite having far more muscle for general purpose entertainment than any Apple machine in existence.

Rather, I just happen to seek the best machines out there for work and play, which is one of the reasons why I mowed my way through several examples of the entire Apple range last year. Apparently like you, upgradeability over time is not a big deal for me either, although initial capability which might require an expansion capacity beyond the stock specification is important - I replace each category of laptop I own on a roughly yearly basis, and desktops on a 12-24 month schedule. However when the desktop machine is effectively behind at release as my soon-to-be delivered X7900 iMac will be (it's also replacing a Pro as the software I run on it does not require the Pro), some degree of upgradability would not go amiss I feel.

Even now, surprising as it may seem, I'm platform agnostic to a great degree - I have important applications running under both OSX and Windows - but it doesn't change the fact that I see Apple desktop/laptop hardware as successfully meeting, broadly speaking, the needs of a less informed, more superficial and less professionally / otherwise demanding clientele. If you take offence from that, I apologise - as I said, it's a generalisation and it may or may not be accurate.

I get 'it' fine - form over function. I'm happy to buy into that to do certain things as long as I have more viable options for doing everything else open to me.

Oh, and I started with the IIci.
 
pimmie said:
Sesshi, you obviously look at things from a very different perspective than most Mac users (and our Great Leader). I for one am a pro who's always used the latest and greatest beast Apple created (starting in the Macintosh II era, to Macintosh FX all the way to the Mac Pro quad core). This is the very first time I'm going "consumer" and so far it looks great (24" iMac C2D Extreme). It's finally quiet in the office, less heat being produced, and not very obvious for many 'hardcore PC fans': this iMac uses about a third of the power that my Mac Pro does.
Instead of suggesting that we're zealots, could it be you just don't quite get it? Oh, and here's another newsfact for you: like many other pros, I hardly ever did any upgrading on my machines ever, I just bought the new one with better specs. So I don't care a *#$! that this machine isn't really upgradable (apart from the 4GB of RAM I plugged in).
Click to expand...

I know what your saying means something to you but could you please try restating it again in a less antagonistic way so it means something to anybody else. Thanks so much. Oh and could you please tell me who this Great Leader you speak of is, could this be a Bush l or possibly a Job, just asking. :p Oh just so you know where I'm coming from I started with an Apple II in about 1978 and it was unreal that was possible you could save anything with tape. And as you say at the start of your tirade your right we do look at this from a very different perspective. But don't you think you can convey what your intention are without being cruddy.
 
sammyman said:
That sucks! Are they going to figure that one out soon?
Click to expand...

Not that it really matters.

Dual channel 667 MHz RAM provides 10 GB/s of bandwidth (5 GB/s per channel,) while the 800 MHz front side bus only has 6.4 GB/s of bandwidth. If you were only using a single channel of RAM, having the speed of the memory match the front side bus would be important, but with dual-channel, it's not as urgent.

(The extra RAM bandwidth gets used by PCI devices, such as the video chip. Although with discrete graphics, this isn't as important. The extra bandwidth is most important on integrated graphics chipsets like the MacBook and mini.)
 
It hasn't hurt IBM or GE/Ford

[Apple should have a lease program :D[/QUOTE]

I have been saying this for years now. A lease program for Apple products financed by that barrel of cash Apple has.
Cheers Pete
 
Multimedia said:
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?
Click to expand...

http://techgage.com/article/intel_core_2_extreme_qx6850_quad-core/

The TDP for the maximum processor curently used in a MBP17 is 65 watts.
The processors of interest have much higher than that: 105-130 watts.
Penryn due to die-shrink will lower the TDP per compute power ratio ~20%.
So once we have a Penryn laptop chip we will have quad-core MBP.
We might get lucky and have a crippled frequency, dual core version for iPhone!

Rocketman
 
Rocketman said:
http://techgage.com/article/intel_core_2_extreme_qx6850_quad-core/

The TDP for the maximum processor curently used in a MBP17 is 65 watts.
The processors of interest have much higher than that: 105-130 watts.
Penryn due to die-shrink will lower the TDP per compute power ratio ~20%.
So once we have a Penryn laptop chip we will have quad-core MBP.
We might get lucky and have a crippled frequency, dual core version for iPhone!

Rocketman
Click to expand...
Now where did you find that? Merom has a TDP of 35w.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back