Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Intel Arrandale chips detailed - Ready for next gen MBP

ermir4444

ermir4444

macrumors regular
Original poster
Oct 25, 2009
208
0
Toronto On
Hey guys i just read this article from engadget regarding the much rumored about Arrandale chips. It looks fairly interesting that these chips are expected to make their way into MBP with such low clock speeds but then again they have 4 cores. They seem that they could fit into a MBA too

"Who's up for some more Intel roadmap rumoring? The latest scuttlebutt from "notebook players" over in the far East is that the chip giant has finally settled on names, speeds, and prices for its first three Arrandale CPUs, which are expected to arrive in the first half of 2010. The Core i5-520UM and Core i7-620UM both run at 1.06GHz, while the top Core i7-640UM model speeds ahead at 1.2GHz, with bulk-buying prices of $241, $278, and $305 per unit of each processor. Even if the processing speeds might not impress on paper, these 32nm chips splice two processing cores, the memory controller, and graphics engine all into the same package and thereby deliver major power savings. Platform pricing is expected to remain at around $500 for netbooks, while the ultrathins these chips are intended for should hit the $600 to $800 range... if Lord Intel wills it so."
 
I have a silly question (or two) for you, if you're willing to humour me...

How do you think these chips will stack against a single Nehalem CPU currently seen in desktop PCs?

I primarily work in Maya (modelling mostly) and Photoshop/Illustrator.

Also, do you think it would be wise to wait until AFTER the first batch of 4-core Macbook Pros are delivered and a revision is issued or should I expect that Apple's engineering will more or less ensure the first iterations will be smooth and without major complications?
 
Search please.

While I'm here. You really think people are going to be happy going from the minimum 2.26/2.53 GHz right down to 1.2GHz? No one would buy them. Besides 2x cores doesn't equal 2x performance. So halving the processing power of each core and doubling the number of each cores will reduce the usable speed of the computer by pretty much half.
 
phaedarus said:
I have a silly question (or two) for you, if you're willing to humour me...

How do you think these chips will stack against a single Nehalem CPU currently seen in desktop PCs?

I primarily work in Maya (modelling mostly) and Photoshop/Illustrator.

Also, do you think it would be wise to wait until AFTER the first batch of 4-core Macbook Pros are delivered and a revision is issued or should I expect that Apple's engineering will more or less ensure the first iterations will be smooth and without major complications?
Click to expand...

1st question - These chips are mobile chips so they wont compare with the Nahalem quad cores (they will be less powerful) but they will offer better performance than the current dual cores used in MBP. I think it should be good for Photoshoping but then again you need a decent graphic cards as well to give better performance the next gen MBP as well.

2nd question - You should wait till these MBP come out and read the reviews. If they are great then go for it. I am pretty sure apple engineers will make sure to put out a products with no such major complicated problem related to these quad core processors
 
sammich said:
Search please.

While I'm here. You really think people are going to be happy going from the minimum 2.26/2.53 GHz right down to 1.2GHz? No one would buy them. Besides 2x cores doesn't equal 2x performance. So halving the processing power of each core and doubling the number of each cores will reduce the usable speed of the computer by pretty much half.
Click to expand...
I think you should research as well

Clock speed is not the only thing you should look in a chipset. There are way more specs to look after such as front side bus ,cache etc...
These new chips afre based on a 32 nm technology so they will be able to run cooler and give you more battery life with the same speed or maybe better than the previous generation 45 nm chips.
 
ermir4444 said:
I think you should research as well

Clock speed is not the only thing you should look in a chipset. There are way more specs to look after such as front side bus ,cache etc...
Click to expand...

That's all true. But it's a chip, that clocks in at half the frequency with 2x the cores, when most programs that people use aren't multithreaded. All those enhancements (FSB, cache etc) are a step in the right direction, but what I'm saying is if the cost of having a quad core in an MBP is a loss of some 50% clock speed, it's not going to sell.

These new chips afre based on a 32 nm technology so they will be able to run cooler and give you more battery life with the same speed or maybe better than the previous generation 45 nm chips.
Click to expand...

Wow, so you're saying that if I underclocked my current gen MBP to 1.2 GHz, the 1.2 quad core will be the better choice?
 
ermir4444 said:
I think you should research as well

Clock speed is not the only thing you should look in a chipset. There are way more specs to look after such as front side bus ,cache etc...
These new chips afre based on a 32 nm technology so they will be able to run cooler and give you more battery life with the same speed or maybe better than the previous generation 45 nm chips.
Click to expand...

I think that most buyers don't care/know for/of cache size, die size, fsb, etc.
Even when well advertised about the improvements, I don't see the general public opting for a MBP that has decreased in clock speed by half.
 
Solid Raven said:
I think that most buyers don't care/know for/of cache size, die size, fsb, etc.
Even when well advertised about the improvements, I don't see the general public opting for a MBP that has decreased in clock speed by half.
Click to expand...

agreed, even though we realize they are better chips, debbie dipsh*t looking at an 3 GHz HP next to a 1 GHz MBP at over 2x the cost isn't even going to consider the MBP.

All the average consumer cares about is clock speed. Personally I can't see myself jumping to a quad until they do indeed hit 3 GHz, since my current 2.8 is doing just fine
 
puma1552 said:
agreed, even though we realize they are better chips, debbie dipsh*t looking at an 3 GHz HP next to a 1 GHz MBP at over 2x the cost isn't even going to consider the MBP.

All the average consumer cares about is clock speed. Personally I can't see myself jumping to a quad until they do indeed hit 3 GHz, since my current 2.8 is doing just fine
Click to expand...

We know Apple's position on multicore and clock speeds. Apple also likes the 5x or 8x or 2x graphics. If they can demonstrate it being faster, they will, over shouting what Hz its running at. We haven't likely seen or heard of the chips Apple's going to be going with the next 12 months.
 
Considering hyperthreading and possibly turboboosting I say these will be very sweet on MBAs and so will regular arrandale chips in the next mbps
 
puma1552 said:
agreed, even though we realize they are better chips, debbie dipsh*t looking at an 3 GHz HP next to a 1 GHz MBP at over 2x the cost isn't even going to consider the MBP.

All the average consumer cares about is clock speed. Personally I can't see myself jumping to a quad until they do indeed hit 3 GHz, since my current 2.8 is doing just fine
Click to expand...

I disagree. All Apple has to do is stick "2x faster" on the website, and people will buy. Most people don't even know how fast their processor is. All they need to know is it is new.

But I don't believe Apple would go for these processors anyway. I doubt whether the i7 architecture is three times as fast clock for clock, core for core as Core 2, so I very much doubt whether a quad core i7 at 1.2 GHz would beat a ~2.8 GHz core 2 duo at anything but video encoding, and then only just.
 
Erasmus said:
I disagree. All Apple has to do is stick "2x faster" on the website, and people will buy. Most people don't even know how fast their processor is. All they need to know is it is new.
Click to expand...

haha, that's true. all they have to say is "tastes great!" and everyone drinks the kool-aid. :)
 
ermir4444 said:
Hey guys i just read this article from engadget regarding the much rumored about Arrandale chips. It looks fairly interesting that these chips are expected to make their way into MBP with such low clock speeds but then again they have 4 cores.
Click to expand...
Arrandale's only dual-core.
 
A little googling throws more light on the topic.

For example, this informative blog notes (in somewhat fractured English):

We have already mentioned in the news that Intel is preparing to provide mobile dual-core ULV processors Arrandale, created by the norms of 32-nm process technology and are equipped with integrated graphics. For example, the chip Core i7 640UM appear in the first quarter of 2010. It is designed for ultra-thin notebooks, and its standard frequency is 1.2 GHz. However, this CPU has a function of Turbo Boost, which allows to break up one of its nuclei to higher frequencies. With the inclusion of this feature clock speed Core i7 640UM can grow up to 2,26 GHz.

However, even when overclocked with a TDP of the chip Core i7 640UM still remains below the mark at 18 watts. It should be borne in mind that the 32 nm processor is a whole package of chips, including integrated graphics core (IGP), an integrated memory controller (IMC) and the northbridge chip (IOH)...
 
Apple has also been big on the performance per watt theory. If they can sell you a MacBook with a battery that lasts 12 hours with equal performance, many would not care about clock speed, since Apple will not be the only company using these new chips, everyones published clock speeds will go down.
 
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