Intel Discusses Mobile Nehalem. Quad Core Notebooks Coming Next Month.

[ColonelBlaha]

well as long as quad-core doesnt get so hot using all its cores that it would fuse a laptop to...well...my lap, i'd be down with it

regardless I'm just waiting for the new mbp to replace my stolen dell, itd be a little added bonus if quad-core was part of that, but no big deal if it wasnt

 

[iMacmatician]

http://www.canardplus.com/dossier-35-200-Processeur_de_Nehalem_a_Haswell.html

The Tick-Tock strategy has always targeted 2009 as the introduction year of 32nm processors. Of course, this'll likely only mean a Q4 2009 introduction of Westmere in server and high-end desktop just like Nehalem.

Looks like it could be H1 2010.

http://translate.google.com/transla...co.jp/docs/2008/0326/kaigai428.htm&hl=en&sa=G

http://microboy.seesaa.net/article/95885389.html

On the flip side, it has been rumored that both the Atom and mobile Nehalem will see 32 nm versions in late 2009.

 

[CWallace]

Basically what I remember (especially with SX machines) was that the SX was due to the chip's math co-processor failed so they were putting these out and charging double for a DX processor with a math co-processor.

The 80386 did not have an integrated math coprocessor (FPU). The 80387 was offered as a separate math coprocessor part. Weitek also made a higher-performance math coprocessor that could be used, instead.

The 80386SX used a 16-bit memory path as opposed to the 32-bit path of the 80386. This allowed the use of cheaper motherboards and memory while still allowing 32-bit code to be executed.

The 80486 was the first Intel CPU with an integrated FPU. The 80486SX was an 80486 with the FPU disabled and was offered at lower cost. Some were 80486s that had hardware defects in their FPUs, but Intel also disabled the functional FPUs on some 80486s and later went to a new 80486 die that didn't have an FPU.

If you later decided you wanted/needed the FPU, you bought the 80487SX which was a fully-functional 80486 and when inserted into it's slot, disabled the 80486SX.

 

[Stridder44]

@Stridder44

Yeah, my old PC from 1995 (Pentium 75 MHz) had a Turbo button. Could never get it to do anything, though. Probably didn't have an 80's DOS game to test it on with bad timing.

Psh, I remember my buddy's computer at the time had an actual number display showing at how many Mhz it was running (which was 75, but it was 3 digit, so, I mean, it COULD have been 999 ). Good times.

 

[8CoreWhore]

For those that didn't read the article... These will only use all 4 cores if all are needed. In which case, it's probably not on your lap while you're sitting under a tree. So, they will be very energy efficient for casual use. The MBP is a definite candidate for these new chips. It's a matter of when, not if.

 

[iMacmatician]

Psh, I remember my buddy's computer at the time had an actual number display showing at how many Mhz it was running (which was 75, but it was 3 digit, so, I mean, it COULD have been 999 ). Good times.

I used to have a computer that had one of those. It said 66 or 166 depending on whether or not the Turbo mode was on.

 

[Marx55]

These cores aren't the same as CPU cores.

Sure, but Intel Recommends Developers Plan for Massive Multi-Core Processing:
https://www.macrumors.com/2008/07/0...lopers-plan-for-massive-multi-core-processing
"Ultimately, the advice I’ll offer is that these developers should start thinking about tens, hundreds, and thousands of cores now in their algorithmic development and deployment pipeline".

More:

Intel, Microsoft: Multi-core chips need new developer skills
http://www.macworld.com/article/132630/2008/03/multicore.html
"Expect x86 servers with as many as 64 processor cores in 2009 and desktops with that many by 2012".

Industry Group to Establish OpenCL Standard
https://www.macrumors.com/2008/06/17/industry-group-to-establish-opencl-standard
"According to the president of the Khronos group, this technology could be used in both desktop and handheld devices in the future".

 

[namethisfile]

Wow that brings back 386/486 memories and basically if you did not have turbo turned on, your system was slower than ever. Basically what I remember (especially with SX machines) was that the SX was due to the chip's math co-processor failed so they were putting these out and charging double for a DX processor with a math co-processor. the turbo was a way for the motherboard to simulate an over clock (actually it just made the CPU run a normal speed instead of the slowed down installed speed) in order to try to compensate for the lack of the co-processor. At anyrate I do not remember anyone who ran the machines with turbo turned off.

I think this article has a mis-wording. Maybe it should say hyper-threading? Hyper-threading has been around but went away briefly since Windows Apps and Web Apps tended to get hung with it turned on. they are supposed to have fixed hyper-threading and bringing it back. I remember going to all our servers and turning hyper-threading off so that they would stay running.

our fisrt PC was a packard bell 386sx 16mhz. good times. i then upgraded it with a cyrix chip that piggy-backed on top of the 386sx processor which was soldered unto the motherboard, if i remember correctly. i think this added the math co processor and made windows 3.1 snappier. does anyone remember the cyrix chip?

 

[THX1139]

You buy when you need to. There is no sense waiting if a current model offers you more power than what you really need. If you always want the latest tech you will never make a purchase because in 3-6 months it will be faster/larger/better.

There is always something better coming along after you buy anytime, no matter what.

Your argument for NOT waiting falls apart if the person NEEDS as much power as they can get and requires portability. With the newer and much faster technology that is coming out now, it make sense to wait as long as you can. Sure, if you don't need the power that 4 cores will offer, or you absolutely need a new machine NOW, then of course, don't wait. But I'd hate to be the guy who needs processing power (3d while on the road?) and buys a currently shipping Macbook Pro (along with the defective video card), only to have a brand new updated laptop come out the next month.

Sure, I agree... there is always something better coming along... and it's often better to just buy when you need it. But in this particular case, the next Macbook Pro revision is very very close to coming out (based on Apple release history)... and the currently shipping product incorporates a known defective video card issue that is not being resolved. That's reason enough to hold off as long as possible.

Source

I believe that the next Macbook Pro will see a slight update (new graphics but no case revision) and ship end of September. It will serve as a hold over until the newly redesigned Macbook Pro with Nehalem is revealed next year.

 

[Fidgetyrat]

I believe that the next Macbook Pro will see a slight update (new graphics but no case revision) and ship end of September. It will serve as a hold over until the newly redesigned Macbook Pro with Nehalem is revealed next year.

Trouble is, that argument can go on forever. If we're waiting for Nehalem, why not just wait a bit longer for the next bigger and better thing. I believe Apple realizes how out of date the MBP is and how close the cheaper MB line is to the "Pro" line. Based on the minute additions to the last hike, I can see them pushing something big, especially in time for the holidays.

At least I'm hoping they do. My Tibook can hardly load websites anymore

 

[Shot22]

Quad-core would be fine, as long as it doesn't delay the release of the new MBP.

 

[137489]

Actually, technology-wise, your macbook is Medicare-eligible already.

ouch, your hard on him. Truthfully.

1. Unless you are a Geek and want the fastest now.
2. Unless you are using them to support your business.
3. Unless you use power-hungry apps.

The average person can get by on 2-3 years with a machine before feeling the need to upgrade.

I also worked for a rather large company that is still using PDP-11's/VAX mainframes running 1970 technology, Office 97, Pentium 2 and 3 machines, Macromedia 3 or 4 (they were told they had to upgrade to the now obsolete MX 2004 studio before they could upgrade the apps to the newest versions for what they needed - they waited so long, they needed to re-write and upgrade just to get them to the point of being able to re-write and upgrade to get what they needed to implement). Most of their machines were still running Windows 2000 and NT. 80% of their apps were not certified to run on XP or 2003 server.

So I would not look at your machine feeling old. I look at it being old, if it is too slow or no longer supports my needs or it is dying/dead. to me on a windows machine, you need to upgrade ever 2-3 years (the machine will probably be dead in that time anyway). Apple, maybe every 2 1/2 - 5; unless something new and way exciting comes out that warrents more memory and processing power. Again, only you can decide.

I had a 2000 or 2001 toshiba laptop that got 5 hrs on a battery charge. It was running XP home (when it first came out). I upgraded the hard drive to 100gb, and the ram to 1gb. It had only a DVD-ROM (did not even burn CD's). It was the best little laptop I had. It was just too slow to handle a special app. Stupid me gave it away to my pastor and bought a dell. The Dell did not last 2 years before it died. the Toshiba... My Pastor is still using it. 8 yrs old and running strong.

But now I have a mac and I hope to get 4-5 years out of it.

 

[Stridder44]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I understand Nehalem won't do anything for gaming (it's Intel's answer to the server market and AMD's domination).

For more info, see here: http://www.anandtech.com/weblog/showpost.aspx?i=480

 

[macdot]

Maybe now I'll have to consider getting a MBP.

 

[iMacmatician]

I believe that the next Macbook Pro will see a slight update (new graphics but no case revision) and ship end of September. It will serve as a hold over until the newly redesigned Macbook Pro with Nehalem is revealed next year.

Not pointing the finger at anybody, but given all the rumors pointing to an imminent case redesign of the notebooks, why do people still say that there will only be a slight update this year and a redesign next year?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I understand Nehalem won't do anything for gaming (it's Intel's answer to the server market and AMD's domination).

For more info, see here: http://www.anandtech.com/weblog/showpost.aspx?i=480

And it won't increase theoretical FLOPS nor reduce TDP. Nehalem's strengths lie elsewhere.

 

[skellener]

Don't forget having a blu-ray reading superdrive. alot of us want that also, with option for a bd burning superdrive.

No blu-ray drives until FCP Studio is updated to author blu-ray discs. And then it will be in Mac Pros as build to order. You won't see a blu-ray drive in a Mac laptop for a very long time.

 

[theBB]

So if Apple's website shows a 2.27GHz Quad-Core iMac at $2199 and a 3.06GHz Dual-Core at $1999, those people will wonder why the most expensive iMac is slower then the cheaper one and just buy the cheaper one, assuming it is actually the "best" because it has a higher clock-speed. Or if both are the same price (since the CPUs are currently priced the same), they'll take the 3.06GHz model because it's faster, so it must therefore be better.

By offering it as a BTO option, Apple can use the web - or an Apple associate - to explain why a slower quad-core will more quickly complete some tasks then a faster dual-core and help the customer make an informed decision as to which one to get.

If the program you are running does not take advantage of multiple cores, the lower clock speed will slow you down. Based on Macworld's MacPro and iMac tests, it seems Photoshop and iMovie HD are among these which perform more or less according to clock speed regardless of whether they have 2 or 8 cores. There are other ones that speed up a bit with additional cores, but not as much as the increase in cores would suggest. With those programs more cores may barely make up for the lower clock speed.

Thus, for the next few years consumers might do better by sticking with clock speed (assuming the comparison is among the same generation of CPUs, not with the previous ones, as there are other features that speed things up.)

 

[CWallace]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I understand Nehalem won't do anything for gaming (it's Intel's answer to the server market and AMD's domination).

With Bloomfield / Core i7 using the same LGA1366 socket and QuickPath chipsets as the server and workstation CPUs, even in it's "performance" and "mainstream" forms, it will be more expensive then the LGA1160 CPUs like Havendale and Lynnfield in the same categories.

Ed Stroglio at Overclockers.com refers to Bloomfield as the "luxury CPU line" and an attempt by Intel to move the "Extreme" moniker from just one or two CPUs in a line to an entire line of CPUs. And since gamers tend to migrate to the most powerful single CPU platforms, I would not be surprised to see the "ultimate" gaming rigs from retailers like HP/Voodoo and Dell/Alienware to use Bloomfields, even with cheaper Havendale and Lynnfield CPUs available.

 

[diamond.g]

If the program you are running does not take advantage of multiple cores, the lower clock speed will slow you down. Based on Macworld's MacPro and iMac tests, it seems Photoshop and iMovie HD are among these which perform more or less according to clock speed regardless of whether they have 2 or 8 cores. There are other ones that speed up a bit with additional cores, but not as much as the increase in cores would suggest. With those programs more cores may barely make up for the lower clock speed.

Thus, for the next few years consumers might do better by sticking with clock speed (assuming the comparison is among the same generation of CPUs, not with the previous ones, as there are other features that speed things up.)

Same argument was used with the migration to dual core from single core...

 

[iMacmatician]

If the program you are running does not take advantage of multiple cores, the lower clock speed will slow you down. Based on Macworld's MacPro and iMac tests, it seems Photoshop and iMovie HD are among these which perform more or less according to clock speed regardless of whether they have 2 or 8 cores.

NOOOOOOOO!!!!

Come on Apple, make iLife '09 multi-core savvy!

Ed Stroglio at Overclockers.com refers to Bloomfield as the "luxury CPU line" and an attempt by Intel to move the "Extreme" moniker from just one or two CPUs in a line to an entire line of CPUs.

Westmere's supposed to have either 4 or 6 cores depending on the source… maybe both? 6-core Westmere could be an even more premium line.

 

[morespce54]

What?!? ... No complaints about it not being in a MBA or MacMini yet??

As long as they have BluRay!!!!

 

[!¡ V ¡!]

Core(s), Cores(s) and, more Core(s). The madness will never end. For the manufactures its a means to an end to sell you they technology even if it or will not benefit you in any way or form.

For the consumer they are either blinded by the marketing hype and jump on anything with multiples of or they conservatively sit on the side-lines watching the madness unravel.

It has already been predicted that the number of core(s) will reach and hit a wall, however the manufactures are still heading in that direction full speed ahead without trying to improve other key areas.

When will Crystal and Diamond based CPU be introduced, that will not only remove the GHz barriers and other limitations. This all seems like stale news to me the talk of smaller and multiple cpu. Wake me up when some great breakthrough is obtained. ::Yawn::

 

[!¡ V ¡!]

As long as they have BluRay!!!!

Why even bother with Blu-Ray when Flash, Holographic and, Crystal(future) storage holds a magnitude of data, which makes Blu-Ray seem like a Floppy Disc. Blu-Ray is pointless, too many limitations on either the hardware or software side regarding encoding and decoding for the consumer and costly for the manufactures.

 

[Manic Mouse]

Seems like "Cores" are the new "MHz/GHz." Instead of 100000000000000000000 cores, how about extremely efficient cores, so that it doesn't need so many to be a good processor?

Isn't the reason we have multiple cores because it's more efficient than what you're suggesting. They can make a quad core 2.2Ghz at 35W, but they can't make a dual core at 4.4Ghz at 35W.

 

[andiwm2003]

Core(s), Cores(s) and, more Core(s). The madness will never end. For the manufactures its a means to an end to sell you they technology even if it or will not benefit you in any way or form.

For the consumer they are either blinded by the marketing hype and jump on anything with multiples of or they conservatively sit on the side-lines watching the madness unravel.

It has already been predicted that the number of core(s) will reach and hit a wall, however the manufactures are still heading in that direction full speed ahead without trying to improve other key areas.

When will Crystal and Diamond based CPU be introduced, that will not only remove the GHz barriers and other limitations. This all seems like stale news to me the talk of smaller and multiple cpu. Wake me up when some great breakthrough is obtained. ::Yawn::

well, we are concerned with the computers af this century, not next.