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

Umbongo

macrumors 601
Sep 14, 2006
4,929
54
0
England
Hyperthreading also allows them to compete with Sun in the how many threads can we offer in one box competition.

You just have to remember that the very ideology of Nehalem is for there to be a wide array of functionality that they can use to build different processors for different tasks. Not every feature is suited to the home user.
 

Wolfpup

macrumors 68030
Sep 7, 2006
2,708
62
0
Actually the P4 hyperthreading isn't like i7's SMT (which Intel, for whatever reason also calls hyperthreading). According to wiki it caused too much cache thrashing (I also assume poisoning). So they dropped it for Core/Core 2. I also think it had something to do with only having one execution unit, where I am pretty sure i7 is supposed to have two.
The Pentium 4 design had 3 (more or less) integer units. Conroe/Penryn have I guess 4 (I thought originally I read it was 5, but I don't think that's right).

Oh, the XeCPU and Cell aren't poorly designed. Intel's (P4 at least) was...
That's not true. Cell and Xenon are incredibly primitive, and lack all kinds of features that have been standard on RISK chips for over 15 years, and on x86 chips since the Pentium Pro back in 1995. They're fine for certain types of code (stuff that's really predictable, like media decoding), but terrible for other types of code. The various flavors of the Pentium 4 had obvious issues compared with their Pentium Pro based predecessors, but those game system CPUs have those same issues even worse. At WORST a Pentium 4 at the same clock speed is going to more or less equal a single core from one of those CPUs, but for general purpose code (like running a web browser...or game logic) a Pentium 4 is going to destroy those.

That's the trade off they made with those for whatever reason (and I've yet to hear a game developer say they like those thing's designs). Xenon for example has 3 cores that take up about the same amount of space as a single Prescott CPU. By ditching a ton of modern features, they're able to fit in slightly more execution hardware (and divide it among three separate CPUs), but it's much harder to actually keep that execution hardware fed.

Actually Intel's Atom (ie sort of an advanced Pentium 1 design) is probably the most similar to those two game system CPUs.
 

iMacmatician

macrumors 601
Jul 20, 2008
4,249
55
0
Where is that Nvidia chipset rumor from? I'd be really surprised if they did that. Don't really see the point. Apple's not going to use SLI, and Nvidia actually lets people do SLI on an Intel chipset in notebooks (Dell has a system that does this, and there are a handful of others).
There was an AppleInsider rumor about the next Macs using a chipset other than Montevina. The NVIDIA chipset stuff is all speculation, but pretty intelligent speculation at that.

:mad:
But the MBP's will be refreshed for sure in less the n90 days or not ???
This answer determines when i will purchase one. I really hate this out of date chip it came out in feb 08 its way overdue ???????HELP
I wouldn't call it way overdue…

Again, Intel's new CPU has been in the Macbook Pro since it launched early this year-this July update is *VERY* minor.
CPU-wise it is. Other-wise it isn't (case redesign, glass trackpad).

Hyperthreading also allows them to compete with Sun in the how many threads can we offer in one box competition.
Too bad they scrapped 8-node, 32-core, 128-thread Keifer and replaced it with 6/8-core 12/16-thread Sandy Bridge.

You just have to remember that the very ideology of Nehalem is for there to be a wide array of functionality that they can use to build different processors for different tasks. Not every feature is suited to the home user.
If Nehalem is so scalable, then there should be variants suitable for the home user.

Cell and Xenon are incredibly primitive, and lack all kinds of features that have been standard on RISK chips for over 15 years, and on x86 chips since the Pentium Pro back in 1995. They're fine for certain types of code (stuff that's really predictable, like media decoding), but terrible for other types of code. The various flavors of the Pentium 4 had obvious issues compared with their Pentium Pro based predecessors, but those game system CPUs have those same issues even worse. At WORST a Pentium 4 at the same clock speed is going to more or less equal a single core from one of those CPUs, but for general purpose code (like running a web browser...or game logic) a Pentium 4 is going to destroy those.

That's the trade off they made with those for whatever reason (and I've yet to hear a game developer say they like those thing's designs). Xenon for example has 3 cores that take up about the same amount of space as a single Prescott CPU. By ditching a ton of modern features, they're able to fit in slightly more execution hardware (and divide it among three separate CPUs), but it's much harder to actually keep that execution hardware fed.

Actually Intel's Atom (ie sort of an advanced Pentium 1 design) is probably the most similar to those two game system CPUs.
Larrabee's cores are also Pentium variants with a 512-bit vector unit slapped on them. This allows Intel to put 32 cores on a single die.
 

Wolfpup

macrumors 68030
Sep 7, 2006
2,708
62
0
Hyperthreading also allows them to compete with Sun in the how many threads can we offer in one box competition.

You just have to remember that the very ideology of Nehalem is for there to be a wide array of functionality that they can use to build different processors for different tasks. Not every feature is suited to the home user.
I can't wait for the 8 core CPUs to start hitting! I'm not sure if it's exactly out or not, but Intel's got a six core Penryn that shockingly is rated for about 65 watts if I'm remembering right. Basically they can do TWELVE CPUs now all within the same power budget of my single Prescott (and each of those CPUs is considerably more powerful!) And that's just within a FOUR YEAR period. Just ridiculous!
 

Tman1523

macrumors newbie
Aug 22, 2008
20
0
0
i'm looking for speed and productivity in my MBP so 250GB 5400-rpm Serial ATA hard drive OR optional 200GB 7200
please help i'm gunning for the 256 Graphics and 2.4 with 7200 OR 512 graphics 2.6 mhz 7200
 

Wolfpup

macrumors 68030
Sep 7, 2006
2,708
62
0
i'm looking for speed and productivity in my MBP so 250GB 5400-rpm Serial ATA hard drive OR optional 200GB 7200
please help i'm gunning for the 256 Graphics and 2.4 with 7200 OR 512 graphics 2.6 mhz 7200
I'll help if you let us know what you plan on doing with the system. The extra video RAM will help for games, but won't help just for general desktop usage (browsing the web, watching movies, etc.).

If you're comparing the three CPUs offered in the current Macbook Pro, I would *NOT* get the 2.6Ghz one. That speed grade is a rip off. Intel charges a ton more for it for an unnoticeable speed gain. The 2.5Ghz one isn't quite such a rip off since it also has double the L2 cache over the 2.4GHz one, but it's still not really worth the prices that get charged for it.

I'm personally planning on putting in Seagate's largest 7200RPM drive when I get my notebook. I've used a Macbook Pro a year ago with a stock 5400RPM drive though and it seemed fast, so if you'd like the slightly larger drive space a 5400RPM drive gives you you can't go wrong that way either.
 

diamond.g

macrumors 603
Mar 20, 2007
6,357
311
0
Virginia
That's not true. Cell and Xenon are incredibly primitive, and lack all kinds of features that have been standard on RISK chips for over 15 years, and on x86 chips since the Pentium Pro back in 1995. They're fine for certain types of code (stuff that's really predictable, like media decoding), but terrible for other types of code. The various flavors of the Pentium 4 had obvious issues compared with their Pentium Pro based predecessors, but those game system CPUs have those same issues even worse. At WORST a Pentium 4 at the same clock speed is going to more or less equal a single core from one of those CPUs, but for general purpose code (like running a web browser...or game logic) a Pentium 4 is going to destroy those.
Beyond 3D has a forum post on Cell. It is a bit old, but it shows that software that isn't optimized, and that runs on only the PPE will end up running slower than software that is optimized and can take advantage of the SPEs. I still think Apple should have moved to using Cell. Sure all the code would have to be rewritten, but they would get a chip no one else could use (well other than STI). The chip would be stupid fast at all math related calculations. And from my searching it would look like you can fit more Cells in a Mac than you could x86 chips for a given TDP. Note that 1 PS3 (8 cores) is faster at F@Home than 1 MacPro (8 cores).


EDIT: In the end I hope Apple uses Nehalem. I also wish they would move to the desktop chips and chipset for the iMac and Mac Mini. They can continue using the workstation dual socket chipset for the Mac Pro. I also hope they move the xServe to the 4 way socket chipset.
 

digitalbiker

macrumors 65816
Apr 24, 2002
1,374
0
0
The Road
Visit site
The only real difference is with this new chipset, the front side bus will be slightly faster. In practice you won't see a performance difference. There may be other improvements to the new systems-like a better GPU, or a new case design. But those are completely unrelated to Intel's new chipset.

Again, Intel's new CPU has been in the Macbook Pro since it launched early this year-this July update is *VERY* minor.
I think you are really understating the Montevina upgrade that hopefully will be available in the new MBP.

1st it has a much faster FSB which you mentioned.
2nd it has a much faster IGPU for big boost to MB & MBA.
3rd it supports faster memory.
4th it supports flash NAND Robson2 which should allow very fast reboots if implemented.
5th it supports improved Wi-fi.
6th it supports much better power management system.
7th it supports gigabit ethernet on the standard board.
8th it has a much smaller physical size.
9th it supports GPU switching, to save power using the lower power IGPU for normal operation and switches to discrete GPU card (if attached) for graphics intensive operations.
10th memory management is much improved for multi-core processing.
11th it supports HDMI output as well as DVI and VGA.

All in all, it is a great update and the latest laptops from Sony and Lenova are already benefiting from it greatly in terms of form factor, power options, speed, and battery life.

The Nehalem and Capella updates will supposedly be an even greater differential in performance and power management but the Montevina release is still a welcome update.
 

CWallace

macrumors 604
Aug 17, 2007
6,531
2,416
0
Seattle, WA
www.studioghibli.net
Where is that Nvidia chipset rumor from? I'd be really surprised if they did that. Don't really see the point. Apple's not going to use SLI, and Nvidia actually lets people do SLI on an Intel chipset in notebooks (Dell has a system that does this, and there are a handful of others).
Multiple rumors referenced here and in other sites claim Apple is transitioning their entire line, other then the Mac Pro, to nVidia. Since the Nehalem mobiles do not use Intel's QPI, nVidia can already offer a chipset for them when they become available, so Apple would not have to return to Intel one CPU generation later.
 

Wolfpup

macrumors 68030
Sep 7, 2006
2,708
62
0
I still think Apple should have moved to using Cell. Sure all the code would have to be rewritten, but they would get a chip no one else could use (well other than STI). The chip would be stupid fast at all math related calculations. And from my searching it would look like you can fit more Cells in a Mac than you could x86 chips for a given TDP. Note that 1 PS3 (8 cores) is faster at F@Home than 1 MacPro (8 cores).
It's much more limited though. Apple needs a strong general purpose CPU as much as anyone. Cell isn't well suited to everything. It's only faster at some things because it's giving up a ton of features just to cram more physical execution units in the same space. As a video encode/decode coprocessor it might be handy, but not as a general CPU (and even in that case it's not really useful since that type of work should be getting moved to GPUs or Larrabee type CPUs). Cell can't replace a modern CPU design for Folding either. It's kind of halfway in between a GPU and a CPU. It's a bit more flexible than the former, but less than the latter, and can't run every type of work they need done at a reasonable speed.

Besides that, Apple wouldn't have anything like the marketshare gains they've gotten if they hadn't switched to x86. They'd also still be at the mercy of companies that don't really care about making high end CPUs.

Actually the rumors are IBM basically *DID* offer them something along the lines of Xenon/Cell, and Apple turned them down. For multiple reasons (both performance and compatibility) I'm thrilled they did. I really doubt they'd be in the same position they are today if they hadn't.

I think you are really understating the Montevina upgrade that hopefully will be available in the new MBP.

1st it has a much faster FSB which you mentioned.
Which dosen't actually translate to any kind of huge performance increase. I haven't seen numbers specifically, but I've read it's a smaller bump than similar increases on the Netburst archetecture (which wouldn't surprise me), and THAT wasn't a huge difference-basically worth one speed grade.

2nd it has a much faster IGPU for big boost to MB & MBA.
True, but irrelevant for anyone who needs real graphics.

3rd it supports faster memory.
Which dosen't translate to vastly faster performance either, and mostly isn't even getting used yet.

4th it supports flash NAND Robson2 which should allow very fast reboots if implemented.
Which may not get used at all. The first generation of that turned out to be essentially useless, although it's a nifty idea, I guess. It's even more useless though as everything's transitioned to 64-bit support anyway, and RAM's dirt cheap.

5th it supports improved Wi-fi.
Some minor Intel wifi chipset bump, but Apple may not even use that, and it's nothing spectacular. Ditto for the power management-the CPU is actually revised and uses less power though, which is cool.

7th it supports gigabit ethernet on the standard board.
Gigabit Ethernet's been around for ages on standard machines.

8th it has a much smaller physical size.
No it dosen't.

11th it supports HDMI output as well as DVI and VGA.
Which has all been supported for years too.

All in all, it is a great update
No, it really isn't. It's a chipset update, that's been taken and run with by the marketing department. It's an extremely modest update that's even less meaningful than the Penryn update we got earlier this year. Companies may be timing major system updates with it, but basically it's just another new chipset. The biggest change it brings is a fast FSB, which isn't really that big of a deal. The rest of it only affects low end systems.

Multiple rumors referenced here and in other sites claim Apple is transitioning their entire line, other then the Mac Pro, to nVidia. Since the Nehalem mobiles do not use Intel's QPI, nVidia can already offer a chipset for them when they become available, so Apple would not have to return to Intel one CPU generation later.
I subscribe to the Macrumors feeds and haven't seen anything about this. Have they given a reason why they'd be doing this? I like Nvidia as far as that goes, and I'm not necessarily against it-I'm sure Apple's drivers would be rock solid-but I don't understand why they'd do it, and why they'd do it *now* of all times.

I could see Apple wanting a certain class of GPU in every system to use as a coprocessor, but I don't know what that would have to do with a chipset, unless there's some kind of deal in place where Apple gets a big discount on one or the other by buying both, or something.

I'd *LOVE* if Apple would transition the Macbooks to something with a real GPU for example!
 

CWallace

macrumors 604
Aug 17, 2007
6,531
2,416
0
Seattle, WA
www.studioghibli.net
I subscribe to the Macrumors feeds and haven't seen anything about this.
The rumor did first rise about a month ago - Apple to Adopt Alternative Chipsets for Next Laptops? - and has started taking on a stronger tone as of late with a few folks claiming leaks from inside nVidia that this has happened and Apple will adopt the MCP79 mobile platform.


Have they given a reason why they'd be doing this?
The MCP79 is supposed to be a single-chip solution, as opposed to the multiple-chip solutions of current Intel offerings. So it would allow less complexity, lower costs, and lower power draw/heat production.

nVidia is also said to be offering multiple versions. So you could have the MacBook and MacMini with an integrated 8-series GPU and a MacBook Pro and iMac with a 9-series or even a Quadro professional GPU.
 

Wolfpup

macrumors 68030
Sep 7, 2006
2,708
62
0
The rumor did first rise about a month ago - Apple to Adopt Alternative Chipsets for Next Laptops? - and has started taking on a stronger tone as of late with a few folks claiming leaks from inside nVidia that this has happened and Apple will adopt the MCP79 mobile platform.

The MCP79 is supposed to be a single-chip solution, as opposed to the multiple-chip solutions of current Intel offerings. So it would allow less complexity, lower costs, and lower power draw/heat production.

nVidia is also said to be offering multiple versions. So you could have the MacBook and MacMini with an integrated 8-series GPU and a MacBook Pro and iMac with a 9-series or even a Quadro professional GPU.
Thanks for the info. I guess having a single "chipset" chip instead of two could be handy. Still, I'm really surprised by it. Wonder what it means in terms of Apple/Intel relations if it's true. Intel's been seeming to give them preferential treatment since the beginning, so they've still had custom chips.
 

CWallace

macrumors 604
Aug 17, 2007
6,531
2,416
0
Seattle, WA
www.studioghibli.net
Wonder what it means in terms of Apple/Intel relations if it's true. Intel's been seeming to give them preferential treatment since the beginning, so they've still had custom chips.
That is kind of what I have been wondering. If Apple just becomes another CPU buyer, will Intel...take care...of them with allocated or new product when other vendors are doing the whole Intel package (CPU, IGPU, Chipsets, Systemboard)?
 

digitalbiker

macrumors 65816
Apr 24, 2002
1,374
0
0
The Road
Visit site
I True, but irrelevant for anyone who needs real graphics.
No, it is relevant for anyone wanting a MB or a MBA or a MBP with GPU switching.

I
Which may not get used at all. The first generation of that turned out to be essentially useless, although it's a nifty idea, I guess. It's even more useless though as everything's transitioned to 64-bit support anyway, and RAM's dirt cheap.
Not sure what your getting at as it will help speed things up dramatically for reboot.

Gigabit Ethernet's been around for ages on standard machines.
Not in Santa Rosa. It was always an add on by Apple


No it dosen't.
Yes, it is smaller. Montevina chipset system boards are the same physical size as the custom merom and chipset system board in MBA. Now Apple can use Montevina in MBA without custom modification from intel. It also allowed Sony to add more features and reduce weight in Vaio Z.



Which has all been supported for years too.
No HDMI output wasn't in SR. It is new with Montevina. Apple would have had to alter the standard SR chipset to offer in the past. Now it comes standard with Montevina. Using the stock Montevina chipset from intel, rather than modifying everything as Apple and others did for SR, reduces duplication of functions, wasted circuitry, and wasted space and lowers cost for Apple.

I realize that this may not be as good of a boost as Nehalem & Capella but it is still a decent update. Look at all the new model laptops that are being introduced as a result of the Montevina chipset and 2nd gen. penryn.
 

mjteix

macrumors regular
Jun 1, 2005
132
0
0
It'sNo, it really isn't. It's a chipset update, that's been taken and run with by the marketing department. It's an extremely modest update that's even less meaningful than the Penryn update we got earlier this year. Companies may be timing major system updates with it, but basically it's just another new chipset. The biggest change it brings is a fast FSB, which isn't really that big of a deal. The rest of it only affects low end systems.
I think that you need to factor in all the updates of the chipset as well as the price cut/clock bump that Montevina brings:
- 2.10GHz/3MB cache/800FSB/35W vs 2.26GHz/3MB cache/1066FSB/25W for $209 (nice clock bump on this one, and the TDP is much lower = better battery life )
- 2.40GHz/3MB cache/800FSB/35W vs 2.40GHz/3MB cache/1066FSB/25W for $241 (not much improvement on this one, but the TDP is much lower = better battery life)
- 2.50GHz/6MB cache/800FSB vs 2.53GHz/6MB cache/1066FSB for $316 (small improvements on this one, but there's a 25W version for just $348)
- 2.60GHz/6MB cache/800FSB vs 2.80GHz/6MB cache/1066FSB for $530 (really nice clock bump on this one)
- 2.80GHz/6MB cache/800FSB vs 3.06GHz/6MB cache/1066FSB for $851 (again a really nice clock bump)

Especially on the MacBook and the MacBook Pro, Apple would be able to offer faster and/or more efficient computers for the same price using "montevina" cpus and chipsets.

For the iMac and the MBA, it will be using regular cpus and chipsets now vs. customs cpus and chipsets = either a nice speedbump and/or a price cut (depending on the parts chosen).
The iMac line-up could end like that later this year:
$1199 DC 2.53GHz/35W 20" iMac
$1499 DC 2.80GHz 20" iMac
$1799 DC 3.06GHz or QC 2.26GHz 24" iMac
$1999 QC 2.53GHz 24" iMac
Because it doesn't make sense to offer 2.40/2.53/2.80/3.06GHz models when you are already offering 2.40/2.66/2.80/3.06GHz models.

For the Mac mini, it would translate into HUGE improvements.
1.83GHz/2MB cache/667FSB&RAM/30W/GMA950 -› 2.26GHz/3MB cache/1066FSB/800 or 1066 RAM/25W/X4500
2.00GHz/4MB cache/667FSB&RAM/30W/GMA950 -› 2.40GHz/3MB cache/1066FSB/800 or 1066 RAM/25W/X4500

@digitalbiker:
The regular montevina chipset is not the same size as the chipset in the MBA. There are various versions of the montevina chipet:
PM45, regular size, dedicated graphics, 7W (MBP, iMac)
GM45, regular size, integrated graphics, 12W (MB, Mac mini)
GS45, small size (MBA like), integrated graphics, 7, 8 or 12W (depending on the mode: low-power, LP+533 GFX or high-performance)
GL40, regular size, integrated graphics, (crippled) low-cost chipset for celerons, 12W
 

mjteix

macrumors regular
Jun 1, 2005
132
0
0
It is smaller than before though. About 40% smaller is what I've heard.
I dont think so.

GM45 MCH 34x34mm was 35x35mm for the GM965 (Santa Rosa) MCH
GS45 MCH 27x25mm
standard ICH9 31x31mm was already 31x31mm for ICH8 (Santa Rosa)
SFF ICH9 16x16mm

Intel's web site is a good source of information.
Since the very 1st leaks of information about montevina, there has been a lot of confusion about the size, the speed, the TDP of those chips. I guess hearsay and rumors are a lot more fun than datasheets.
 

Wolfpup

macrumors 68030
Sep 7, 2006
2,708
62
0
No, it is relevant for anyone wanting a MB or a MBA or a MBP with GPU switching.
I suppose, but that's been done prior to this update, and it's still not a big deal for people who just care about power.


Not sure what your getting at as it will help speed things up dramatically for reboot.
According to Intel? I'm not buying any of that this time. I wasn't even aware they were advertising that again. They made those same claims LAST update, and they ended up amounting to basically nothing. The technology was ignored.


Not in Santa Rosa. It was always an add on by Apple
But again, who cares? It's been on systems for the better part of a decade.

Yes, it is smaller. Montevina chipset system boards are the same physical size as the custom merom and chipset system board in MBA. Now Apple can use Montevina in MBA without custom modification from intel. It also allowed Sony to add more features and reduce weight in Vaio Z.
The motherboard is whatever size they want to make it. Nothing's changed. You must be talking about that new packaging Intel's doing. That's nifty and all, but not anything specific to this update, and anything power users care about.

No HDMI output wasn't in SR. It is new with Montevina. Apple would have had to alter the standard SR chipset to offer in the past. Now it comes standard with Montevina.
You're talking about this low end stuff again. I don't care about that-people buying low end don't need any of these updates, and any of these features have been offered in even low end systems. Heck, the Macbook's always been able to work just fine with HDMI, and plenty of other low end systems come with HDMI outputs if you care about that.

Using the stock Montevina chipset from intel, rather than modifying everything as Apple and others did for SR, reduces duplication of functions, wasted circuitry, and wasted space and lowers cost for Apple.
Which is what it is, but it's nothing special.

This is *STILL* just a FSB bump. That's the only real update this is brining (along with a lower power draw). Penryn and the quad core Penryn are the only too relatively large bumps from Intel this year for notebooks.

Look at all the new model laptops that are being introduced as a result of the Montevina chipset and 2nd gen. penryn.
Sure, but it's just because it's a convenient time to release models. Some stuff released now doesn't even use the new chipset.

Nothing wrong with this bump, but it's really nothing special. Penryn is fairly boring, but that's monumental compared to this.
 

adedu

macrumors newbie
Aug 24, 2008
3
0
0
38
China


Laptopmag covers some of the announcements made at Intel's Developer's Forum. The general manager of Intel's Mobility Group Dadi Perlmutter discussed current and future Intel mobile processor technology. These products and features should find their way into Apple laptops over time.

First of all, Perlmutter revealed that high end notebooks with their latest chipsets can now support Quad Core configurations. Quad Core notebooks are currently in production and will be available in a month. Of course, this means that Apple could also support Quad Core configurations in their MacBook Pros. Although Apple's MacBook Pro has been rumored to be undergoing a revision in September, no rumors have pegged Quad Core computing as a feature.

One major focus of the talk was Intel's upcoming processor shift to Nehalem. The next generation mobile platform is known as "Calpella" and is said to make the current systems "pale in comparison". Intel detailed a new technology in the Nehalem processors called "Turbo Mode". Turbo Mode allows processors to turn off unused cores for improved power manangement. Other changes include the integration of memory controller and the graphics core into the CPU for Nehalem-based laptops. This removes the need for an integrated graphics chipset and should boost graphics performance, though not to the same degree as a dedicated video hardware. Other enhancements are detailed by PCWorld:While the first version of Nehalem's server chips will arrive later this year, the mobile version of Nehalem will not be available until the second half of 2009.

Article Link
Say so much,I cant read it^^………………
 

Tman1523

macrumors newbie
Aug 22, 2008
20
0
0
I suppose, but that's been done prior to this update, and it's still not a big deal for people who just care about power.




According to Intel? I'm not buying any of that this time. I wasn't even aware they were advertising that again. They made those same claims LAST update, and they ended up amounting to basically nothing. The technology was ignored.




But again, who cares? It's been on systems for the better part of a decade.



The motherboard is whatever size they want to make it. Nothing's changed. You must be talking about that new packaging Intel's doing. That's nifty and all, but not anything specific to this update, and anything power users care about.



You're talking about this low end stuff again. I don't care about that-people buying low end don't need any of these updates, and any of these features have been offered in even low end systems. Heck, the Macbook's always been able to work just fine with HDMI, and plenty of other low end systems come with HDMI outputs if you care about that.



Which is what it is, but it's nothing special.

This is *STILL* just a FSB bump. That's the only real update this is brining (along with a lower power draw). Penryn and the quad core Penryn are the only too relatively large bumps from Intel this year for notebooks.



Sure, but it's just because it's a convenient time to release models. Some stuff released now doesn't even use the new chipset.

Nothing wrong with this bump, but it's really nothing special. Penryn is fairly boring, but that's monumental compared to this.
Wolfpup what kind of mac do u have?
 

DoFoT9

macrumors P6
Jun 11, 2007
17,494
26
0
Singapore
www.glitches-it.com
Intel has released the specifications for both the QX9300 and Q9100 quad-core mobile Penryns and they both have a TDP rating of 45W, which would make them too hot to use in the current MacBook Pro.

QX9300 Data Sheet
Q9100 Data Sheet


(Thanks to member J the Ninja)
awsome news!!!

cant wait to see the difference between a dual core having both cores at 100% and the quad running at whatever equivalent it would run at (every core at around 50%-60%??) in battery power, im hoping maybe an extra hour could be gained in high-processing useage..
 

Wolfpup

macrumors 68030
Sep 7, 2006
2,708
62
0
Intel has released the specifications for both the QX9300 and Q9100 quad-core mobile Penryns and they both have a TDP rating of 45W, which would make them too hot to use in the current MacBook Pro.

QX9300 Data Sheet
Q9100 Data Sheet


(Thanks to member J the Ninja)
Yeah, I'm just amazed they got those to 45 watts! I could run TWELVE Penryn Core 2s for the same power it takes to run my single Prescott Pentium 4, and each of them would pound my Prescott into the ground (not that it's a joke either!)
 

hiimamac

macrumors 6502a
Jun 7, 2007
610
0
0
Boston
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
But now I have a mac and I hope to get 4-5 years out of it.
I would have to agree. I channged mbpro every 6 months. Went from 2.2 matte to 2.4 glossy and use it for audio. Sure 4 cores would be great for FCP but I could get a mac pro and the 2.4 does an excellent job. In terms of audio, I can throw pligvin after plugin with no hiccups in logic so I think I am waiting for either 16 core mac pro 4 core MBP and just hold onto my machine. What I do predict is GPU dedicated or price cuts for the models before the 4 core release which will me MBP Only as the MacBook might get a dedicated GPU. we'll see soon enough