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 iBook Processor Speculation
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Dual Core In Ibook Please Please Please
I had a 20" iMac G5 2.0GHz that I used for work, but then developed a need to make presentations around campus. So I sold the iMac and was able to buy a projector + Mac Mini 1.5GHz Superdrive for the same amount of cash.
I will buy a MacBook 13" (formerly iBook) if it comes with a dual core processor for under $1K, or possibly an Intel Mac Mini if it comes with dual core. If either iBook/MacBook or Mac Mini come with single core, I'm just gonna keep the G4 Mac Mini I got.
I think Apple's move to bump up the processor speeds in the MacBook Pro means 1.67 dual core is coming to the iBook/MacBook. My hope is they still offer a $999 model with dual core. Possibly Apple will offer a $999 MacBook 13" single core while offering a dual core version for, say, $1399. In that case, I'm sticking to Mac Mini I presently own.
I had a 20" iMac G5 2.0GHz that I used for work, but then developed a need to make presentations around campus. So I sold the iMac and was able to buy a projector + Mac Mini 1.5GHz Superdrive for the same amount of cash.
I will buy a MacBook 13" (formerly iBook) if it comes with a dual core processor for under $1K, or possibly an Intel Mac Mini if it comes with dual core. If either iBook/MacBook or Mac Mini come with single core, I'm just gonna keep the G4 Mac Mini I got.
I think Apple's move to bump up the processor speeds in the MacBook Pro means 1.67 dual core is coming to the iBook/MacBook. My hope is they still offer a $999 model with dual core. Possibly Apple will offer a $999 MacBook 13" single core while offering a dual core version for, say, $1399. In that case, I'm sticking to Mac Mini I presently own.
Apple...Surprise Me!
This speed bump definitely means 'Apple have cheked their balances and they kinda underspecced their notebooks'..lol
Guys lets not kid ourselves...Apple will NOT use a Dual Core Processor in the MacBook!
We should have two models @ 13.3" and 14.4" wide $999/1299 with
1.67Ghz Core Solo Processor
512Mb Memory
Radeon X1300 64Mb
60/80Gb Hard Drive (respectively)
CD-RW/DVD Combi on cheapest model / Superdrive SL on the other
All models ship with FrontRow and Remote
No iSight in this revision, don't think Apple can handle that much giveaway.
The MacBook Pro should receive a nice 17" model pretty identical to the 15" for a few more hundred bucks...
My wishlist is:
New PowerBook 12" replacement 13" Wide MB Pro @ $1499
1.67Ghz Core Duo
512Mb memory
80Gb Hard Drive
Superdrive
iSight and Frontrow
X1600 128Mb Graphics (although I think it will be a X1300 w/ 128VRAM
)
Yeah Baby..*hopes*
This speed bump definitely means 'Apple have cheked their balances and they kinda underspecced their notebooks'..lol
Guys lets not kid ourselves...Apple will NOT use a Dual Core Processor in the MacBook!
We should have two models @ 13.3" and 14.4" wide $999/1299 with
1.67Ghz Core Solo Processor
512Mb Memory
Radeon X1300 64Mb
60/80Gb Hard Drive (respectively)
CD-RW/DVD Combi on cheapest model / Superdrive SL on the other
All models ship with FrontRow and Remote
No iSight in this revision, don't think Apple can handle that much giveaway.
The MacBook Pro should receive a nice 17" model pretty identical to the 15" for a few more hundred bucks...
My wishlist is:
New PowerBook 12" replacement 13" Wide MB Pro @ $1499
1.67Ghz Core Duo
512Mb memory
80Gb Hard Drive
Superdrive
iSight and Frontrow
X1600 128Mb Graphics (although I think it will be a X1300 w/ 128VRAM
)Yeah Baby..*hopes*
Legacy said:
I don't think that lineup makes any sense. Why would *anyone* pay $1299 for a core solo when for $200 more they could get a box that is TWICE as fast plus a bunch of other features? I can't imagine who would want to do that.
I can just picture the ads now: New Intel Macbook Lite! Now blazing 1.2X faster than the old iBook!
Everyone here is forgetting that the iMac is still called "iMac." If Apple wanted "Mac" in all the names of their product lines, why didn't they change it something like "Mac____"? "iBook" is a name that I want to stay, and it should, and since the iMac name didn't get changed, iBook will stay.
I figure that this new iBook will take the form of the current 12" PB. Would make sense. They could also throw in an HD screen or Widescreen but not both (correct me if I am wrong, but aren't both those things like brother and sister?). Also, they should stop that ******** of not having line-in ports on all their computers. Since these are "media" centric computers, they should have them standard on all computers.
I say Core Duo for both. Lowest possible speed for a 12", seeing as how a 12" notebook is a staple of Apple's. 1.66 for 13 or 14".
12" will have:
Core Duo @ 1.whatever Ghz
Combo Drive at high speed or BTO SuperDrive at current low speed
plus all the standard features like Sudden Motion, Scrolling Trackpad.
64mb V-RAM
512 RAM
60 gig HDD expandable to 120 as BTO
Bus=200ish
13 or 14" will have:
Core Duo @ 1.66 Ghz
SuperDrive @ whatever speed that won't match the MBP
plus standard features.
64mb V-RAM expandable to 128 as BTO
512 RAM
80 gig HDD expandable to 120 as BTO
Bus=200ish
No dual-layer Superdrives though.
FrontRow however..................I'm not too sure. It's obvious that it's going to end up on the Mac mini, so I don't see why they wouldn't. Or it could be a BTO option. Or the could stick it on the higher end iBook, but not as a BTO for the 12".
I also figure that they are going to slap iSights on the next generation of Cinema Displays. Just to compensate for the Mac mini's lack of a monitor. Which brings me back to the iBook. Not too sure about it. Putting it on the higher end makes it too close to the MBP. Way too close.
The only difference would the lack of a dual-layer SuperDrive and processor speeds.
As long as they come with Core Duos, faster bus speeds and line-in ports, I will be happy.
I figure that this new iBook will take the form of the current 12" PB. Would make sense. They could also throw in an HD screen or Widescreen but not both (correct me if I am wrong, but aren't both those things like brother and sister?). Also, they should stop that ******** of not having line-in ports on all their computers. Since these are "media" centric computers, they should have them standard on all computers.
I say Core Duo for both. Lowest possible speed for a 12", seeing as how a 12" notebook is a staple of Apple's. 1.66 for 13 or 14".
12" will have:
Core Duo @ 1.whatever Ghz
Combo Drive at high speed or BTO SuperDrive at current low speed
plus all the standard features like Sudden Motion, Scrolling Trackpad.
64mb V-RAM
512 RAM
60 gig HDD expandable to 120 as BTO
Bus=200ish
13 or 14" will have:
Core Duo @ 1.66 Ghz
SuperDrive @ whatever speed that won't match the MBP
plus standard features.
64mb V-RAM expandable to 128 as BTO
512 RAM
80 gig HDD expandable to 120 as BTO
Bus=200ish
No dual-layer Superdrives though.
FrontRow however..................I'm not too sure. It's obvious that it's going to end up on the Mac mini, so I don't see why they wouldn't. Or it could be a BTO option. Or the could stick it on the higher end iBook, but not as a BTO for the 12".
I also figure that they are going to slap iSights on the next generation of Cinema Displays. Just to compensate for the Mac mini's lack of a monitor. Which brings me back to the iBook. Not too sure about it. Putting it on the higher end makes it too close to the MBP. Way too close.
The only difference would the lack of a dual-layer SuperDrive and processor speeds.
As long as they come with Core Duos, faster bus speeds and line-in ports, I will be happy.
thejedipunk said:
You just contradicted yourself.As you said, Apple wants "Mac" in all of their products' names - and as you said, the iMac is still called the "iMac" for this very reason - there was no need to change it. "iBook" doesn't have "Mac" in its name, therefore it makes sense that Apple will change it to "MacBook".
Your logic is flawed.
milo said:
RU kidding me? A Core Solo 167 is at least 2x if not 2.5x faster than the current 1.42Ghz G4 lol..a dual processor is not double performance either..
You are forgetting Apple have gone to the extent of
1. Crippling the iBook with 32Mb Vram eventhough it has a better GPU than the 12" PowerBook
2. Using rare 4200rpm drives
3. Disabling Screen Spanning
A Core Solo seems a very viable option for the MacBook, simply it is not a Pro machine, thus does not need a dual core processor.
As for Rosetta, it should still run the basic Apps fine with a single core chip..we are talking Office and Messengers etc, NOT photoshop..if you wanna run photoshop, get a MB Pro..that will be the message from Apple... (until universal binaries are released)
It would be a very very stupid decision to use the Core Solo in any product other than the cheapest of the cheap budget notebooks. I would certainly not even consider a MacBook if it was so horribly crippled.
Not a chance in hell, even the ULV Celeron Ms have a 400 MHz bus speed.
Hate to argue with a fellow Scot, but that's just utter rubbish. The Core Solo is a very fast chip, obviously I'd love to be able to buy a Core Duo laptop for $1000, but saying the Core Solo is "crippled" is insane. You could easily argue that the current iBooks are crippled by having antiquated G4s in them!iJed said:
If Apple decide to put a Core Duo chip in the new iBooks then I can't see how they are going to be able to stick to the current $1000 price point for the low-end model. That is unless they decide to sell it as a loss leader, but I doubt the Steve will like that!
Also the Yonah architecture almost always does much more useful work per clock than a PPC7447, so a 1.67 GHz Core Solo wouldn't just be slightly faster than a 1.42 G4; it would be a LOT faster.
Meemoo said:
I can easily imagine two models of the iBook (MacBook Mini?), both with the same physical packaging (13.3"):
1. Core Solo (1.67 GHz), smaller hard drive (30-40 GB), 512 MB of RAM, and CD-RW/DVD drive at $999
2. Core Duo (1.67 GHz), larger hard drive (60 GB), a gig of RAM, and Superdrive for $1299, with optional processor speed and hard drive upgrades for additional fee (as with the MacBook Pro).
I really don't think iSights will be in the Cinema Displays. What about people who are using them with an iMac or MacBook Pro? It'd be weird for them to have 2 iSights. What's more likely is that Apple will revamp the iSight into a smaller package and lower the price for those who get a Mac without an iSight built-in.thejedipunk said:
You guys obviously did not read my post about upgrading the processor from Core Solo....
The iBook/Mac Mini SHOULD, be Core Solo with a Duo as a BTO option.
I think in the MBP the 7200rpm drive should have been a STANDARD feature, this way the iBook would have 5400rpm.
GPU, RAM, ect are all up in the air.
Producing a 1299 intel iBook with Core Duo is easy, $999 might be diffacult but I think Apple will introduce the iBook in at $1299, and perhaps a $1499 model(both with the Core Solo upgradable to the Duo)
I want a Duo in a Apple laptop but I want the portability of a small notebook. So either apple needs to announce new MBPs or get their **** together with the iBook.
The iBook/Mac Mini SHOULD, be Core Solo with a Duo as a BTO option.
I think in the MBP the 7200rpm drive should have been a STANDARD feature, this way the iBook would have 5400rpm.
GPU, RAM, ect are all up in the air.
Producing a 1299 intel iBook with Core Duo is easy, $999 might be diffacult but I think Apple will introduce the iBook in at $1299, and perhaps a $1499 model(both with the Core Solo upgradable to the Duo)
I want a Duo in a Apple laptop but I want the portability of a small notebook. So either apple needs to announce new MBPs or get their **** together with the iBook.
Meemoo said:
Why have a BTO option, thats going to encourage people to buy that product line..the MacBook Pro won't have the edge. If I was in sales at Apple, I wouldn't run that risk. Besides, they could have easily had BTO for the things above, ie 64Mb VRAM or a 5400rpms drive but they didnt...WHY? so they can seperate the product lines with non-washable ink..thats marketing.
With the whole rosetta emulation a single core won't cut it at all, i don't think a speed below the dual core 1.6 is marketable especially when its just a 50$ price difference between a single and dual core.
LANcaster said:
The Core Solo may be a reasonably fast chip but for an extra $32 you can have the dual core part. Surely it would make sense to increase the price by that $32 to have a much more powerful system.
Speculation: I bet the Core Solo chips include the second core in their package too. They are probably just Core Duo chips where one of the cores failed or maybe its simply been disabled - a common practise for Intel.
The Core Duo is not really the wonder chip that people are making it out to be. Its based on the old Banias/Dothan architecture, given new life by building on a second core. And its Pentium-M ancestry goes back all the way to the Pentium 3!
Core Duo also lacks x86 64 bit support. On a chip like PPC (which was designed well in the beginning) this makes little difference but on x86 the performance advantages are very significant. AMD 64 doubles the number of general purpose registers from 8 to 16. This is a fix for probably the biggest deficiency in the x86 architecture.
Another major issue is that Core chips, like all Intel x86 CPUs, lack an on-die memory controller increasing memory access latency. This is an area where AMD is clearly in the lead.
Amplifying my previous concern is the relatively slow FSB which bottlenecks memory access much like the G4 (but nowhere near as bad.)
My final gripe is that each core has a smaller number of floating point units than a Pentium-M - the chip its based on.
The Core Duo is still an excellent chip. Just don't expect the crazy benchmarks Apple use to be anything near reality.
Remember that the prices in this thread are for 1,000 or 10,000 units.
Apple's buying them in quantities of ~1,000,000 units. That means a significant discount will have been arranged with Intel, with other factors including Apple's massive brand name and publicity halo also contributing to the price that Intel will offer Apple.
Without the MacBook Pro release, I bet substantially fewer people would know that Intel have Core Duo out. Getting that information out is worth something to Intel.
So let's assume, say, a 30% reduction over list price. That makes the price difference between a Core Solo and a Core Duo around $20, not worth paying less really - especially if you then twist Intel a bit more (we'll buy Duo instead if they're only $15 more, say).
Dell are rumoured to get around 50% discount from Intel. Maybe Apple twisted Intel enough to get this as well, even though they sell a lot few machines - the machines they sell are higher end.
The MacBook will have a Core Duo processor at the $999 pricepoint.
It may not have discrete graphics however, it might use Intel's GMA950 integrated graphics. They're not totally toss, but an X1300 or X1400 would be a lot nicer.
Apple *may* use Celeron Ms though. They might opt to create a $799 MacBook pricepoint (or $899, with the Core Duo being $1099) with a 1.6GHz Celeron M. Certainly I think they'll be used in the next Mac Mini (although, just maybe, the top of the range Mac Mini (Mac Mini Pro, lol) will have a Core Duo, but cost $799 at least).
Apple's buying them in quantities of ~1,000,000 units. That means a significant discount will have been arranged with Intel, with other factors including Apple's massive brand name and publicity halo also contributing to the price that Intel will offer Apple.
Without the MacBook Pro release, I bet substantially fewer people would know that Intel have Core Duo out. Getting that information out is worth something to Intel.
So let's assume, say, a 30% reduction over list price. That makes the price difference between a Core Solo and a Core Duo around $20, not worth paying less really - especially if you then twist Intel a bit more (we'll buy Duo instead if they're only $15 more, say).
Dell are rumoured to get around 50% discount from Intel. Maybe Apple twisted Intel enough to get this as well, even though they sell a lot few machines - the machines they sell are higher end.
The MacBook will have a Core Duo processor at the $999 pricepoint.
It may not have discrete graphics however, it might use Intel's GMA950 integrated graphics. They're not totally toss, but an X1300 or X1400 would be a lot nicer.
Apple *may* use Celeron Ms though. They might opt to create a $799 MacBook pricepoint (or $899, with the Core Duo being $1099) with a 1.6GHz Celeron M. Certainly I think they'll be used in the next Mac Mini (although, just maybe, the top of the range Mac Mini (Mac Mini Pro, lol) will have a Core Duo, but cost $799 at least).
~Shard~ said:
As you said, Apple wants "Mac" in all of their products' names - and as you said, the iMac is still called the "iMac" for this very reason - there was no need to change it. "iBook" doesn't have "Mac" in its name, therefore it makes sense that Apple will change it to "MacBook".
Your logic is flawed.
Hehe didn't catch myself. But either way, the name should stay. It doesn't have "Power" in the name anyway.
Oh yeah, LANcaster, I didn't bother to read the specs of Celerons. I was going off by what the current bus speeds are for the iBook. So yeah, 400 should be fine.
t^3, I understand what you are saying, but what about users of Intel PowerMacs? Sure they can always buy it, but thats another $150 added to the bill. That is if they choose to buy a Cinema Display.
Legacy said:
It is on some apps, the benchmarks bear that out. Even for apps that aren't MP optimized, the machine will be more responsive.
From the tests I've seen, most of the speed advantage of the Duo comes from the two cores. In many cases, the Duo beats the single G5, but the single G5 beats the Solo. A core solo at that speed is probably comparable to a single G5 at 1.5G. Maybe that is twice the speed of the G4 powerbook, but that's still nothing to write home about. It's still a machine that's not only half the speed of the macbook for $200 more or the iMac for the same price, but also slower than the imac G5's that were just replaced.
I'll ask it again: why would someone want to spend $1299 when they can get a machine for double the speed for a couple hundred bucks more?
Sure, apple could do it, but it would be an awful decision, and they would likely bomb. The disabled features you mentioned are nothing compared to a box that runs at half speed, especially if you have to use rosetta.
LANcaster said:
I would consider the current ibooks practically crippled! Why do you think sales are so awful? They are so slow, I don't think it's good enough to have a fairly big improvement in speed, they need to be competitive with other laptops in the marketplace.
Apple doesn't even need to put the duo into the $999 box, if it's in the $1299 that will be fine.
Legacy said:
Acer has one in the $1200-1300 USD range. The cheapest core solo notebook I found was less than $100 cheaper.
LANcaster said:
You need to look harder. I just found one on the LOW end of that range.
Legacy said:
People are dissing the Core Solo because it is half the speed of Core Duo for $30 less, and maybe ten percent more speed than Celeron M at $130 more. In other words, if Apple builds any computer with Core Solo, they would be wasting their customers money.
Use Core Duo for a computer that is fast.
Use Celeron M for a computer that is cheap.
Use Core Solo for a computer that is neither fast nor cheap.
gnasher729 said:
So the Core Solo should be reserved for slow expensive computers? Not sure what target market Intel was looking at when they came up with this chip then...
Actually, they have.milo said:
Inspiron E1705
Entertainment Powerhouse
Intel® Core Solo Processor T1300 (1.66GHz/667MHz FSB)
Genuine Windows® XP Media Center Edition 2005
milo said:
I don't think so. Dells advertised prices are lower, but add Windows XP (Dell recommended for $150), add anti-virus software (an absolute must at $79), add Bluetooth, add multiple monitor support, add the software that comes with a Macintosh, and Dells are suddenly more expensive than a similar Macintosh.