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

Intel iBook Processor Speculation

Jetson said:
I don't understand how Apple feels justified to charge an extra $500 for the 1.83GHz to 2GHz speed zit.

I guess the incremental increases in memory and hard drive size might make up for it a bit.
Click to expand...
Larger HD, twice the RAM (SINGLE DIMM), twice the VRAM. Even without the doubled VRAM, those upgrades on the cheaper model would make the difference only $200. So, Apple is charging $200 for twice the VRAM and a 10% speed boost. Remember, with computers, you always pay a lot more for the last little bit of speed boost. Even Intel's price difference between the T2400 (1.83 GHz) and T2500 (2.0 GHz) is $129.
 
gnasher729 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.
Click to expand...

What would you use if you want a cheapish computer that has the potential for long battery life (a la speedstep) and not have sales crippled by the "notion" that they are using old tech?
 
godbout said:
What would you use if you want a cheapish computer that has the potential for long battery life (a la speedstep) and not have sales crippled by the "notion" that they are using old tech?
Click to expand...

AMD Turion 64 ;)
 
LANcaster 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.
Click to expand...
If Apple couldn't put a Core Duo in a laptop for $999, it couldn't put a Core Solo in one for that price either, since the price difference between the two chips would be almost negligible for Apple, and the supply of the Core Duo would likely be more reliable, because a Core Solo is made by disabling one of the cores of a Duo (hence some people's use of the term "crippled").

And where are the real-world benchmarks that show that cycle-for-cycle, the Core Solo is a LOT faster than the G4? Show me, please!

The only reason why I can see why Apple would spend a bunch on money on faster Duos and make a pig's backside out of the release/shipping of the initial orders of the MBP just to upgrade the clock speed FREE OF CHARGE would be that Apple wants to differentiate the MBPs from the coming iBooks. Why else would Apple waste its money and damage its reputation for customer service?

Edit: this artice is the best approximation I've seen on the performance of the Core Solo. Note that for most tasks, a 1.83 GHz Core Solo would be about 25% slower than a 1.9 GHz G5 (which, if i remember correctly, is a bit slower cycle-for-cycle than a G4) in Universal Binary Apps, and much slower in non-universal apps. If you look at the performance, it almost looks like the biggest improvement in the Intel iMac is the graphics card, not the processor. It's almost as if the Intel iMac is really like a Trojan horse, sneaking the idea of a dual core consumer machine into the camps of developers.
 
gnasher729 said:
Inspiron E1705
Entertainment Powerhouse
Intel® Core™ Solo Processor T1300 (1.66GHz/667MHz FSB)
Genuine Windows® XP Media Center Edition 2005
Click to expand...

That box is $999. For an extra hundred bucks, you can upgrade to a duo. So intel DOES have a duo box for a couple hundred less than the $1299 Macbook Express Solo that people are proposing.
 
Processor speed

I'm new to the whole processor arena and understanding it. So first off, what will be the big difference between having a solo or a duo in means of speed. Also is it going to be possible to compare Mac processor speeds with PC processor speeds? But if you're looking for pumped up laptop then go for the macbook pro line,but leave the ibook line as a low voltage processor notebook. I'm a college student and I've had my iBook for three years now and love it, and I assume that is a huge market for those who are looking for an entry level notebook or an introductory Apple notebook.
 
UOKingTut25 said:
I'm new to the whole processor arena and understanding it. So first off, what will be the big difference between having a solo or a duo in means of speed. Also is it going to be possible to compare Mac processor speeds with PC processor speeds? But if you're looking for pumped up laptop then go for the macbook pro line,but leave the ibook line as a low voltage processor notebook. I'm a college student and I've had my iBook for three years now and love it, and I assume that is a huge market for those who are looking for an entry level notebook or an introductory Apple notebook.
Click to expand...

The difference between the solo and the duo is at this time (correct me if I am wrong) debatable. I imagine that you will see somthing on the order of 50% speed increase with the duo and as programs become more multithreaded it might be even better than that. Also, the core duo will really help out with running two threads at one so you should see a large increase in speed when you are multitasking (which us Mac folk seem to love to do)

You will be able to compare the processors to the ones in the PC world so if a PC has a core duo 1.83 for example then it will be the same exact speed as the one in your MBP. Now, the thing is, that you are running different OSes, software and probably different hardware and that will affect how responsive the computer feels.

Finally, the MacBook will probably not have the low voltage core duo/solo because they are more expensive than there non-low voltage counterparts.
 
godbout said:
The difference between the solo and the duo is at this time (correct me if I am wrong) debatable. I imagine that you will see somthing on the order of 50% speed increase with the duo and as programs become more multithreaded it might be even better than that.
Click to expand...
If you look at the Anandtech article I linked in my last post, you will see that the difference is not debatable - for the majority of tasks, the Duo is significantly faster than the Solo.
 
Yeah, so far, Dell hasn't announced any Solo machines. In general, they give you more hardwrae for the money than Apple does. If Apple ships a core solo laptop, you don't think Dell will have a Core duo box for the same price?
Click to expand...



i think the solo will be good for students or modest business/home users like my wife and i

there is only a $75 dollar difference in price between the two chips so the solo chip may never fly with a thousand dollar ibook
 
jefhatfield said:
i think the solo will be good for students or modest business/home users like my wife and i

there is only a $75 dollar difference in price between the two chips so the solo chip may never fly with a thousand dollar ibook
Click to expand...
Intel only charges $32 more for the Duo.
 
MacinDoc said:
Intel only charges $32 more for the Duo.
Click to expand...

wow, is that all? i just read the seventy five dollar figure in a magazine...anyways, the difference is quite small by any measure

i would like the duo in the ibook if it's going to be $999, or even $899 :)
 
rog said:
Single core and Rosetta would be a match made in hell!
Click to expand...

People keep saying this, but benchmarks made on the new iMacs with one core disabled disprove it. The amount of memory available makes far more of a difference than the extra core.
 
Mitthrawnuruodo said:
I'll take a 12"/13" MacBook with a low voltage dual 1.5 without optical drive. Imagine the battery life on something like that... :cool: :D
Click to expand...

Why stop there, how about no hard drive! 20gb flash... expensive yes, long battery life... YES
 
milo said:
That box is $999. For an extra hundred bucks, you can upgrade to a duo. So intel DOES have a duo box for a couple hundred less than the $1299 Macbook Express Solo that people are proposing.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't cost $999. It costs $1249, and comes with a "mail in and try to make use pay you $250 back anywhere in the next six months if you fill out everything absolutely one hundred percent correct and our dog doesn't eat it" rebate. It doesn't come with a full operating system, only XP Home Edition (Windows XP is $150 extra). It doesn't come with any virus protection which is a must on Windows ($79 extra).
 
godbout said:
What would you use if you want a cheapish computer that has the potential for long battery life (a la speedstep) and not have sales crippled by the "notion" that they are using old tech?
Click to expand...

Well, I actually had a look around on the Internet about what "SpeedStep" does and how it helps. It seems to enable one additional power savings mode. So it is very useful if you leave your notebook switched on and watch it doing nothing. It is not of any use when you actually use your notebook to do any work.

Now the second argument: Do you think Macintosh users are idiots? Do you think an iBook should be $200 more expensive, so that it is not "crippled by the notion they are using old tech"? Performance speaks for it self, and a Celeron M will run twice the speed than an iBook with G4 chips. And $200 is about what a customer would pay more for an iBook with Core Solo than for an iBook with Celeron M (because unlike some of the optimists here on the board seem to believe, Apple is not a charity, and if they put a chip into the iBook that costs $130 more list price, _you_ will pay $200 more for the iBook).
 
UOKingTut25 said:
I'm new to the whole processor arena and understanding it. So first off, what will be the big difference between having a solo or a duo in means of speed. Also is it going to be possible to compare Mac processor speeds with PC processor speeds? But if you're looking for pumped up laptop then go for the macbook pro line,but leave the ibook line as a low voltage processor notebook. I'm a college student and I've had my iBook for three years now and love it, and I assume that is a huge market for those who are looking for an entry level notebook or an introductory Apple notebook.
Click to expand...

Somehow people seem to get brainwashed into this "Core" thing.

Intel offers three processors that are suitable for notebooks: Core Duo, Core Solo and Celeron M. At the same clock speed, Core Duo costs about $240, Core Solo costs about $210, Celeron M costs about $100. Core Solo has maybe ten percent more performance than Celeron M. Core Duo has twice the performance of Core Solo in applications that are expected to do really hard work; it also has twice the performance if your computer does anything in the background.

So yes, you are one hundred percent right that Apple should produce a low-cost notebook for people who don't need the performance. Core Solo is not the chip for that notebook. It will add $200 to the price over a Celeron M for very little performance gain.
 
jefhatfield said:
wow, is that all? i just read the seventy five dollar figure in a magazine...anyways, the difference is quite small by any measure
Click to expand...

Don't look at magazines, type "intel price list" into Google, and guess what: It will send you to a webpage where Intel itself gives you the prices for every single chip and every single chipset they are selling, so you can judge for yourself. (The prices there are in trays of thousand, so you have to buy thousand chips to get the quoted price, and Apple is likely to get them a bit cheaper, but not that much cheaper).
 
Mitthrawnuruodo said:
Nah... I need my HD... struggling with only 60 GB on my current iBook... drooling over a 160 GB seagate... settling for 20 GB flash memory isn't even an option... ;)
Click to expand...

I need 200GB in my laptop.. no joke. With the MBP the power is more than enough for my needs, but the storage may prove disabling. I currently have 20GB free of 100GB in my PB (replaced HD) and that is only because I am constantly tidying up to ensure that I have at least 20% free. I want to be a little lazier and 200GB is what I need.

I also went for the MBP so that I could finally edit some movies and again 200GB is a minimum for that...

Come on Seagate or Hitachi,... I need a 200GB 2.5" SATA drive.. 400GB would be nice ;)
 
Mitthrawnuruodo said:
Nah... I need my HD... struggling with only 60 GB on my current iBook... drooling over a 160 GB seagate... settling for 20 GB flash memory isn't even an option... ;)
Click to expand...

I was just kidding... what use would it be without an optical drive? Until DVDs and software come on memory stick...
 
smharmon said:
I was just kidding... what use would it be without an optical drive? Until DVDs and software come on memory stick...
Click to expand...
It's not that silly. I have an external Firewire/USB2 superdrive that I prefer to use over the internal combo drive when at home... and I've never ripped any CDs or installed any software (from CDs) away from home... ;)

Just make me some sort of combined stand for the iBook with built in slots for drives (optical and/or HD) with maybe a USB/Firewire hub, etc... Not quite a docking station, but something close... let's see if Apple cannot come up with something stylish and practical... :)
 
Mitthrawnuruodo said:
It's not that silly. I have an external Firewire/USB2 superdrive that I prefer to use over the internal combo drive when at home... and I've never ripped any CDs or installed any software (from CDs) away from home... ;)
Click to expand...

I have an external DVD burner, but I can't leave it plugged in all the time. I just don't have the space at home for that sort of clutter. All non-daily hardware gets stored in a box which the cable-knotting fairy visits when the lid is closed. As a result I want everything in my notebook.

For work on the other hand where such space on my desk is less of a premium I would happily use an ultra-slim & light notebook that docks into the rest of its components.
 
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