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

jacobj said:
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 ;)
Click to expand...

Why not get a external FW800 drive?
 
generik said:
Why not get a external FW800 drive?
Click to expand...

I have one. It's just a pain in the ar*e to have to keep plugging it in whenever I want to do anything that requires real storage!
 
nagromme said:
I think the iBook name is on the way out, and I don't think Apple will limit themselves to two rigid lines of laptops anymore. "MacBook ______" allows for multiple different products that aren't necessarily in a strict hierarchy. Just like with iPods. There can now be low-end and high-end MacBooks, ultrathin, ultrathick, tablets... whatever the future may call for.
Click to expand...
Yeah, the name tablet is naff, same as mp3 player was going nowhere as a name until iPod came along. I vote the Apple tablet to be called something like MacBook slate. Fits in well with the writing on a slab concept.

As for entry-level MacBooks, it's got to be a Core Solo, however much people will want LV Duos or Duos. The LV versions will have to be in an ultra-portable and be towards the Pro in price.
 
maybe this make's sense (i read it somewhere but can't find it anymore)

MacBook:
13.3" (WS)
15.4" (WS)
Both use Intel Core Solo (only 1.66 available at this point)
GPU x1300 with 64mb (maybe 15.4" with 128mb)
No Isight (maybe no frontrow and remote to keep the price's low)

MacBook Pro:
13.3" (WS)
15.4" (WS)
17" (WS)
All use Intel Core Duo (variating from 1.66 (for 13.3") to 2.16 (for 17")
GPU x1600 with 128mb (only for 13.3") and 256mb (option on the 15.4" and standard on the 17")

RAM and HDD you can configure them yourself and the 2 options on the MacBook Pro 15.4" will disappear and you will get more configuration options.
 
TheProfit said:
maybe this make's sense (i read it somewhere but can't find it anymore)

MacBook:
13.3" (WS)
15.4" (WS)
Both use Intel Core Solo (only 1.66 available at this point)
GPU x1300 with 64mb (maybe 15.4" with 128mb)
No Isight (maybe no frontrow and remote to keep the price's low)
Click to expand...

Have intel confirmed future Core Solo speeds? If not then Apple may well choose to hold their horses on using it.
 
milo 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.
Click to expand...

a) The machine is clearly not anywhere near twice as fast. On CPU-limited multithreaded applications, there might be substantial speedup, but not for general purpose usage.

b) Because not everyone wants or needs that extra performance. I'd take the $200 savings, myself -- the heaviest applications I run are compilers and media players. I suspect that a 450 MHz G3 would be bearable; a 1 GHz G4 yielded absolutely no complaints.
 
jacobj said:
Have intel confirmed future Core Solo speeds? If not then Apple may well choose to hold their horses on using it.
Click to expand...
ATM, only a 1.66 GHz Core Solo has been announced. There's not much point in making a higher clocked one, either, because it would have to be higher in price than the 1.66 GHz Core Duo (the Solos are just as expensive to make as the Duos, since they are essentially the same chip). And who would buy a 1.83 GHz Solo for a higher price than a 1.66 GHz Duo?
 
steve_hill4 said:
As for entry-level MacBooks, it's got to be a Core Solo, however much people will want LV Duos or Duos. The LV versions will have to be in an ultra-portable and be towards the Pro in price.
Click to expand...

Please tell us what alternatives to Core Solo you considered, and why you rejected them. Did you consider anything that didn't begin with "Core"?
 
gnasher729 said:
Please tell us what alternatives to Core Solo you considered, and why you rejected them. Did you consider anything that didn't begin with "Core"?
Click to expand...
The only alternative to the Core, Solo or Duo, is really the Celeron and I don't think it's actually that wise a move for Appple to use those. Marketing wise, you will have others using them in their entry level models and then for about another $100 they will use the Pentium M. While this is another consideration, most of these models will eventually switch to the Core Solo too, so Apple need to be seen to be on a level playing field.

The only way this could possibly be irrelevant is when a lot of the manufacturers of Windows machines decide to use Core Solo, but within the Centrino Solo badge. Some seem to think Centrino and Pentium M are different processors, so the may consider Core Solo and Centrino Solo in the same way, putting Apple at a disadvantage again, in marketing. Remember, this is about perception to consumers. If they think they are getting too inferior a machine if they go for a Mac for the same cash, whatever the software is like, they will think twice about switching. Trust me, I witness it first hand on a regular basis.
 
MacinDoc said:
ATM, only a 1.66 GHz Core Solo has been announced. There's not much point in making a higher clocked one, either, because it would have to be higher in price than the 1.66 GHz Core Duo (the Solos are just as expensive to make as the Duos, since they are essentially the same chip). And who would buy a 1.83 GHz Solo for a higher price than a 1.66 GHz Duo?
Click to expand...

Therefore is there an issue with using solos? I am starting to doubt that Apple will use them in their iBook replacements. So what will be there in its place..back to the initial question...

I have to start my reasoning all over again.
 
jacobj said:
Therefore is there an issue with using solos? I am starting to doubt that Apple will use them in their iBook replacements. So what will be there in its place..back to the initial question...
Click to expand...
Read page one, first post. The speed bump to 1.83/2.0GHz in the Macbook Pro suggests 1.67 GHz core duo in the Macbook/iBook replacement. There is really no reason for Apple NOT to use the Core Duo in the new iBook with Intel. My feeling is Apple will. No reason the entire laptop line can't go Core Duo. IMHO Apple would be foolish to use Core Solo in a laptop when, as others have pointed out, for $30-35 more they can stick in a Duo and have much better performance.

Bottom Line: Core Duo now, I buy a low end laptop now. Core solo now, I wait until something better comes along.
 
ImAlwaysRight said:
Read page one, first post. The speed bump to 1.83/2.0GHz in the Macbook Pro suggests 1.67 GHz core duo in the Macbook/iBook replacement. There is really no reason for Apple NOT to use the Core Duo in the new iBook with Intel. My feeling is Apple will. After all, previously the Powerbooks and iBooks both had G4 processors in them. Processor speeds were slightly higher in the more expensive Powerbooks, but they were all G4 processors. No reason the entire laptop line can't go Core Duo. IMHO Apple would be foolish to use Core Solo in a laptop when, as others have pointed out, for $30-35 more they can stick in a Duo and have much better performance.

Bottom Line: Core Duo now, I buy a low end laptop now. Core solo now, I wait until something better comes along.
Click to expand...

I am starting to agree with you, but historically there has been a clear distinction between the two lines. The gap between the iBook and the MBP was only because to have anything less in a notebook would have been stupid and IBM weren't making the G4 any faster and the G5 was a no go. Having said that I'd love to know the pricing of the G4 chips. If the margin between is the same as that between to 1.67 Duo and the 1.8 then I'd say you are right, but then we'll see a price increase which means that apple are moving away from the mass (mac mini) market. I can't see that happening.

So I agree with many here that say that we may see a lower end processor like the Pentium M in the iBook with the Core Duo as an option, or we'll see the duo in the iBook (MacBook) and a new lower end laptop with the Pentium M inside.
 
but if they actually use the duo core's in the new macbook and sinds all the rumors point out that it will be a 13.3" wide screen, why don't they put them in the macbook pro class. It's not right to use core duo in the macbook, because it will be a high end machine and not a low end consumer class.

i'd rather see the 13.3" macbook pro with duo core, then a low end machine with duo core.

the ibook was originally for students who need them for consumer class applications - like iworks and ilife - and the powerbooks/macbook pro's are for the professional user that need to travel alot (correct me if i'm wrong)
 
jacobj said:
[H]istorically there has been a clear distinction between the two lines. The gap between the iBook and the MBP was only because to have anything less in a notebook would have been stupid and IBM weren't making the G4 any faster and the G5 was a no go. Having said that I'd love to know the pricing of the G4 chips. So I agree with many here that say that we may see a lower end processor like the Pentium M in the iBook with the Core Duo as an option, or we'll see the duo in the iBook (MacBook) and a new lower end laptop with the Pentium M inside.
Click to expand...

The Pentium M is actually low-end, but not low price. For exactly the same money as Core Duo, you get a Pentium M (single core) with very slightly higher clockspeed and significantly lower bus speed. To safe real money, you need the Celeron M. Prices for the G4 chip have been rumored to be $72.

Now the main point: I think Core Duo 1.67GHz vs. 1.83GHz might be just enough of differentiation, and of course smaller screen, cheaper graphics card, no external monitor. Perhaps one model that absolutely minimises the price with a Celeron M, for people who want a second computer to take with them, and one that is more suitable as the main computer, with a Core Duo.
 
I want one of those Notebooks with the Hydrogen Fuel Cell. I was watching a TV show and they were showing this technology off, you get a ridiculous amount of battery life from a single charge.

It looks totally sweet, but I think kind of unrealistic unfortunantly.
 
TheProfit said:
but if they actually use the duo core's in the new macbook and sinds all the rumors point out that it will be a 13.3" wide screen, why don't they put them in the macbook pro class. It's not right to use core duo in the macbook, because it will be a high end machine and not a low end consumer class.

i'd rather see the 13.3" macbook pro with duo core, then a low end machine with duo core.

the ibook was originally for students who need them for consumer class applications - like iworks and ilife - and the powerbooks/macbook pro's are for the professional user that need to travel alot (correct me if i'm wrong)
Click to expand...
If there is a 13.3" MBP, it certainly will use the Core Duo - just at a higher clock rate (probably the 1.83 GHz) than any Duo that might go into an iBook/Macbook. As with the G4 Powerbooks/iBooks, the main differentiation will be screen resolution, graphics card, RAM slots/maximum RAM, HD speed, and the presence of higher-end connections (such as gigabit ethernet).
 
gnasher729 said:
The Pentium M is actually low-end, but not low price. For exactly the same money as Core Duo, you get a Pentium M (single core) with very slightly higher clockspeed and significantly lower bus speed. To sa[v]e real money, you need the Celeron M. Prices for the G4 chip have been rumored to be $72.

Now the main point: I think Core Duo 1.67GHz vs. 1.83GHz might be just enough of differentiation, and of course smaller screen, cheaper graphics card, no external monitor. Perhaps one model that absolutely minimises the price with a Celeron M, for people who want a second computer to take with them, and one that is more suitable as the main computer, with a Core Duo.
Click to expand...

I think we're getting there.
 
Can somebody tell me why Apple wouldn't use the 1.5 LV Duo chips?? Not only would it be suitable for the iBook, but it would be significantly slower, yet able to browse through programs easily. Battery life is another concern as well, and announcing a product that has an 8-hour-plus would have the new iBooks flying out the door. The "Core Duo" is really just starting to make a broad public appearance, and new technology is always appealing. I am planning on buying an iBook in August, however, there is no way I will buy it with a solo inside. I am sure there are many out there that would do the same.

The theory about older processors being used such as the Celeron M and the Pentium M will not happen. It's just not good marketing; the name is old (pentium, celeron), it sounds old, and will create little, if any, curiousity or appeal. iBook (MacBook) with Pentium M processor!!!... psh. Won't happen. Ever.

Apple is known for being 'ahead of the game', so to speak, and unvieling a core duo in a sub-1,000 laptop is just that. Using anything less is not. Let's also mention FrontRow. A brand new app, and Apple/Steve is obviously excited about it. The new "Media Center" PC's are popular, and Apple wouldn't miss the opportunity.

To sum it up: what are consumers looking for in a 'consumer-level' laptop??? High battery life, and new appealing features (ex. Front Row, core duo, iSight), and a thin/sleek/portable design.

Apple would not release anything less than:

iBook 13.3" WS - $999
Intel 1.67 Core Duo Processor or 1.5 LV Core Duo
60 GB 5400 rpm HD (opt. 80 or 100)
64 bit video card
Combo Drive
Front Row

iBook 13.3" WS - $1299
Intel 1.67 Core Duo Processor or 1.5 LV Core Duo
80 GB 5400 rpm HD (opt. 100 or 120?)
64 bit video
SuperDrive
Front Row w/ iSight

*This has been mentioned before... but the Powerbooks processors were always only slightly better than the iBooks. Why fix what's not broken?
 
DontBurnTheDayy said:
Can somebody tell me why Apple wouldn't use the 1.5 LV Duo chips??
Click to expand...
Price. The LV 1.5 is $284, compared to $241 (which is already really a stretch under the current price structure), but is would certainly help battery life...
 
MacinDoc said:
Price. The LV 1.5 is $284, compared to $241 (which is already really a stretch under the current price structure), but is would certainly help battery life...
Click to expand...


That is true, but isn't it a good marketing strategy to advertise an 8-hour plus battery life??? For the $43 dollar difference, it should be worth it. And couldn't the battery life realistically be a bit higher with an LV processor?

I'm new with the processor/Mac stuff, but business makes sense. I'm also not betting on seeing a LV... just a possibility.
 
DontBurnTheDayy said:
Can somebody tell me why Apple wouldn't use the 1.5 LV Duo chips?? Not only would it be suitable for the iBook, but it would be significantly slower, yet able to browse through programs easily. Battery life is another concern as well, and announcing a product that has an 8-hour-plus would have the new iBooks flying out the door.
Click to expand...

I think what you say has some credence, but my only concern is that Apple has pushed battery life before, but not as its main asset. I do however think that a semi-pro laptop or pro-salesman type laptop may well be on the books and that is what you are describing.

I'll say it again though: I really think that Apple will be pushing a mac mini type laptop and that may well be a G4 iBook until the end of the year in parallel to the MacBook and MacBook Pro. It may be the last to get a Core Duo chip because by the end of the year the 1.67GHZ and 1.83GHz will be older and hopefully much cheaper.
 
Apple Laptop Range Speculation

Having done a few minutes of research I have come up with a proposition as to what I think the roadmap will be like for Apple following the January releases and subsequent updates to the MB Pro:

MacBook Express (iBook Form Factor) (Should appear later this year)

12.1” 4:3 $699 £499

Intel Core Celeron M 1.46Ghz Processor
512Mb RAM soldered (max 1.5Gb)
Intel Integrated Graphics Chipset
40Gb Hard Drive
CD-RW/DVD Combi

14” 4:3 $799 £569

Intel Core Celeron M 1.6Ghz Processor
512Mb RAM soldered (mac 1.5Gb)
Intel Integrated Graphics Chipset
60Gb Hard Drive
Superdrive SL

Apple desperately needs to cater for the budget mobile user. Many features such as Airport, Bluetooth, Firewire and even a 56k Modem are OTT and will, I think be excluded from this range. The Celeron M will be the new Celeron based on the Core Solo so it will be a good performer. There will also be huge savings on the use, for the first time, of an integrated graphics chipset that is useless for gaming yet perfect for imaging and fully supportive of both Quartz and Core Imaging technologies. Expect screen resolutions and brightness to be lower than the MacBook/MacBook Pro to enhance battery life and distinguish b/w the models.

MacBook

13.3” wide $999 £699

Intel Core Solo 1.67Ghz Processor
512Mb RAM (max 2GB)
Ati Radeon X1300 64Mb VRAM
60Gb Hard Drive
CD-RW/DVD Combi (Superdrive U/G available)
Front Row
Airport and Bluetooth
iSight express built-in

15.2” wide $1299 £899

Intel Core Duo 1.67Ghz Processor
512Mb RAM (max 2GB)
Ati Radeon X1300 64Mb VRAM
80Gb Hard Drive Capacity
Superdrive SL
Front Row
Airport and Bluetooth
iSight express built in

The MacBook will be the next iBook, directly replacing the current models. A shift to widescreen format and Front Row should be expected along with my hope of an iSight express built-in that has half the resolution of the iSight in the MB Pro. VRAM upgrade to 128Mb will cost something around $49 for the 15" model and not be available for the 13.3" for differentiation purposes between the Pro line.

A final point to make about the new iBook in all but name is that while it will be both technologically and architecturally superior to the previous model, the difficulties that Rosetta poses for users of PowerPC pro apps (such as Photoshop) who couldn't afford the premium for the PowerBook will preserve for a limited time, the value of iBook G4's in resale and expect a few refurbs to be available in the Apple store.

MacBook Pro

13.3” wide $1499 £1099

Intel Core Duo 1.67Ghz Processor
512Mb RAM (max 2GB)
Ati Radeon X1400 128Mb VRAM
80Gb Hard Drive Capacity
Superdrive SL
Front Row and iSight
Airport and Bluetooth
Firewire 400

15.2” wide $1999/2499 £1479/1749

Intel Core Duo 1.86/2Ghz Processors (2.16Ghz U/G)
512/1Gb RAM (max 2GB)
Ati Radeon X1600 with 128/256Mb VRAM
80/100Gb Hard Drive Capacity
Superdrive SL
Front Row and iSight
Airport and Bluetooth
Firewire 400

17” wide $2999 £2099

Intel Core Duo 2.16Ghz Processor (2.33Ghz U/G)
1Gb RAM (max 3GB)
Ati Radeon X1800 256Mb VRAM
120Gb Hard Drive Capacity
Superdrive SL
Front Row and iSight
Airport and Bluetooth
Firewire 400 and 800

Pretty self explanatory I would assume...
 
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