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 iBooks with Front Row?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
guffman said:
I go into the sites where new automotives are designed and there is a blanket "no camera" policy. Your phone is checked, if it has a camera, it stays at the front desk. Laptops would be no different.
And no, a piece of tape would not do it!
Old bit of philosophy..
You can please some of the people,some of the time.
You can please all of the people,some of the time.
But you can't please all of the people all of the time.
You can please some of the people,some of the time.
You can please all of the people,some of the time.
But you can't please all of the people all of the time.
KindredMAC said:
Reality check: MacWorld published some benchmarks that showed that the Dual Core iMac was roughly the same speed as a G5 iMac. It wasn't twice the speed, because these bright spots used applications that didn't take any advantage of the second core. Logical consequence: The same benchmark run on a single core processor would run at about the same speed as a G5.
Compared to your 900 MHz iBook, a Core Solo has twice the clock speed, does more instructions per cycle on the average, has memory bandwidth that makes the G3 absolutely laughable, has a decent vector unit (not quite the same as Altivec, but still quite capable), and it has 2 Megabyte of L2 cache. It absolutely _kills_ a 900 MHz iBook. Of course, Core Duo kills it twice
That said, Core Solo is only $30 less than Core Duo at half the performance, so using it in any computer is just insane. You either go slow and cheap, or fast and expensive; Core Solo is slow and expensive (compared to Core Duo) which makes it pointless. Expect a nice Celeron M with 256 KB L2 cache, same chip that you find in any other sub-$1000 Intel-based notebook.
If Apple sells an iBook for $999, they want about 27% gross profit, leaving about $730 for building the machine, selling it, warranty and support. That leaves less than $600 for parts. Do you think there will be enough money for a $210 processor?
strange days said:
Low Voltage Duos are considerably more expensive than normal Core Duos. It is the kind of chip that Apple would use if they want to build a notebook with ten hour battery life: Low Voltage Duo, massive Flash memory for storage, ultra-light, ultra-fast, ultra-expensive, ultra-long battery life.
MacQuest, I apologize for the words "intelligence test" - I didn't mean it to sound as demeaning as it did.MacQuest said:
Your capitalization of "Quad" in "Quad Core Duo" led me to believe that you were suggesting that as a proper name, which I wanted to point out as being inconsistent with the existing pattern.
_______________________
The whole concept of multi-core is making it confusing to describe a system.
It used to be that "processor", "core", and "CPU" all meant the same thing, and a "chip" had one of them.
The "processor", "core" or "CPU" was the active thing that actually did the work.
Now, a "chip" can have multiple "active things". It's reasonable to say that a dual-core chip has "2 processors", or "2 cores", or "2 CPUs". It's very difficult to describe any functional difference between a system with two cores on one chip and a system with two cores on two chips (one core on each chip). Both appear to have 2 CPUs or 2 processors to the user and software.
Some people and companies, however, are calling the "chip" the processor, so they'd say that a dual-core system has one processor.
In some cases, it's clear why this choice is made - licensing.
Intel wants a dual-core chip to be licensed as a single CPU, otherwise it makes the system cost more when software is purchased. So "processor" becomes less of a physical entity, and more of a licensing concept.
I prefer to consider the core to be a CPU. I have a number of 4 CPU Opteron servers. Some are big boxes with 4 chip sockets. Some are smaller, cheaper boxes with 2 chip sockets. To my applications, however, they are identical. A couple of my 4 socket boxes have dual-core chips - I call those 8 CPU systems.
MacSA said:
Not so. A look on Dell's website shows that the top of the line Inspiron (their entry level laptop) runs at 1.7GHz, and comes with a combo drive. The price? $1036 (though there is a current mail-in $100 rebate bringing it to $936). I don't see Dell's customers laughing at them (but then I don't read the dell-fan forums (is there even such a thing?)).
If Apple makes a combo drive standard fare, and gives the option of a superdrive BTO, then they're on even price point with a bare bones windows box. This doesn't include the Apple extras like built-in bluetooth, and a possible built-in isight.
jMini said:
Yeah, iPod HDs are not designed for regular "computer" use. While you can boot from them and use them as a primary disk, you run a major risk of HD failure. They aren't vented like regular HDs, and the heat they generate will push the life way down. This is why the "home-on-iPod" feature which was supposed to be part of 10.3 was pulled. They couldn't guarantee the reliability of those drives. I suppose if they vented it well enough it could work, but I bet the drives themselves are inherently less reliable than regular HDs. And definitely slower.
More likely "Core Quad" or "Core Quattro". The term "Quado" mixes 2 different languages.bugfaceuk said:
bugfaceuk said:
Just something I was thinking (I feel the same way you do) is that the current PB lineup has a $1999 15" and a $1499 12" that has almost the same specs, just a small step down CPU wise and a moderate step down GPU wise... everything else is about the same. It wouldn't be crazy to think we'll get a 12" MBP with the same specs as the current $1999 model, but with a less powerful GPU and maybe 64mb of VRAM in just a few months for $1499.
I guess the next MacBook Pro - i.e. the 12", 17" and a slightly updated 15" (with modem xor FW800) - will appear at April 1st. We might already see the rest of the MacBook Pro line the day the actual 15" ships (mid February), but I doubt it. Let's pray, ppl!
It makes sence they used the 15" for a prototype. The 12" could have the same things inside (remove the card slot and the usb on the right) only rearranged to fit the 12" form factor. It defenitely will be thicker than 1" so a dual layer drive should fit itside. But on the other hand, apple can't sell a 12" with DL and a 15" with only SL, so the 15" will recieve an update at the same occasion. "The new MacBook Pro: in all sizes and dual layer is back". I'm wonder how they will do the 17" in terms of CPU. Although Steve said "dual processors in every Macbook Pro", they can't just put the fastest Core Duo in there...
Dual processors doesn't imply there's only one die inside, right? I'd love to see a 17" with 2,3 Core Duo and one with Dual Core Duo. The latter one should finally run Aperture smoothly (decent GPU and loads of RAM provided). And to show everyone you got 4 Processors inside your laptops, there are 4 apples on the back of the screen. Yea, I know, I shouldn't write in a drunken haze .
It makes sence they used the 15" for a prototype. The 12" could have the same things inside (remove the card slot and the usb on the right) only rearranged to fit the 12" form factor. It defenitely will be thicker than 1" so a dual layer drive should fit itside. But on the other hand, apple can't sell a 12" with DL and a 15" with only SL, so the 15" will recieve an update at the same occasion. "The new MacBook Pro: in all sizes and dual layer is back". I'm wonder how they will do the 17" in terms of CPU. Although Steve said "dual processors in every Macbook Pro", they can't just put the fastest Core Duo in there...
Dual processors doesn't imply there's only one die inside, right? I'd love to see a 17" with 2,3 Core Duo and one with Dual Core Duo. The latter one should finally run Aperture smoothly (decent GPU and loads of RAM provided). And to show everyone you got 4 Processors inside your laptops, there are 4 apples on the back of the screen. Yea, I know, I shouldn't write in a drunken haze
.
Sadly, I don't think multi-die processors will ever arrive on any Apple portable. On the other hand, quad core processors on a single die are on the horizon, and may debut in 2007.MrCrowbar said:Dual processors doesn't imply there's only one die inside, right? I'd love to see a 17" with 2,3 Core Duo and one with Dual Core Duo. The latter one should finally run Aperture smoothly (decent GPU and loads of RAM provided). And to show everyone you got 4 Processors inside your laptops, there are 4 apples on the back of the screen. Yea, I know, I shouldn't write in a drunken haze
danielwsmithee said:
words pulled from my mouth. A 13" LV 1.67 GHz Core Duo with ten hours of battery is mine. Tell apple, tell steve, tell intel, tell everyone. Also, while they're at it, redesign it. give it a unique look so people could tell it apart from the MB and the MBPs. Just what i want. Number 2 choice would be a core duo 13" MBP.
MacinDoc said:
There's a £100 difference (ish) between the macbook pro and the powerbook 15".
This bought a slimmer design, a built-in iSight, a much better screen, a faster and dual-core processor, and totally new chipset to tie it all together.
If they can put all that in a macbook for £100, they can put a part of it in an ibook for the same (or less, once the price of duos falls).
iBook musts:
Core duo. anything else is making the iBook artificially lame.
Much Much Much better screen. Brighter. More Contrast. More Res
I can't see the ne iBook with a Core Solo. Besides, the Core Solo is only 20$ less than the Core Duo. The iBooks were close to the powerbooks in terms of processors in the G4 world. This tradition should be continued with the Core Duos. And as the new iBooks will probably get the iSight, the things that will differ from the MBP would be graphics, optical drive and the HDD, Bus etc. Given the new form factor, the screen should get better. MagSafe is a must.
Wow, we made it back to the thread topic.
Wow, we made it back to the thread topic.
yankeefan24 said:
Smaller for me. I want a true compact subnotbook. 10.4" WXGA display (higher resolution so the small screen is still usable). Just a little bit bigger but thinner then the Toshiba Liberetos.
The optical drive would be in a seperate docking station to decrease the thickness!
-Dan
I'm not saying it won't be a Core Duo, but it can't be at the current price. I'm also saying that if it's not a Core Duo, it will be a budget chip, and possibly at a lower price. I sincerely hope that Apple does not use the Core Solo in any of its computers.Svennig said:
MrCrowbar said:
This wasn't because of an intended "tradition". It was because of IBM's inability to put G5's in the PowerBooks.
From a business perspective, there NEEDS to be a big differentiating factor between the consumer line and the professional line.
That whole "iBook is pretty close to the Powerbook [in terms of speed]" was a mess and cost Apple countless upsells to the professional line. Granted, some people chose to upgrade to the PowerBook because of the other factors [DVI, video spanning, etc.], but a lot more decided to stay with the iBook because of the similarities [most consumers just focus on the processor type and speed] and use the savings on accessories and/or just to save money.
gnasher729 said:Reality check: MacWorld published some benchmarks that showed that the Dual Core iMac was roughly the same speed as a G5 iMac. It wasn't twice the speed, because these bright spots used applications that didn't take any advantage of the second core. Logical consequence: The same benchmark run on a single core processor would run at about the same speed as a G5.
Compared to your 900 MHz iBook, a Core Solo has twice the clock speed, does more instructions per cycle on the average, has memory bandwidth that makes the G3 absolutely laughable, has a decent vector unit (not quite the same as Altivec, but still quite capable), and it has 2 Megabyte of L2 cache. It absolutely _kills_ a 900 MHz iBook. Of course, Core Duo kills it twice
That said, Core Solo is only $30 less than Core Duo at half the performance, so using it in any computer is just insane. You either go slow and cheap, or fast and expensive; Core Solo is slow and expensive (compared to Core Duo) which makes it pointless. Expect a nice Celeron M with 256 KB L2 cache, same chip that you find in any other sub-$1000 Intel-based notebook.
If Apple sells an iBook for $999, they want about 27% gross profit, leaving about $730 for building the machine, selling it, warranty and support. That leaves less than $600 for parts. Do you think there will be enough money for a $210 processor?
They could do a solo and proably a duo for under $600 build cost.
Core Solo
T1300 1.66ghz Solo w/ Intel 945 PM chipset and Intel wireless: $274
512 MB 667: $40
Ati X1600 w/ 128MB is $30, so by using an X1300 with 64MB you could get down to about $15-$20
160gb in the iMac is about $30, so an 80gb should be around $10-$20
Maximum total for above: $354, that leaves Apple $246 for a case, screen, optical drive, testing(about $25), iSight, software, etc.
For a core duo iBook sub $306 in for $274:
T2300 1.66ghz Core Duo w/ Intel 945 PM chipset and Intel wireless: $306
Max total: $386
That leaves Apple with $214 for a case, screen, optical drive, testing, iSigh, software, etc.
I think it would definetly be possible to use a Core Solo over a Celeron M, and even possible to use a Duo, especially if some of the "add ons" (frontrow, remote, iSight, etc) were made optional or as BTO options. Apple will prolly use their own wireless so that could add a little bit to the cost. My figures were based off of the take apart of the new intel iMac and off of intels price chart, so there could be minor discounts/extra costs in places. I would really doubt a Celeron M, quite a few companies have a sub-$1000 with Pentium M's in them, so thats the least I would expect. Personally I'm expecting a Core Solo at 1.66ghz, would love to see a Duo but would be a little surprised.
AidenShaw said:
I wasn't quite sure whether to call it "Quad Core Duo" or not, because I thought that people might think that I was referring to 4 Core Duo's totalling 8 processors. As I said before, I just meant 2 Core Duo's for a total of 4 processors.
So I'll just call it the Core Duo 2x and use that pattern instead. So I predict a:
17" MacBook Pro [Core Duo 2x] @ $3,499
This will compliment [another prediction] the quad core [Intel Merom?] Mac Pro Towers that I believe will be introduced at WWDC and replace the current Quad G5's at a slightly reduced price of $2,999.
I think that the Meroms aren't due until the 2nd half of '06, but maybe Intel will ramp up their production schedule like they did with the Core Duo's.
Back to the 17" MacBook Pro [Core Duo 2x] though, does anyone know if this would be a possibility? I remember all the rumors of a dual 17" G5 Powerbook being possible space-wise, but obviously not heat-wise, seeing as how they couldn' even get one in there.
All you techies out there that know the heat dissipation on the Core Duo's, would the 17" MacBook Pro be able to handle 2 Core Duo's, or maybe some of these other "ultra low wattage" chipsets/processors?
Discuss...
I heard about that thing that 2 G5 would fit into the 17" Powerbook. The Core Duo can be compared to the late G4 in terms of heat production I think. And if 1 G4 works in a 12" PB (ok, it's getting pretty hot sometimes), then 2 Processors (i.e. 4 cores in total) would be possible in the 17" MBP, especially when using a lower clock rate (cooler).
Maybe we will see such a thing in the future, but not in the first revision. A Processor of another kind and/or more cores sounds more reasonable to me because of the space savings.
Maybe we will see such a thing in the future, but not in the first revision. A Processor of another kind and/or more cores sounds more reasonable to me because of the space savings.
If you "need" to do brain surgery, buy the right scalpel...
So why is the 2.0GHz Core Duo in the iMac - I think that Apple's positioning the iMac for something big later this Spring (iTMS & "Big Media" related), so they wanted their most popular machine out in force when the timing is right.
However, to address your main contention; the cpu is just one small - albeit, significant - part of the total package. In order to get a price target of under $1,300 for a "hi-end" iBook/MacBook, and sub-$1,000 (maybe even an $800 model?) for the base-configuration, Apple will trim other stuff. Going with Intel's Integrated Graphics is almost definite on the low-end machine. And using 4200rpm ATA-100 hard drives, as opposed to 5400 or 7200rpm S-ATA, will shave more off the cost...
There are several ways for Apple to reach the price target for a consumer (spelled with a capital "C"!) laptop. And, as it has been mentioned numerous times, the "true" audience for the iBook doesn't need all those bells & whistles... So, if you're using Intel graphics (quite decent, from the sound of it), and ATA drives, and lower-res screens, etc., then what's the point of putting a Core Duo in the danged thing?!?!?
It's not as simple as, "There's only a $20 price difference...". Add all the other cost savings that a CONSUMER laptop DOES NOT NEED and that's how Apple can release an iBook Intel for as low as $800. And don't be surprised if there's still a 14" upper-end model for $1,300, that has a dedicated GPU and the 1.83GHz Core Solo as well. Just don't expect a Core Duo in a laptop whose target-market has no REALISTIC need for it.
And I agree with what has been said regarding Universal Binaries being available for most apps that an iBook Intel user would (logically) use by the time it ships in March or April. Dual-core and 64bit?... It will be at least 3 years before consumer apps begin to cross that bridge.
Apple likely chose the 1.66GHz & 1.83GHz Core Duos for the MacBook Pro because of the heavy demand from other PC makers for the 2.0GHz & 2.1GHz. Also, the prices jump significantly for the higher speeds... And, when the supply-constraints ease up they will bump it in speed - and introduce the 17" MBP and (possibly) a 13"WS MBP to replace the 17" & 12" G4 PowerBooks.Val-kyrie said:
So why is the 2.0GHz Core Duo in the iMac - I think that Apple's positioning the iMac for something big later this Spring (iTMS & "Big Media" related), so they wanted their most popular machine out in force when the timing is right.
However, to address your main contention; the cpu is just one small - albeit, significant - part of the total package. In order to get a price target of under $1,300 for a "hi-end" iBook/MacBook, and sub-$1,000 (maybe even an $800 model?) for the base-configuration, Apple will trim other stuff. Going with Intel's Integrated Graphics is almost definite on the low-end machine. And using 4200rpm ATA-100 hard drives, as opposed to 5400 or 7200rpm S-ATA, will shave more off the cost...
There are several ways for Apple to reach the price target for a consumer (spelled with a capital "C"!) laptop. And, as it has been mentioned numerous times, the "true" audience for the iBook doesn't need all those bells & whistles... So, if you're using Intel graphics (quite decent, from the sound of it), and ATA drives, and lower-res screens, etc., then what's the point of putting a Core Duo in the danged thing?!?!?
It's not as simple as, "There's only a $20 price difference...". Add all the other cost savings that a CONSUMER laptop DOES NOT NEED and that's how Apple can release an iBook Intel for as low as $800. And don't be surprised if there's still a 14" upper-end model for $1,300, that has a dedicated GPU and the 1.83GHz Core Solo as well. Just don't expect a Core Duo in a laptop whose target-market has no REALISTIC need for it.
And I agree with what has been said regarding Universal Binaries being available for most apps that an iBook Intel user would (logically) use by the time it ships in March or April. Dual-core and 64bit?... It will be at least 3 years before consumer apps begin to cross that bridge.