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 Introduces Core i7 Quad-Core Mobile Processors
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Nope the low end, a high end iMac should be running a desktop i7!!!
The title says it all! The 24" iMac needs a full blown desktop processor running at 3.4 GHz. It is all about gap filling, though I'd rather that gap was filled with an XMac.
By the way I've seen lots of hand wringing from others about clock rate and power. DO NOT dismiss the processors based on this info or early thermal/battery life reports. There are a number of things to consider:
1.
These processors are a lot faster than Core 2 clock for clock. That of course depends upon many specifics but a common figure is 20%.
2.
The thermal issue is real but maybe not what many think. There is reasonable potential that the overall chipset load isn't that much worst than Core 2. This due to much of the needed chipset functionality being built in. What is a huge problem now is that we have a much larger point load. That is more heat coming from a single chip. This is a huge problem in a laptop and could significantly impact the ability to leverage Turbo Boost. Maybe Apple will throw some of the new ceramic or carbon fiber tech at the issue.
3.
Do not put to much faith into the current battery time figures. Right now we don't know if the OS being used is actually aware of the chip and how to manage it.
I just needed to pass these points along. It may take Apple awhile but I think they could deliver a high performance 17" model with this processor. The trick is heat management which might lead to a thicker MBP. On the iMac this is no problem at all.
Dave
The title says it all! The 24" iMac needs a full blown desktop processor running at 3.4 GHz. It is all about gap filling, though I'd rather that gap was filled with an XMac.
By the way I've seen lots of hand wringing from others about clock rate and power. DO NOT dismiss the processors based on this info or early thermal/battery life reports. There are a number of things to consider:
1.
These processors are a lot faster than Core 2 clock for clock. That of course depends upon many specifics but a common figure is 20%.
2.
The thermal issue is real but maybe not what many think. There is reasonable potential that the overall chipset load isn't that much worst than Core 2. This due to much of the needed chipset functionality being built in. What is a huge problem now is that we have a much larger point load. That is more heat coming from a single chip. This is a huge problem in a laptop and could significantly impact the ability to leverage Turbo Boost. Maybe Apple will throw some of the new ceramic or carbon fiber tech at the issue.
3.
Do not put to much faith into the current battery time figures. Right now we don't know if the OS being used is actually aware of the chip and how to manage it.
I just needed to pass these points along. It may take Apple awhile but I think they could deliver a high performance 17" model with this processor. The trick is heat management which might lead to a thicker MBP. On the iMac this is no problem at all.
Dave
Not going to happen. Though I agree with you, I would love to see Apple properly fill the Desktop i7 gap.
The top of the line iMac uses a 44W TDP part. The desktop i7 chips start at 95W and go up from there to 130W. That is more then double the amount of power for even the lowest specified part.
I'd love to see Apple drop the prices on the iMac substantially, stick with dual-core and keep getting thinner/sleeker. Then introduce a new Mac based on the desktop i7 chips and get rid of the Mac Pro. Then you would have.
iMac/mini - Dual Core $500-1500
xMac/Mac - Quad Core i7 $1500-$2500
Mac Pro - Dual Quad Core Xeon $2500+
Why? Got some 3.0 devices you can't use?
Dual-core hyperthreaded = 4 virtual cpus. It will look just like a 4-core system.
In a year or so when I start thinking about another Mac laptop, there should be some good choices.
Yeah so I guess all those pentium 4 ht's that I am sure many people here bashed during the g5 era were dual cores too right.
1)
Intel® CoreTM2 Quad processor Low Power Desktop (LGA 775)
Q9550S (12M L2 cache, 4 Cores, 4 Threads, 2.83 GHz 1333 MHz FSB 45nm) $320
Q9505S (6M L2 cache, 4 Cores, 4 Threads, 2.83 GHz 1333 MHz FSB 45nm) $277
Q9400S (6M L2 cache, 4 Cores, 4 Threads, 2.66 GHz 1333 MHz FSB 45nm)$245
Q8400S (4M L2 cache, 4 Cores, 4 Threads, 2.66 GHz 1333 MHz FSB 45nm)$213
this line of CPUs better in Watts/Heat and $$$
but LGA775 is going to EOL soon
2)
Intel® CoreTM i5 processor Desktop (LGA 1156)
i5-750 (8M L3 cache, 4 Cores,4 Threads, 2.66 GHz 45nm) $196
Custom Core i5 CPUs - 65 Watts - socket 1156 just started has another 3 to 5 years
3)
Intel® CoreTMi7 processor Extreme Edition Mobile (FCPGA8)
i7-920XM (8M L2 cache, 4 Cores, 8 Threads, 2.00 GHz) - $1,054
Intel® CoreTMi7 processor Mobile (FCPGA8)
i7-820QM (8M L2 cache, 4 Cores, 8 Threads, 1.73 GHz) - $546
i7-720QM (6M L2 cache, 4 Cores, 8 Threads, 1.60 GHz) - $364
Mobile Core i7 are expensive - socket m989 has started has another 3 to 5 years life
well, another three to four weeks we will know what apple decides!
Intel® CoreTM2 Quad processor Low Power Desktop (LGA 775)
Q9550S (12M L2 cache, 4 Cores, 4 Threads, 2.83 GHz 1333 MHz FSB 45nm) $320
Q9505S (6M L2 cache, 4 Cores, 4 Threads, 2.83 GHz 1333 MHz FSB 45nm) $277
Q9400S (6M L2 cache, 4 Cores, 4 Threads, 2.66 GHz 1333 MHz FSB 45nm)$245
Q8400S (4M L2 cache, 4 Cores, 4 Threads, 2.66 GHz 1333 MHz FSB 45nm)$213
this line of CPUs better in Watts/Heat and $$$
but LGA775 is going to EOL soon
2)
Intel® CoreTM i5 processor Desktop (LGA 1156)
i5-750 (8M L3 cache, 4 Cores,4 Threads, 2.66 GHz 45nm) $196
Custom Core i5 CPUs - 65 Watts - socket 1156 just started has another 3 to 5 years
3)
Intel® CoreTMi7 processor Extreme Edition Mobile (FCPGA8)
i7-920XM (8M L2 cache, 4 Cores, 8 Threads, 2.00 GHz) - $1,054
Intel® CoreTMi7 processor Mobile (FCPGA8)
i7-820QM (8M L2 cache, 4 Cores, 8 Threads, 1.73 GHz) - $546
i7-720QM (6M L2 cache, 4 Cores, 8 Threads, 1.60 GHz) - $364
Mobile Core i7 are expensive - socket m989 has started has another 3 to 5 years life
well, another three to four weeks we will know what apple decides!
:
I still can't decide. I have a legacy matt MBP and always feel disappointed with my screen after seeing the glossy
If it's legacy matte it's not the LED-backlit kind. The LED-backlit anti-glare screen is gorgeous.
My estimate is 2011.
Precisely. I think we will be waiting a long time for quad-core on the MacBook, Mac mini, and MacBook Air.
Same sort of speculation happened before the last update...remember how that turned out. I like these ideas (and I'm a proponent of them), but I don't think it's likely.
I'm confused...Why would one be looking forward to an Arrandale intel chip in 2010 if it's dual-core? We have dual-core MB pros now...isn't the Clarksdale more exciting? And also, what is 'turbo-boost' exactly? Why keep the quad processors running at say a 1.7 clock speed and then be able to boost to 2.8? Shouldn't there be a baseline of about 2.0 Ghz since thats what the current core 2 duos run at in the worst of those chips?
Many people don't think the MacBook Pros will get Clarksfield because of heat / low clock speeds / update "cycle" / etc. Arrandale is still an update over the existing Penryn CPUs.
Turbo Boost allows individual cores to clock up higher than their base clock speed when only those cores are being used, while still being within their TDP (in this case 45 W).
All 4 cores at 2.8 GHz would generate too much heat.
CPU fanboyism is odd enough, but holding on to old CPU fanboy grudges is weirder. It's like being bitter about someone making fun of you for having an AMD 80286, even though you so totally schooled them on Prince of Persia with the extra 0.5 MHz.
Core 2 is pretty solid today unless you're encoding video or rendering. If it's gaming then you're looking at the video card anyways.
I do a lot of virtual machine stuff with Hyper-V and VMware - and the Nehalem really screams compared to Core 2 (and I have the Core 2 Quad Extreme).
The performance gains from nested paging alone were VERY noticeable on VMs.
Core 2 is seriously budget computer stuff now and for low power notebooks. Apple is selling a product at a premium price but without the hardware to back it up. With a lackluster Snow Leopard the more knowledgeable userbase is going to really question buying a new Mac. The older user base is nearly bled dry.
Apple can probably live off of switchers but with Windows 7 lurking and nothing of significance on the Apple side I can't recommend anything but an Apple notebook. Even then it's going to be the Macbook.
Unless someone wants an ExpressCard slot, or more that N USB ports, or a docking station, or an industry standard external monitor connector, or....
And yes, Windows 7 is going to make things very interesting.... When Apple loses whatever advantage they had in the OS UI, and bundle it with over-priced under-spec'd computers -- switching *from* Apple may be the next wave....
Mini-Display Port is making a showing on ATI's 5870/5850 with the Eyefinity system. 6 merged monitors look great if you can afford it.
Otherwise if it's a notebook the new HP Envy 15/17" look very nice and are sporting Clarksfield.
I'm sure I read on Ars or Slashdot that that had had been resolved and they had come to terms for a new agreement on DMI. It was only a few weeks ago. But google isn't finding it?!?!.
Apple has a couple of options the i7 has the PCIe which could spin out the nVidia graphics and build without the need for DMI. The other Apple designs their Own DMI chip with support for all the stuff they want like custom trackpad driver they use for MacBooks. Then get Intel or someone intel is willing to let Fab the DMI chip.
I could see Apple taking this time to split the iMac Family, into iMac and iMac Pro. One gets thinner and cheaper the other more powerful.
Worked for the iPod/nano. and the Powerbook.
They do have the first clear line in the sand to draw and the market share to make it worth while.
nice thought but I doubt it. It would cannibalize Apple's well groomed, minimalism product lineup. There would be overlap and *gasp* options in the line up you are suggesting!
Not that I am really in market personally but I will be very disappointed if the new iMacs are released with dual core Core 2 Proc and TN screens at the 24" no matter how "cheap" they become.
BTW, if you ever convince Apple to stick one of those chips in mini let me know and I'll pick up two!
agree. the new imac revision is expected too soon for these chips and then i would assume that apple would use the smaller die in the next set of imac revisions...ie quad core
You make it sound like Apple only saw these chips today when the press release came out and hasn't had months in not years of prior knowledge, and prototypes to play with to have something ready for the market next week or so.
For all we know this may have been the part of intels roadmap that convinced Apple to switch. Use the cores for the transition then we'll have these puppies ready for when you get the software in order.
