Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I just read the reviews of new laptops using these Core i7 chips (on Gizmodo) and the battery life they get is AWFUL. Apple would be wise to wait for a better CPU to come along, rather than rush to engineer something with this one in it.... (None of the tested systems even reached 2 hours of run-time on battery.)

It *could* go in an iMac ... but Apple would probably rather save the engineering/R&D money putting one together with it, and just use the next chip instead. iMac users aren't really THAT performance-minded that they'd buy up the new model in huge numbers.

Those have desktop i7s. These new cpus are mobile chips.
 
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.

Three years later than PCs. :eek: That's even longer than usual for Apple. Unpossible.
 
Remember the days when Intel would announce a new chip and simultaneously announce that the new chip would first ship in some model of Mac?

I miss those days.
 
Statistical Addiction

I'm just about ready to cave in and buy a Core2Duo MBP, as I think even IF Apple releases some Core i7 MBPs by year's end they may not be that much faster than a top of the line MBP 3.06 GHz. Apple traditionally doles out their faster processor Macs in a very specific timeline strategy, leaving buyers wanting more over time. It's like do NOT give buyers our best products until late in the cycle, make buyers regret not getting the fastest latest and greatest offerings and keep the whole thing hushed. It's what most sales is all about. Look at how the HDTV industry doles out their "upgrades". Apple and other manufacturers are experts at getting fans (of which I am one) to upgrade over small incremental speed bumps, etc. The world is addicted to stats, however, insignificant as they may be. I've even heard some gal telling her boyfriend the other day that she regretted not getting the next model up... She seemed to be bothered that her bottom white MacBook wasn't quite as desirable as the next model up. Just saying...
 
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.

Actually I had an Athlon 64 during that time.
 
I saw the stats for the HP Envy 15 online:


"The Envy 15 however doesn’t lack anything. In fact, it has pretty much everything a user would want in a high-end notebook: a Core i7 CPU, up to 16GB of DDR3 RAM, room for two SSDs, a 1GB ATI Mobility Radeon HD 4830 GPU, 15.6-inch LED backlit display, a VGA webcam with nightvision, and all of this in a package that’s 1-inch thin and only weighs 5.18-pounds."

If this is correct, HP may well be delivering a knockout punch here, particularly if Apple is peddling Core 2 Duos in it's MBPs still. Sure, some people will never leave OS X... but if those Envy stats are correct and it's at the same price point (or more likely, a bit cheaper) than the MBP, I wouldn't recommend a MBP to anyone really.
 
If Apple decides to put a DUAL-CORE Arrandale Nehalem chip in a Macbook PRO, at the current price tag of 2000$ +, they will be falling way behind. Available oct 15 is the HP Envy 15. Core i7 Clarksfield, 16GB ram max capacity DDR3, Radeon HD 4830. 1799 USD.

I think with the 32nm die shirnk, instead of going with the dual-core Arrandale, we will see quad-core 32nm chips in the MBPs. Especially if the previous speculations on 45W TDP for current Clarksfields are correct, thus a fair conservative guess would put the TDP for a 32nm shrink at around 35-40W, fairly close to the current Penryn MBPs.

http://apcmag.com/hp-envy-notebooks-revealed.htm

Taken directly from HP's News Release on the Envy 13 and Envy 15.
"This lean, mean, dream machine is HP’s fastest consumer notebook. The full metal case features a sleek, subtly crafted, laser-etched metal design on the lid that is repeated on the palmrest. The magnesium alloy casing provides lightweight durability in a 1-inch thin, 5.18-pound package"

So if HP can get a Clarksfield Core i7-720 and 16GB of RAM support in a laptop boasting nearly the same weight and dimensions as the current MBP, why does it take apple 4-6 months longer to put yet another dual core in their MBP which has a significantly higher price tag?
http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/newsroom/press/2009/090915xc.html
 
If Apple decides to put a DUAL-CORE Arrandale Nehalem chip in a Macbook PRO, at the current price tag of 2000$ +, they will be falling way behind. Available oct 15 is the HP Envy 15. Core i7 Clarksfield, 16GB ram max capacity DDR3, Radeon HD 4830. 1799 USD.

I think with the 32nm die shirnk, instead of going with the dual-core Arrandale, we will see quad-core 32nm chips in the MBPs. Especially if the previous speculations on 45W TDP for current Clarksfields are correct, thus a fair conservative guess would put the TDP for a 32nm shrink at around 35-40W, fairly close to the current Penryn MBPs.

http://apcmag.com/hp-envy-notebooks-revealed.htm

Taken directly from HP's News Release on the Envy 13 and Envy 15.
"This lean, mean, dream machine is HP’s fastest consumer notebook. The full metal case features a sleek, subtly crafted, laser-etched metal design on the lid that is repeated on the palmrest. The magnesium alloy casing provides lightweight durability in a 1-inch thin, 5.18-pound package"

So if HP can get a Clarksfield Core i7-720 and 16GB of RAM support in a laptop boasting nearly the same weight and dimensions as the current MBP, why does it take apple 4-6 months longer to put yet another dual core in their MBP which has a significantly higher price tag?
http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/newsroom/press/2009/090915xc.html

Whoa.. :eek:
 
I saw the stats for the HP Envy 15 online:


"The Envy 15 however doesn’t lack anything. In fact, it has pretty much everything a user would want in a high-end notebook: a Core i7 CPU, up to 16GB of DDR3 RAM, room for two SSDs, a 1GB ATI Mobility Radeon HD 4830 GPU, 15.6-inch LED backlit display, a VGA webcam with nightvision, and all of this in a package that’s 1-inch thin and only weighs 5.18-pounds."
:eek: …no way… :eek:

That is insane. And LIGHTER than the MacBook Pro?

The other thing this tells me is what removing the optical drive can do to a laptop. If the optical drive stayed in the Envy 15, I doubt it would have those specs. Drop the optical drive Apple.
 
Any speculations about wheter this new cpu might make it to the new rumored imacs? The way I see it, power usage should be less of a concern in a computer that does not operate on battery.
 
Sadly, if recent history has any bearing, you're more likely to see an Atom CPU in an Imac that's 2mm thinner than the current one - rather than seeing a capable CPU.

THIN! THIN! THIN! Never mind usability.

If the iMac is really headed in that direction, then the only viable option for me would be a Mac Pro, overkill, but better than underkill. I like the form factor of the iMac, and the power of it. I wouldn't mind if it were to be slightly thicker in favor of power. I really don't need a Mac Pro, an iMac with more power would be ideal.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.