Intel Launches Low Cost Quad-Core Mobile Processor and New Core 2 Duos

[aaronsullivan]

Grand Central in Snow Leopard is not going to be impressive for a year or more when products developed using it become more prevalent.

IMO, it SHOULD happen as the multicore dilemma has been around for awhile and devs will hopefully want to finally jump on it as much as possible to give an edge (and an extra buzzword) to their app.

 

[danielwsmithee]

How are people arriving at quad core iMacs when the announcement was for a quad core processor that is slower than the current iMac offerings.

This was just the cheep version of the quad core mobile processor. About a month ago intel started shipping the Qx9300 which is a quad-core 2.53 Ghz processor that would work great for the iMac. My guess is the high end 24" iMac will have this. It disipates 35W so it might be a little too much for the MBP.

 

[CrackedButter]

I would love it if a new 17" MBP was the be all and end all in desktop replacement. It is something to look forward to as long as they don't butcher all the ports. More than 1 firewire port please and keep the 3 usb ones as well Apple!

 

[kastenbrust]

This would be great in the 17" MBP, maybe it has something to do with the delay.

Must be a shoe in for a future iMac as well.

No this wouldnt be great in the 17" MBP, it would be a disaster! The MBP would run about 30% slower with the quad core unless you were using applications SPECIFICALLY designed for quad core cpu's, plus it would overheat more, causing even worse problems, if they put this quad core in the MBP only goons who dont know about processors would buy it thinking 'oh quad core oh quad core must be amazing'

 

[Shasterball]

Who wants an 18.4" notebook. Ridiculous.

 

[Michael73]

I would think that for the average user who uses an iMac for email, websurfing, MS Office (for kids writing school reports) or iWork, the difference between a dual and quad chip would be minimal...a few seconds here and there.

Nevertheless, a quad chip is going to have a considerably longer useful shelf life. I think part of the goodness that comes from buying a Mac is that they can continue to run quite well for a long time with viable OS upgrades as evidenced by people here running machines 3-5 years old and older who are quite happy with the day-to-day performance of their systems. If a person buys into the extended replacement cycle of the hardware (in conjunction with the continued backwards compatibility of the software) then a quad core chip is a no brainer.

 

[danielwsmithee]

No this wouldnt be great in the 17" MBP, it would be a disaster! The MBP would run about 30% slower with the quad core unless you were using applications SPECIFICALLY designed for quad core cpu's, plus it would overheat more, causing even worse problems, if they put this quad core in the MBP only goons who dont know about processors would buy it thinking 'oh quad core oh quad core must be amazing'

The Q9000 can be clocked up to 2.53 GHz. Most 17" MBP users do a lot of video encoding. The quad would be a faster for them.

 

[poundsmack]

sweet

Toss one of those T seriese dual cores in a mac mini and i am sold!

 

[iMacmatician]

Over the weekend, Intel added five new mobile CPUs to their product line. The most notable addition is a Core 2 Quad Q9000 processor which is a quad-core processor that runs at a speed of 2.0GHz and is available for only $348 in 1000 unit lots. The cost of this quad-core chip is significantly less than its earlier counterparts.

I think the TDP is 45 W, which may or may not be too hot for the 17" MacBook Pro (depending on cooling system). Even if it fits, Apple generally does not allow quad-cores to clock lower than dual-cores in the same product line, so we may not see this quad-core. But if the 17" is separated from the 15" in the same way the 15" is separated from the 13", then we could see the quad-core!

Even if Apple does not adopt this new mobile quad-core processor, Intel has also added four new dual-core options that would be suitable for either Apple's notebook or iMac product line. The new processors include a 2.53GHz, two 2.66GHz and a 2.93GHz model. Apple's current notebook offerings top out at 2.8GHz as a build-to-order option. Apple could also use these processors in the expected iMac updates.

Hence the 133 MHz notebook speed bump speculation. The 17" MacBook Pro would most likely (if no quad) use these new CPUs, and maybe the 15" MacBook Pro will have a silent update to them.

If the iMac updates go with these CPUs and not the quad-cores, since 2.93 GHz is lower than 3.07 GHz, Intel may make a custom 3.2 GHz dual-core for the iMac.

The Q9000 can be clocked up to 2.53 GHz. Most 17" MBP users do a lot of video encoding. The quad would be a would be faster for them.

2.53 GHz? By overclocking individual cores? Anyway, I totally agree. Plus the quad-core will (hopefully) help in the long run with Snow Leopard's Grand Central.

Quad-core iMacs, quad-core MacBook Pro, I'm being too optimistic…

 

[tri3limited]

Wouldn't a quad-core iMac be crossing into the Mac Pro market... and as we all know from Apple's low number of products this is what they wish to avoid at all costs.

iMac update might be as simple as mini-display port and a slight processor upgrade.

Realistically the Pro models (Mac Pro and MacBook Pro) should, in my opinion, have optional quad-core. The prosumer models (24" iMac and top of range MacBook) to have decent enough stuff to do the job of a semi-pro and finally the Mini and low-end MacBooks should cater for people after a cheaper Mac.

Lets face it in most cases iMacs are used for an awful lot more than internet and word docs but if you really need all the extra power, which very very few home users do, then you're probably a pro user and a Mac Pro would be more applicable. My only wish is that the MacBook Pro can equate or outshine the iMac as then there really is a defined Pro range and Consumer range of products.

Just my $0.02...

 

[63dot]

If things go like past history, Dell or HP will come out with ultra cheap quad core laptop, followed by Apple which will offer it kind of high, then lower the price eventually.

I am just waiting for Apple to be the "first" to score a model with Intel's latest before Dell, HP, or Acer. We are on the same playing field being in Silicon Valley where HP/Compaq is located and where Dell has a huge R and D plant. Intel, and AMD are in the vicinity. The chips we use against the PC competition, and chipset, and graphics chip set, are the same.

If Apple lowers prices, and people start looking more for long term value in this to be long recession, this could be good for Apple and their long term strategy. Apple has $25 billion in the bank which is amazing considering Microsoft has $70 billion and is a much, much larger company. Apple has the leverage now to knock out the cheap PC market by offering a low priced Mac. My $599 mini Mac certainly gained a whole legion of switchers from the PC side.

 

[kastenbrust]

Apple has $25 billion in the bank which is amazing considering Microsoft has $70 billion and is a much, much larger company

Lets not get carried away, Apple has $15Billion in the bank, of which most is liquid assets so not even really in the bank anyway.

 

[SpinThis!]

Depends on what you are using the Mac for. Video encoding, more cores will be used (if using Compressor, or other multi threaded apps).

Yeh, as a general rule, anytime you need to have a lot of threads (or applications) but don't need as much cpu speed a lower-speed quad core would be better. Clock usually wins out over multiple cores in the speed department—especially in this example, a 1 ghz difference. If you're using a lot of the Pro Apps or applications that actually take advantage of multiple cores, a quad core will probably be better... for example, running GarageBand or Logic with a lot of dsp plugins or lots of tracks, you'd probably see better performance on a quad core at a lower clock than a higher clock dual core.

On the dual core side, iMovie doesn't really take advantage of multiple cores so rendering some video from there will benefit more from a higher clock. Or using handBrake to encode h.264 videos, a 3.0 ghz will handily beat a 2 ghz quad core machine. Some applications simply don't scale well to 4 cores.

Grand Central may help some applications but some applications won't even bother with a Mac OS X only technology (eg handbrake).

 

[Umbongo]

Wouldn't a quad-core iMac be crossing into the Mac Pro market... and as we all know from Apple's low number of products this is what they wish to avoid at all costs.

Not anymore. The Mac Pros will always have many other features as selling points, and the 2009 Mac Pros will be faster than any quad core iMac.

 

[Quartz Extreme]

A quick look here [newegg.com] makes me think the $348 for the quad core isn't such a great deal...

I know they probably use newer technology and all, but is that still really a good deal?

Those are desktop chips...

The $348 is for a quad-core mobile processor.

 

[sbarton]

I would think that for the average user who uses an iMac for email, websurfing, MS Office (for kids writing school reports) or iWork, the difference between a dual and quad chip would be minimal...a few seconds here and there.

Very true. The only thing that could reallly push the existing core2 systems for the majority of home users would be games, and since Apple has abandoned the bulk of the gaming market theres not much need there either.

Oh wait, we could use faster processors to speed up the emulation of DX9 under OpenGL for the cider(bastard) games they throw at us so we can get 30fps on a game that would do 75fps on the same system under XP...but I doubt anyone wants to talk about that situation....

 

[ChrisA]

In snow leopard it will be best to have the 2.0 quad if Grand Central is as good as advertised and developers take advantage of it.[/QUOTE

It will take developers one full cycle to take advantage of the features in snow leopard. Of some of them who work at Apple might pick up on this faster. So we might expect the next version of FCP or Aperture to have better multi-threading but it will take the folks at Adobe a couple YEARS to dothe same. How long did it take Adobe to take advantage of the Intel processor?

 

[saisrujan]

Guess we're losing focus.

Does it really make sense any more to go running after GHz numbers again now that we're approaching the magical 3GHz again? (Don't you think we've all been there done that?)

Get me SSDs, get me faster FSB and RAM (Not sure if Apple's on the cutting edge here).

Didn't someone say - Improve the performance of software. Don't rely on faster hardware to run your slow programs.

Aah well... now that we have faster processors, we'll eat 'em anyway.

 

[-hh]

A quick look here [newegg.com] makes me think the $348 for the quad core isn't such a great deal...

I know they probably use newer technology and all, but is that still really a good deal?

Yes, because you're comparing a low power consumption "mobile applications" CPU to a "heat & power is no object" desktop CPU.

The catch is that the iMac has been using mobile CPUs due to thermal (and noise) management issues of its case design. There was some recent rumbling about some new thermal management stuff, so it is possible that this might possibly change...but personally, I doubt that that's particularly likely.

Wouldn't a quad-core iMac be crossing into the Mac Pro market... and as we all know from Apple's low number of products this is what they wish to avoid at all costs.

Not necessarily - - the Mac Pro has a 1600MHz FSB and gobs of internal data management, which I suspect isn't going to be matched by this new CPU.

...or if it is matched, then it would be versus the 2008 revision Mac Pro, not the 2009 revision.

Realistically the Pro models (Mac Pro and MacBook Pro) should, in my opinion, have optional quad-core. The prosumer models (24" iMac and top of range MacBook) to have decent enough stuff to do the job of a semi-pro and finally the Mini and low-end MacBooks should cater for people after a cheaper Mac.[/qote]

A reasonable assertion, assuming that the change in CPU is a drop-in to an existing motherboard. However, even here we have to tread a bit carefully, as one thing that Apple hasn't done (well, at least not recently) is to build a system that isn't nicely matched. Afterall, system performance is more than just the CPU; one needs to make sure that the other pipes don't get bottlenecked, which ends up with the CPU being strangled for data.

I mention this because one of the things that some cheap PC companies have done is to drop an expensive new CPU onto a cheap old motherboard because they're aware that many PC customers buy based on "what CPU' and then on price. They stop reading specs after the CPU, and that old motherboard is cheap because it has a slower FSB, narrower pipes, etc. The customer ends up with a bottlenecked design that hamstrings the CPU's performance ...but on paper, it looks like it has great specs for bragging rights.


-hh

 

[-hh]

I am just waiting for Apple to be the "first" to score a model with Intel's latest before Dell, HP, or Acer. We are on the same playing field being in Silicon Valley where HP/Compaq is located and where Dell has a huge R and D plant. Intel, and AMD are in the vicinity. The chips we use against the PC competition, and chipset, and graphics chip set, are the same.

IIRC, Apple being "first" with a CPU has happened twice recently.

The MacBook Air's CPU was the most recent.

The one before that was IIRC in the Mac Pro; can't recall which CPU...



-hh

 

[saisrujan]

Afterall, system performance is more than just the CPU; one needs to make sure that the other pipes don't get bottlenecked, which ends up with the CPU being strangled for data.

+1.

Apple has so far been maintaining decent harmony between CPU speed, FSB and RAM. That's the reason I said I'm not too impressed with just a CPU speed-bump - I want faster FSB and RAM.

 

[DaveDaveDave]

No this wouldnt be great in the 17" MBP, it would be a disaster! The MBP would run about 30% slower with the quad core unless you were using applications SPECIFICALLY designed for quad core cpu's, plus it would overheat more, causing even worse problems, if they put this quad core in the MBP only goons who dont know about processors would buy it thinking 'oh quad core oh quad core must be amazing'

Er... and people like me, who max out all their CPU cores perpetually, no matter how many they have. Try running a DAW like Cubase or Logic with 25 tracks and 30 plugins - the multiple cores will help you get back to low latency. Then there's my day job...

I say throw it in as a build-to-order option - and let us goons decide!

Dave

 

[electronboy]

Most enticing...

The possibilty of a quad core laptop causes me to salivate!

 

[danielwsmithee]

Wouldn't a quad-core iMac be crossing into the Mac Pro market... and as we all know from Apple's low number of products this is what they wish to avoid at all costs.

iMac update might be as simple as mini-display port and a slight processor upgrade.

The problem is the iMac is not just competing against the Mac Pro and Mac Mini. It is also the primary machine used for comparison against desktops from other PC manufacturers when people are considering switching. Dell/HP etc are offering quad-core machines at almost half the price of dual-core iMac. People will pay a premium for the iMac's design and software but it still needs to be somewhat competitive on a cost/performance basis.

 

[OriginalMacRat]

Meanwhile, at least one site has suggested that Apple could do the same with a new 17" MacBook Pro model which is due for an update.

Due for an update?

The 17" MacBook Pro was updated recently. It didn't get a new shell, but it was updated.