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

[commander.data]

Well all mobile quad cores have a 45W TDP which means they won't be showing up in the MacBook Pro since the MBP has never used 45W TDP chips. Which is why the max BTO on the 15" MBP is 2.8GHz since at the time that was Intel's highest clocked chip while still maintaining a 35W TDP. Apple will probably use one of the new 2.66GHz Core 2 Duo in the 17" Unibody MBP with the 2.93GHz as BTO.

Personally, my biggest complaint about Apple CPU choices for the MacBook Pro is that they use 3MB L2 cache chips in the product line. The MBP really should stick exclusively to 6MB L2 cache chips.

And the mobile quad cores are all too slow and too expensive for the iMac. Which I guess really means Apple needs to move the iMac over to the upcoming 65W TDP desktop quad cores.

 

[iMacmatician]

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 lot of pro features that the iMac lacks, and it is also overkill for many.

Concerning just the CPU, the fastest 65 W quad-core, 2.83 GHz (which may be standard on the top 24" iMac or optional), is a hair faster in GHz than the lowest Mac Pro quad-core, 2.8 GHz, and falls behind in FSB speed (1067 MHz vs. 1600 MHz), so it may actually be slower. And the Nehalem update will put the Mac Pro well ahead of the iMac.

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.

I can see it now. iLife '09 fully optimized for multi-core.

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.

At least with the iMac's possible transition to 65 W quad-core, the desktop CPUs are a lot cheaper than equivalent-GHz mobile CPUs, which means that Apple could give a double benefit by delivering faster CPUs and (significantly) better other components for the same prices.

Personally, my biggest complaint about Apple CPU choices for the MacBook Pro is that they use 3MB L2 cache chips in the product line. The MBP really should stick exclusively to 6MB L2 cache chips.

Totally agreed there. Keep the MacBooks to 3 MB L2 cache if you want, but leave all the MacBook Pros at 6 MB!

The most we can hope for is a 133 MHz speed bump for the MBPs…still with 3 MB L2 cache on the entry-level model.

 

[Michael73]

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 hardly and anyone who thinks so has clearly had a poor sales experience. I mean aside from the obvious like this one has a built-in screen and this doesn't, the entire guts are different and then there's the expandability part like, "Hey, how 'bout 8 RAM slots, places for 4 hard drives and 4 video cards, RAID card, etc."

I may get hammered for the following statement, but the MP attracts 3 distinct buyers:

• Professional Users (and those who think they are Professional Users)
• Those who are bleeding edge and want the latest and greatest (but don't need the horsepower and are just looking for bragging rights)
• Those who don't the horsepower but want to future-proof themselves

I think there is a completely different list for iMac buyers. Even with a quad-core the iMac while useful life lengthening cannot compete with the future-proofing capabilities of the MacPro. The integrated monitor alone helps along its obsolecense. I mean, think back 3-5 years ago and where LCD technology was and we haven't gotten to the innerds.

 

[kastenbrust]

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

because overclocking a quad core in a macbook pro would be a clever idea, let me think about that, ummm no! not unless it has liquid nitrogen cooling! the new unibody's already run at around 90C so using all 4 cores, including being overclocked, HAHAHAHA

 

[KingYaba]

Quad Core 17" sounds neat. Any worries about heat?

 

[CrackedButter]

Due for an update?

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

Hardly, when you consider the update the other 2 laptops received.

 

[MM2270]

traditionally, unless you are doing very specific multi-core optimized tasks, it's dual 3.0ghz.

But... Snow Leopard could change that equation a bit if all the promises are true and developers take advantage of it.

arn

I was thinking that too. Generally, under Leopard as it exists now, I'd want the fast dual core chip, but if Snow Leopard is optimized for quad core chips, a quad 2.0 Mac could be quite fast.
Still, outside of the OS, other apps have to be optimized to take advantage of it as well to really see the benefit, so it might be a good long term investment, not necessarily instant gratification.

 

[iMacmatician]

because overclocking a quad core in a macbook pro would be a clever idea, let me think about that, ummm no! not unless it has liquid nitrogen cooling! the new unibody's already run at around 90C so using all 4 cores, including being overclocked, HAHAHAHA

What overclocking?

Quad Core 17" sounds neat. Any worries about heat?

Existing mobile CPUs put out 35 W. The quad-core mobile CPUs put out 45 W, which may be too hot for the MacBook Pro.

(As an aside, maybe the quad-core could run at 2.0 GHz (45 W) with the 9400M and at a lower speed (≈35 W) with the 9600M GT.)

 

[diamond.g]

Could all of this be why Apple is looking into liquid cooling again? Especially for the iMac. I would think Apple would want to find a way to be able to at least use an i920 in the iMac. Would give them something special to crow about.

 

[TopGear300]

MacBook???

So are any of these going into the macbooks? And anytime soon?

 

[-hh]

I may get hammered for the following statement, but the MP attracts 3 distinct buyers:

• Professional Users (and those who think they are Professional Users)
• Those who are bleeding edge and want the latest and greatest (but don't need the horsepower and are just looking for bragging rights)
• Those who don't the horsepower but want to future-proof themselves

As a "waiting for Nehalem before I buy a Mac Pro to replace my G5 PowerMac" demographic buyer....

(no, this is not a hammering)

...I'd say that you're mostly on track, with a minor twist (at least for myself) for the third buyer that you list.

I'm looking for a Mac Pro to future-proof myself to a degree, but also because I know that no matter how much horsepower I buy, I'll "eventually" use it all.

Today, I consider my G5 to be pretty slow, but its not because the machine has gotten slower, but I'm asking it to do more and more as my needs have grown. As such, its no longer sprinting under a light load, but lumbering along because its carrying the weight of the world.

So what has changed? Me. I've moved from a ~0.3MP camera to a 4MP camera ... then to an 8MP camera ... and I'm looking now at the 21MP Canon 5Dmk2. This means that I'm about to be asking my machine to process files that are 70x bigger/heavier from a "computational demands" perspective than when it was new. Gosh, its no wonder that it seems to have become a tad slow.

As such, I'll probably buy (again) the middle offering in the Mac Tower lineup, as the top is overly expensive because of the law of diminishing returns for performance that I don't utterly have to have today, and the bottom often has something that hamstrings it in some way. It will run around $3K, but the way that I look at it, that's only $500/year.

And insofar as my current G5? Its going to be re-purposed as a Server and its ~3TB of storage will be an alternative to buying a time capsule or a multi-bay NAS.


-hh

 

[kastenbrust]

Could all of this be why Apple is looking into liquid cooling again? Especially for the iMac. I would think Apple would want to find a way to be able to at least use an i920 in the iMac. Would give them something special to crow about.

i was wondering that too, they did file a patent about a year ago for a high pressure minature water cooling system for notebooks, but nothing was heard of it since, and i think that if the quad core cpu's were put into the macbook pro range when it needs updating again in about a year then this would fit with apples 2 year development to sale history, only speculation though.

 

[iMacmatician]

Could all of this be why Apple is looking into liquid cooling again? Especially for the iMac. I would think Apple would want to find a way to be able to at least use an i920 in the iMac. Would give them something special to crow about.

The iMac would somehow have to support a CPU with over double the TDP of the current 3.07 GHz dual-core.

So are any of these going into the macbooks? And anytime soon?

Probably not. The next update is likely to be in the spring with another 133 MHz speed bump.

 

[TopGear300]

will the macbooks get the quad cores or just the dual cores... probablly just the dual cores right?

 

[viperguy]

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

There are many available already..

at the competition

 

[bug67]

This would be awesome if Apple would actually opt in. Unfortunately, Apple doesn't seem concerned these days with competing with other computer companies. Cell phones seem to be their main business these days.

Other computer companies update their products on a regular basis and stay competitive. Where's my 17" + entertainment notebook with huge amounts of hard drive space, 4 + gigs of ram, blue ray drive and quad core processors? HP and Sony have these for thousands less than what Apple would charge for comparable machines. Ok, maybe not the quads but they do have the latest dual cores. The HPs are available with a quad core I believe. Apple can't even update but once every year? If that? Pfft!

 

[diamond.g]

The iMac would somehow have to support a CPU with over double the TDP of the current 3.07 GHz dual-core.

Hmm, I was just thinking of a way to utilize heatpipes (filled with say silver or some high heat conductor and maybe a peltier cooler.

Bah oh well. Yes the i920 has a killer TDP, but we all trust Apple is awesome enough to fit one in an iMac right? Right?

 

[commander.data]

Hmm, I was just thinking of a way to utilize heatpipes (filled with say silver or some high heat conductor and maybe a peltier cooler.

Bah oh well. Yes the i920 has a killer TDP, but we all trust Apple is awesome enough to fit one in an iMac right? Right?

Nehalem uses a completely different platform than FSB based processors. There isn't much point is custom designing an iMac just to put in the i920 and then a separate iMac design for FSB processors. And there's no way Apple can base an entire product line on a single processor.

Besides, for most things Nehalem doesn't offer much advantage over Penryn. Admittedly, rendering is a lot faster, but still no match for the dual quad cores in the Mac Pro. And it's not like Intel intends Nehalem to directly replace Penryn yet so Apple isn't really behind the times. Nehalem will continue to be a niche in desktops with the Core i7 until the mainstream Core i5 (only dual channel DDR3, northbridge integrated, etc.) comes and pushes Penryn out.

 

[ChrisA]

And insofar as my current G5? Its going to be re-purposed as a Server and its ~3TB of storage will be an alternative to buying a time capsule or a multi-bay NAS.

I used to do this too but then I worked out some math

Electric power cost $0.20 per KWH. The G5 uses (at least) 0.15 KW so it costs $0.03 per hour to run. Over a three year lifetime it costs about $780 to run and that's if you never never run air conditioning and never power up the monitor using it purely as a file server.

It might be cheaper over all to buy a RAID enclosure.

 

[hiimamac]

Hmm… Quad core at 2.0 GHz or dual core at 2.93 GHz. Not sure which Apple will use. Maybe both, w/ one as BTO. But I think I'll wait until Nehalem comes to the Mac before buying a new Mac.

That would mean Apple could discount their units to make them more price competitive, and sell them for what their worth.

Wait, oh, it's Apple, the same company that released the MB and MBP using the same body, technique and charges $700 for 2 more inches, express slot and firewire 800 only. Never mind.

 

[Eidorian]

Apple really missed the boat back in 2006 by not going with Conroe and building the iMac to that specification.

With the 65W LGA775 and the lower priced mobile Q9xxx Series which has been out since earlier this year they have a lot of options.

I'm still prepared to be disappointed.

 

[macjiro]

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.

This is right. Apple will need to do this cause this is the first time in their entire history where the economy is turning towards more economic depression. There will be a Switch....back. Its just a reality. You can't do the same things you did in recent years. If they could reinvent the MacMini/Imac into a revolutionary product and price package, it could bring in even more new users.

 

[relimw]

Yum, quad-core mini/AppleTV, I mean really, you know this is where they're going to take it...

 

[AidenShaw]

I used to do this too but then I worked out some math

Electric power cost $0.20 per KWH. The G5 uses (at least) 0.15 KW so it costs $0.03 per hour to run. Over a three year lifetime it costs about $780 to run and that's if you never never run air conditioning and never power up the monitor using it purely as a file server.

Actually, in the Bay area I'm paying $0.41/KWH.

That's why I got the HP MediaSmart Windows Home Server - at average usage 0.015 KW it adds up...

 

[SFStateStudent]

+1 My Mac Pro 3.0 definitely carries the load when it comes to everything my MacBook Air cannot handle, but I've never used it to its fullest capabilities. So I can agree with several posters that it could be overkill for some users/owners...