Intel puts freeze on notebook (CPU) Prices, and considers delay of new hardware

Discussion in 'Apple, Inc and Tech Industry' started by Abstract, Feb 10, 2009.

  1. Abstract macrumors Penryn

    Abstract

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Location:
    Location Location Location
    #1
  2. Drumjim85 macrumors 68030

    Drumjim85

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2007
    Location:
    DFW, TX
    #2
    so would this possibly delay new mac models to come out?
     
  3. Amdahl macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2004
    #3
    Old Intel is back

    When AMD is weak, Intel gets lazy.
     
  4. Peace macrumors Core

    Peace

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Location:
    Space--The ONLY Frontier
    #4
  5. gkarris macrumors 604

    gkarris

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2004
    Location:
    "No escape from Reality..."
  6. Abstract thread starter macrumors Penryn

    Abstract

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Location:
    Location Location Location
    #6
    I don't think this is Intel getting lazy. I think they're not selling enough of their current technology to make their money back. Perhaps they just want to sell a few more computers with today's technology to recoup their R&D costs.

    I really don't know, but that's what I'm going to make up. :p
     
  7. iMacmatician macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2008
    #7
    Hmmm. I haven't seen any price drops or speed bumps in the non-high-end mobile CPUs even for the April/May Montevina speed bump.

    I didn't expect updated MacBooks until late spring anyway.

    The upcoming iMac update, as long as it uses those 65 W quad-cores, won't be affected. The low-end iMacs (if they retain dual-core) and the Mac minis could be affected, but probably not since I didn't think the low-end CPUs would have an update or price drop soon anyway.

    As for Nehalem, Apple is likely to use Arandale (Q1 2010) in all the notebook lines (maybe Clarksfield in the high-end MacBook Pro). And I would say the iMac update after the upcoming one will likely use the same "line" of CPU (65 W desktop to 65 W desktop, 45/55 W mobile to 45/55 W mobile).
     
  8. Amdahl macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2004
    #8
    Only a monopolist can respond to low sales by letting product get stale and holding prices high. Intel == Lazy.
     
  9. Abstract thread starter macrumors Penryn

    Abstract

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Location:
    Location Location Location
    #9
    You obviously know a bit more about this than I do, so I'll ask you.

    Apple go with Nvidia's platform for their MB and MBPs, no? There's an onboard 9400M integrated graphics chip on the logic board, so that every logic board used in the MBP has both integrated graphics, and dedicated graphics processing. That's a selling point. However, Intel's Clarkesfield isn't supposed to have any integrated graphics chip, right? Would Apple suddenly tell customers, "Forget dual graphics processors. You don't need them"?
     
  10. iMacmatician macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2008
    #10
    Clarksfield doesn't have an integrated GPU on the actual chip package (unlike Arrandale). I don't think that means the logic board it's on can't have an integrated GPU.

    Even if Apple ended up with just one GPU, they'd just hype up something else.
     
  11. FrenchKheldar macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2006
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    #11
    That's interesting cause remember when Apple was rumored to introduce the nVidia platform in their laptops, many people thought it didn't make sense with Nehalem mobile CPUs coming up not so long after (for which nVidia at least doesn't have the license, but there might even be hardware compatibility issue)... Probably Apple already knew about Intel possible change of plans and decided to go along with nVidia in the end (I'm sure they had several boards and designs in line)... So it gives them a full year of nVidia's platform which is arguably a better offering than the pure Intel solution... Very interesting. Now we just need to see the damn desktops upgraded, but these delays on Intel side means no huge leap (at least for the iMac) in the near-future...
     
  12. iMacmatician macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2008
    #12
    Unless the iMac goes quad-core. Which is one of many reasons why many are wishing for quad-core in the iMacs.

    If the iMac stays mobile dual-core…then brace yourselves for 3.2 (maybe 3.33) GHz in the high-end… :(
     

Share This Page