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 to Launch New Mobile CPUs (Arrandale) in January?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
i think it was proven back in the Pentium 4 days that more GHz does not mean faster performance. AMD's "slower" CPU's outperformed Intel's 4GHz winter heaters
I really need a quad core 15 inch with a e-sata connection built in that can take at least 8gb of Ram and hopefully 16gb. As a photographer that has heavy processing needs the Quad core for raw processing is essential with my raw processing program. I am at the bottleneck really bad here. I'm afraid though this type machine would only go into a 17 inch and IMHO a bad decision if Apple does that. Really need to address the high end professional users.
What if Apple made the chipset, but used Nvidia? Wouldn't that get around the lawsuit? Surely Apple saw the suit brewing, and in looking at Nehalem architecture, had some plan of action? Could the people they hired in the GPU areas be on to this, aside from their ARM work?
Seems like Apple might have enough power to get Intel to at least not shaft Apple for the next generation of laptops? They must know that there graphics currently suck, and that ATI, Nvidia can offer better.
Seems like Apple might have enough power to get Intel to at least not shaft Apple for the next generation of laptops? They must know that there graphics currently suck, and that ATI, Nvidia can offer better.
Im pretty sure that Core i5 will have HT which will allow execution of 4 threads using 2 cores. plus im sure you can get a shed load of ram in the 15 and 17" MBP's
but to be honest mate your using a notebook and really trying to make a spaceship out of a bicycle.
if you so desperately need processing power then look into building a Core i7 desktop and overclock it past 4ghz with a shed load of ram and SSD's and a 5870 Ati GPU.
Sorry but this doesnt make much sense.
there is no problem with Nvidia supplying GPU's to Apple. there is only a problem now with integrated graphics processors which are the sucky performance cheap option that come with the cheap macbooks and MBA.
now 9400M is the best of the bunch but its by no means good enough to game on. i use the 9400m when just browsing and messing about on battery. honestly i dont see any problem with going intel for the integrated GPU because this will probably mean better chipset for the RAM and CPU as nvidias is always slightly slower in doing system work.
now the real issue will be Nvidia because im pretty sure that there GT200 core is almost obselete, they have already slowed production and are moving to a new GPU very soon called "Fermi" i honestly dont know what state their mobile GPU lineup is in but i cant see them having a decent real gpu ready for january.
that is a dual core Core i7.
Quad core i7 already available today. 620M is about $332 and quad core is $364.
the difference: Core i5 based on 32nm and the current Core i7 based on 45nm
The majority of the world can't "afford" to game on laptops. For the kind of hardware you need to play games on very high settings you always usually need cutting edge on laptops, and that costs $$$.
With that said, settings on medium does a Macbook with the 9400 just fine. It can run virtually any game with high frames in medium. Which is admirable. It actually even does better in Windows using bootcamp, and compares to similarly equipped Windows based laptops.
"Gamers" never are happy with the way things are in the laptop world. Usually because how quick technology evolves. Hardware always trumps hardware in the computer world. This is coming from someone who has been using computers for over a decade. Windows computers at that.
It's always a headache to game on a laptop, simply because a newer and badder Crysis type game or Doom3 comes out every 6-8 months and ups the ante in the hardware game.
That saying, I say "game" on an xBox. Or similar system. Reasons being (and you can't argue these):
1) The system will last you for a few years and not get out dated.
2) You will have a plethora of games to choose from. Hundreds.
3) Peripherals a-plenty.
4) Nice multiplayer gaming. I.E. Cod MW4 on 360Live.
5) Not terribly expensive to game this way, you can always find bargains.
I just bought Devil May Cry 4 (the Special Limited Edition in the metal
box), Star Wars: The Force Unleashed, Lego Batman, all for 45$, brand
new from GameCrazy.
6) You can play in HD and enjoy some nice shaders and resolutions. Not
quite as high as a computer monitor, but come on, you know 360 looks
nice in HD.
7) Buy games from pawn shops for 5$ each even.
Then on your mobile laptop, as long as it is mid-high range, you can still
game lightly and play 80% of current games in mid-high settings. If you "try" to game on laptops, I laugh in your general direction. Your hardware will be bested always.
I am by no means an Apple only fanboy, or Microsoft fanboy. I am simply telling it how it is. Sure, don't listen to me, go buy a 3,000$ laptop and tell
me if you can run games on very high with AA on it in 2 years.
I'll still be gaming on my Xbox when you go through your hardware woes.
If more people thought like this, they would save themselves so much money! Buy an 800$ laptop, and a 200$ game system every few years.
Works like a charm!
So I say wait, Apple still may do everyone kindly and include a decent
GPU in it's quaddies. Something to last 2-3 years for some light gaming.
**Cut and paste this article as needed if you are dealing with hardcore gamers, being punks. : ) ***
Been there with the Mac Pro but I need to be mobile and deliver files to clients. Plus I shoot tethered to the MBP, this is high end needs for very large high end Medium Format Digital backs. From 31 mpx to 60 mpx backs. Big files that need a lot of horsepower to process. These are Professional needs that run the gamut in my industry for many Pro shooters. Apple needs to address this market badly.
Watch Apple pull a fast one on your predictions he heIt's only a hobby.
I expect the 13/15" models to stick with a 2 core, 4 thread (2C/4T) Core i3/i5 Arrandale configuration. We honestly don't know what Apple will do without an nVidia IGP. We've been going on for months about it in the main Arrandale thread.
The 17" MacBook Pro is in real need of a quad core option though. Battery life be damned.
There's the chance to use the slower low voltage components as well.
The strange thing being that the Low Voltage (25W) and Ultra Low Voltage (18W) parts get the Core i7 moniker while being slower at base and in Turbo.
!You only know what the press releases and that's it! Some people know.
here are some benchmarks for the high end Mobile Core i7 Quad core
http://hothardware.com/Articles/Intel-Core-i7-Mobile-Processor-Launch-Review/?page=6
Yah no kidding. If you would have been paying attention to the "context"
of the post you would have understood where I was coming from.
I was merely saying there is always that "better" game coming out.
"Dude."
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/laptops/2009/11/13/intel-core-i7-mobile-720qm-benchmarked/1
More like benchmark.
I haven't seen anything as demanding since then. The 6-8 month window as proposed before seems a little out of step.
What a load of fluff.
i have a high end C2D PC running a 4870X2 and it owns every game.
my macbook pro runs new games on medium settings with the 9600GT so dont give me the ******** the 9400m is ok cus its not there is no way the 9400m runs any new 3d game apart from WoW and then only at about 25fps.
i use my laptop to play games when im not at my house and the MBP has the power right now but the newer one will hopefully be even better.
i also own Ps3 and an Xbox 360 so i know what consoles cost and they are weak for playing alot of games especially FPS and RTS.
why would anyone cut as paste that crap - your experience is weak at best, having clocked probably hundreds of hours on the MBP gaming with windows installed i can say that it handles them well you just cant max the settings out like i can on my home pc.
experience over a decade? lol give me a break.
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/laptops/2009/11/13/intel-core-i7-mobile-720qm-benchmarked/1
More like benchmark.
I haven't seen anything as demanding since then. The 6-8 month window as proposed before seems a little out of step.
Exactly, the point is Apple has a "backlog" to meet when it comes to graphics performance, if you like - most of it's machines now can't even call themselves relevant in the short term, they actually ship already out of date.
It's particularly insane when you look at the iMac. There's literally no need for it to be as thin as it is. An extra half an inch or so would allow desktop quality GPUs in there at the same price and not a single customer would care about the added thickness.
It's bad enough on the MBP side where we pay high end prices for low end GPUs but wow, to be an iMac owner..
i dont think that apple have really been into the high end professional market. the unibody macbooks have been the best ones they have ever made the rest was crap, powerbook be dammed.
i dont see how you can possibly max out a dual core with HT and 4-8gb of ram with anything to do with photos. - maybe your programs are single threaded and thats why they dont run fast.
the only thing that i know of that will swamp a macbook pro is video encoding and number crunching.
explain how photos will do this?
owning an apple desktop in any form is like playing football with both legs tied together.
frustrating, painful and extremely crippled.
love OSX on my MBP but would i balls use it for my main PC
Also, HP has implemented quad cores into a select line of their notebooks... but that's not the biggest surprise. It seems that they are shameless ripoffs of Macbook Pros... they even ripped off the pricing!!!
They ripped off:
1. keyboard
2. thinness
3. unibody
need i say more?
Here's the link for those of you who want to see:
http://www.shopping.hp.com/webapp/s...pid=in_R329_prodexp/hhoslp/psg/notebooks/ENVY
HP actually named that line Envy...how telling...how gross...and at those prices, why be left without OSX and still better industrial design.
If pricing of alleged new Arrandale i-series is not too much higher than todays C2D's (as illustrated in several posts here, TY), is there any chance Apple would put one of the new chips into the Mac Mini?
I know that the dear Mac mini had not been getting much of the hardware development push for a while, but maybe that has changed now, and perhaps we could see it getting speed and chip boosts more frequently now?
Or since it is their low price machine, am I hoping for too much...
I know that the dear Mac mini had not been getting much of the hardware development push for a while, but maybe that has changed now, and perhaps we could see it getting speed and chip boosts more frequently now?
Or since it is their low price machine, am I hoping for too much...
I agree that Apple's (someone at Apple
) obsession with THIN-ness is hampering what they can realistically put into the hardware. Just when one (OK... me...) thinks that the next generation Mac might really get to take advantage of newer more powerful hardware, Apple decides to make the machines thinner instead! So the next gen gets only a little more processing power, with all the engineering (and our purchase cash) going to make the machine stay cool enough to live in a thinner case.
When I use my iMac, I look at the Front of the machine, I look/read/watch the display LCD of the iMac. I never sit off to the side staring at how 'wonderfully thin' or 'horribly thick' it is
I'd be happier with a more powerful iMac in a case that was an inch thicker which allowed more air and more desktop power. And with a Mac mini that was maybe a half-inch or inch or so bigger (taller? wider?) which also would allow it to use more powerful components.
Sigh.
Judging by the general responses on MR though, you're in the minority in that regardWhen I use my iMac, I look at the Front of the machine, I look/read/watch the display LCD of the iMac. I never sit off to the side staring at how 'wonderfully thin' or 'horribly thick' it is
Most would rather have Apple make the machines as aesthetically pleasing as possible, even at the cost of greater performance Ugh oh, those are dangerous words you're muttering regarding the Mac Mini. It almost sounds like, *gasp*, the headless Mac that a few wish would be created, but which the majority say would hurt Apple's bottom line too much. Be careful - you might get lynchedbeginnersview said: