Intel to Launch New Mobile CPUs (Arrandale) in January?

[wallaby]

Welcome to the club! You are not alone...

For those of us with relatively old Macs, however, all these new releases are more of a curiosity rather than a regret.

I use the shît out of my 2007 MBP, and honestly I don't need a new computer to do the work I currently do (design with CS4, some video editing). However, it is kind of exciting to wonder what will be available by the time I can afford a new Mac. Already the 15" MBPs have an anti-glare option… maybe in a couple years we'll also have USB3 standard, an HDMI port, and an eSATA or FW3200 port.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

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?

Capture One is is not really Ram based but Core Based unlike photoshop which is a more Ram based program. C1 depends more on the Cores than anything else. When i process I am maxed out the whole time on the 2 cores. Quad core and 8 core Mac Pros besides other factors are much faster because of the extra cores to process faster. It's really the way some programs are written and what they base the horsepower on. Also these MBP for Pro use really need the e-sata stuff and taking that express port out was the dumbest bloody idea Apple ever made. Luckily with my 15 in 2.93 I have that but Apple decided to remove that for a SD card slot. Consumer rules here, not professional use we need those kinds of external speed in our backup drives and storage drives

 

[mosx]

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 $$$.

False. Windows notebook PCs with Core i7s and GeForce GT 200M series GPUs can be had for about the same price as the entry MacBook "Pro". Some even have a GeForce GTX.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834220566 look at what you get for $50 less than a MacBook. That system is MORE than good enough to play modern games at better settings and higher resolutions than the current consoles. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834220639 $50 more than the entry 13" MacBook Pro and it will spin circles around modern consoles and the entire MacBook Pro line, in terms of gaming/graphics/GPGPU performance.

Obviously neither one of those have a Core i7, but they're still fast Core 2 Duos.

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.

Those two laptops I linked to cost much less than 15" MacBook Pros and will run any modern game at high settings.

If you "try" to game on laptops, I laugh in your general direction. Your hardware will be bested always.

Meanwhile, an entire market segment laughs in your general direction because of your misconceptions.

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.

First of all, you don't need to buy a $3,000 laptop to play games. That second system I linked to, for just $1,249, will run circles around the Xbox360.

Sure, two years from now it won't be running new games at the highest settings. But you know what? The Xbox360 and Playstation 3 are already not running games at resolutions as high as they used to. Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 only runs at 600p. The consoles then scale that image up to 720p or 1080p. That second laptop I linked to should run the game at true 1080p at high settings at the same frame-rate as the consoles. Two years from now, that second $1,249 laptop will still be running games at higher settings than the current consoles are capable of.

 

[pandamonia]

False. Windows notebook PCs with Core i7s and GeForce GT 200M series GPUs can be had for about the same price as the entry MacBook "Pro". Some even have a GeForce GTX.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834220566 look at what you get for $50 less than a MacBook. That system is MORE than good enough to play modern games at better settings and higher resolutions than the current consoles. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834220639 $50 more than the entry 13" MacBook Pro and it will spin circles around modern consoles and the entire MacBook Pro line, in terms of gaming/graphics/GPGPU performance.

Obviously neither one of those have a Core i7, but they're still fast Core 2 Duos.



Those two laptops I linked to cost much less than 15" MacBook Pros and will run any modern game at high settings.



Meanwhile, an entire market segment laughs in your general direction because of your misconceptions.



First of all, you don't need to buy a $3,000 laptop to play games. That second system I linked to, for just $1,249, will run circles around the Xbox360.

Sure, two years from now it won't be running new games at the highest settings. But you know what? The Xbox360 and Playstation 3 are already not running games at resolutions as high as they used to. Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 only runs at 600p. The consoles then scale that image up to 720p or 1080p. That second laptop I linked to should run the game at true 1080p at high settings at the same frame-rate as the consoles. Two years from now, that second $1,249 laptop will still be running games at higher settings than the current consoles are capable of.

GOOD POST!.

the one thing i will say though is that the MBP is the best balanced notebook going... Performance and battery and size and weight. just excelent. Best thing i bought for years

 

[LesQQmorePewPew]

False. Windows notebook PCs with Core i7s and GeForce GT 200M series GPUs can be had for about the same price as the entry MacBook "Pro". Some even have a GeForce GTX.

...

This forum deeply lacks rational posters like you

 

[robcatto]

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

Yes I know about clarksfield, it seems as though there is name conflict between an the 620m arrandale i7 and the clarksfield i7.

I may have been unclear in my previous post

The i7 processor I was reffering to is the one mentioned here
http://www.fudzilla.com/content/view/15175/41/

dual core arrandale i7 - 2.66ghz - HT - turbo boost - 35w TDP - 32nm

 

[flottenheimer]

A jan/feb release would fit my girlfriends need for a new 13" MacBook Pro perfectly..

 

[MorphingDragon]

This forum deeply lacks rational posters like you

Maybe you should wait around a little while before making judgements on people.

 

[Puqq]

Maybe you should wait around a little while before making judgements on people.

No, he is right. People here tend to be too fanatic about the Mac. OK, Macs are cool, but Win 7 is nice OS as well and there are really nice laptops "on the other side" as well... Generally people here seem to ignore those.

 

[MorphingDragon]

No, he is right. People here tend to be too fanatic about the Mac. OK, Macs are cool, but Win 7 is nice OS as well and there are really nice laptops "on the other side" as well... Generally people here seem to ignore those.

1 post a person does not make.

 

[BradMacPro]

Yes I know about clarksfield, it seems as though there is name conflict between an the 620m arrandale i7 and the clarksfield i7.

I may have been unclear in my previous post

The i7 processor I was reffering to is the one mentioned here
http://www.fudzilla.com/content/view/15175/41/

dual core arrandale i7 - 2.66ghz - HT - turbo boost - 35w TDP - 32nm

The 32nm based Westmere family includes the Arrandale series, with the best being the Core i7-620M at 2.66 GHz, (turbo boosted to 3.33 GHz) This has the same 35 Watts TDP Apple is using now. These started production 2 months ago. The unit includes a 45 nm GPU on the die. Apple could use this instead of the nvidia 9400M and still use some discrete GPU for better performance like the do with today's models. Based on the time it took for the iMac's 95W Core i7 processor to move from start of production to shipping, then we can hope that updated MacBook Pro models using it could ship just in time for Christmas. The chips mentioned in the January ship date article do not include the i7-620M. Apple has gotten new Intel chips a whole month before the rest of the industry.

Also if you follow that link to the HP laptops, none use the i7-620M. Please check the details first folks.

 

[Shanpdx]

currently the CPU shipping in HP are i7 - 720QM - quad core models - $364 in 1K quantity - 45 Watts TDP - lower battery hours compared to 7 hours

like the above poster said apple might use i7 - 620M dual cores in the $2299 15"and $2499 17" instead of Quad Cores (Quad Cores being 45 Watts TDP)

but the price difference is very narrow between 620M Dual Core ($332) vs 720QM Quad Core ($364) with GPU disabled the price might be even lower.

 

[scotteh]

which discrete gpu's could apple conceivably use in their new MBP models??
ati;s? if so which ones? more nvidia? please excuse my ignorance...

 

[iMacmatician]

No, he is right.

He always is.

People here tend to be too fanatic about the Mac.

That may be true for some people but from whom do all the complaints after a product release come from?

 

[iMacmatician]

delete

 

[Dontdothat317]

Any of these processors in a Macbook Pro would be crap. MBP needs corei7.

For phuks sake, if i pay 2500 for a laptop, I want a quad core, a FAST graphics card (even the 9600m GT was a weak upgrade) especially with the dual integrated graphics for power saving.

Everyone who hasn't done so needs to google HP Envy 15. Corei7, up to 16GB of ram, and it is lighter than the macbook pro, and less expensive by a long shot. Hackintosh time?

 

[pandamonia]

Any of these processors in a Macbook Pro would be crap. MBP needs corei7.

For phuks sake, if i pay 2500 for a laptop, I want a quad core, a FAST graphics card (even the 9600m GT was a weak upgrade) especially with the dual integrated graphics for power saving.

Everyone who hasn't done so needs to google HP Envy 15. Corei7, up to 16GB of ram, and it is lighter than the macbook pro, and less expensive by a long shot. Hackintosh time?

i disagree with you.

a macbook pro does not need a quad core cpu for fux sake. i dont even have one in my desktop and i do far more with that. quadcores are limited on the up side so you get 4 cores slower than 2 fast ones. plus an application needs more threads to be able to use them. the new arandale has 2 cores and HT which is 4 virtual cores, you do NOT need more than this. plus turbo boost can boost one core much faster than the other cores can do together.

i want 8hours battery when messing about not 3.

now for the GPU its all about size and heat. if you look at apples other hardware all their GPU's suck.

its apples fault no question. i agree with you on this one

 

[iMacmatician]

Everyone who hasn't done so needs to google HP Envy 15. Corei7, up to 16GB of ram, and it is lighter than the macbook pro, and less expensive by a long shot. Hackintosh time?

MacBook Pro with no optical drive time. Unless that happens the MacBook Pro won't be anywhere near the Envy in performance.

a macbook pro does not need a quad core cpu for fux sake. i dont even have one in my desktop and i do far more with that. quadcores are limited on the up side so you get 4 cores slower than 2 fast ones. plus an application needs more threads to be able to use them. the new arandale has 2 cores and HT which is 4 virtual cores, you do NOT need more than this. plus turbo boost can boost one core much faster than the other cores can do together.

I think a MacBook "Pro" should have quad-core for those high-performance tasks that can use 4 cores and 8 threads.

i want 8hours battery when messing about not 3.

I want high performance when video encoding. More encoding time means more battery life used too.

 

[pandamonia]

MacBook Pro with no optical drive time. Unless that happens the MacBook Pro won't be anywhere near the Envy in performance.

I think a MacBook "Pro" should have quad-core for those high-performance tasks that can use 4 cores and 8 threads.

I want high performance when video encoding. More encoding time means more battery life used too.

i agree with you on the DVD drive 100%, its wasted space and tbh for the amount of times i used the drive i could live with an external any day. i mean who watches DVD's any more? - games now also come on steam and no physical disk required!

i still disagree on the quad core. look at ths speeds of the quad core. 1.63ghz and 1.72 ghz SLOW! dual core will run at 2.6+ turbo boosted beyond 3ghz.

if you want to do video encoding then you should be looking into a CUDA encoder that uses the gpu it will likely be twice as fast as CPU encoding.

quad core laptop is stupid especialy macbook pro's i think people could live with them in the 17" but tbh i really dont want one in the 15

 

[iMacmatician]

i agree with you on the DVD drive 100%, its wasted space and tbh for the amount of times i used the drive i could live with an external any day. i mean who watches DVD's any more? - games now also come on steam and no physical disk required!

I watch DVDs every now and then and in those cases I would be happy to take an external optical drive with me.

i still disagree on the quad core. look at ths speeds of the quad core. 1.63ghz and 1.72 ghz SLOW! dual core will run at 2.6+ turbo boosted beyond 3ghz.

They can Turbo to ~2.4 GHz for dual-core and 2.8/3.07 GHz I think for single core. And the other problem with Arrandale is that the initial versions will be low clocked and by Q3 2010 when the higher-clocked ones come out, I wouldn't be surprised if we saw a bump for the Clarksfields. On the other hand Arrandales are cheaper.

 

[polaris20]

I'd like a MBP 13" with a 9400m, Core i7, and two SSD drives, no optical. I don't really care about graphics performance beyond the 9400m (with the possible exception of GPU accelerated apps, which haven't materialized too much yet), and am much more concerned about portability+power.

An i7 machine that's 4.5 pounds with 8GB of RAM that can run 6 virtual machines simultaneously is more advantageous to me than being able to run the latest and greatest game. That's probably because I do work on my machine, instead of using it as a home entertainment device, as others here apparently do.

 

[danvdr]

No, he is right. People here tend to be too fanatic about the Mac. OK, Macs are cool, but Win 7 is nice OS as well and there are really nice laptops "on the other side" as well... Generally people here seem to ignore those.

Strange that that would occur on site called MacRumors

 

[polaris20]

Strange that that would occur on site called MacRumors

well the other problem is that a select few people go in the entirely opposite direction as the mac fanboy faithful, in that they despise Apple/OS X.

Very few people here like both (or all 3) Windows 7, OS X, and Linux. I do, but I'm in the minority I think.

 

[LesQQmorePewPew]

well the other problem is that a select few people go in the entirely opposite direction as the mac fanboy faithful, in that they despise Apple/OS X.

Very few people here like both (or all 3) Windows 7, OS X, and Linux. I do, but I'm in the minority I think.

I'm with you here. a product is a product, i'll use whatever is most suitable for me. brand loyalty is just a ridiculous idea

 

[Trojita]

Getting rid of a disc drive to make room for a better graphics solution sounds oddly like a good idea. Apple could include a slim external cd drive to connect via usb, you could easily keep it in your e-mail bag and only use when you need to. Or they could charge extra for it and use proprietary connectors like we know apple likes to use

As much as I would like for it to happen, I doubt that apple would include an hdmi port on their mbp. They like display port too much..... even though there is hardly anything that uses it.