Intel will Unleash 32-nm Processors on January 7th

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
49,611
10,912
https://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogodarkd.png

Intel held a brief press conference today previewing some of the chips that they will be release at the Consumer Electronics Show (CES) in January. Intel will release the first 32-nm chips across the Core i3, i5 and i7 brands.
The “Arrandale” and “Grantdale” processors are all shipping now and will begin appearing in new computers in early 2010. Intel has invested more than $7 billion in the United States in 2009 on four factories used to build the 32-nm products.
The mobile version of these chips have been commonly referred to as Arrandale and have been expected to be used in future MacBook Pro updates. Previous leaks have indicated that the new processors will run as high as 2.66GHz, though Intel did not officially confirm any of those details today.

Intel did demo the chips in several systems showing off the graphics capabilities of the chip as well as boasting about the new Hyper Threading and Turbo Boost features. While there had been some unconfirmed rumors about Apple skipping this set of processors, most continue to expect that Apple will adopt these processors in the next MacBook Pro.

CES kicks off on January 7th, and for the first time in many years, CES will not be competing for headlines with Macworld Expo. Macworld has been moved to February 9th-13th this year and is struggling to find its place after Apple's decision to stop attending the event.

Article Link: Intel will Unleash 32-nm Processors on January 7th
 

cmaier

macrumors P6
Jul 25, 2007
18,951
18,049
California
wow i remember when 120nm was a big deal!
120nm is still a big deal.

Don't be fooled by these kids and their tiny lithography.

I wonder just how much longer these the battery time will be with these chips. I can't wait for a benchmark, so I can lament even more over my 3 hour battery life!
Unless Intel figured out a way to cut leakage (which increases as feature size decreases), battery life may not be much improved.
 

Eidorian

macrumors Penryn
Mar 23, 2005
29,085
291
Indianapolis
Intel finally seems to have nailed down HD playback on their IGPs this time around but the 785G-like gaming performance and limited GPGPU are a let down. Of course we're not here to be amazed by the performance of an Intel GMA product. Intel has also shut nVidia out of making chipsets for Nehalem/Westmere even after they announced MCP99 for Q1 2010.

Is Apple going all discrete once again on it's even smaller boards or are we going to have to deal with Intel's GMA showing up again on our Macs? The 9400M G was a great venture but right now it's dead end beyond Core 2.

Arrandale isn't a quad core component either and Clarksfield products are showing up at the bargain basement price of $999. The quad core entry part of the Core i7-720QM is a much better product compared to the Core 2 Quad Q9000.
 

adamw

macrumors 6502
Sep 22, 2006
301
175
Always good to hear about new CPU chips from Intel.

I hope they will be cooler, hence drawing less power, now that they are being made using the 32nm manufacturing process.
 

cmaier

macrumors P6
Jul 25, 2007
18,951
18,049
California
Always good to hear about new CPU chips from Intel.

I hope they will be cooler, hence drawing less power, now that they are being made using the 32nm manufacturing process.
Actually, your hence is backwards. It would draw less power, hence be cooler.
 

MatthewAMEL

macrumors 6502
Oct 23, 2007
374
8
Orlando, FL
Is anyone else terribly concerned that Intel has only demoed these chips with Integrated Graphics?

NVIDIA can't make chips for them (the legal dispute between them and Intel) and Intel has never demoed them with an ATI chip (which makes sense since ATI=AMD).

Are we going to be stuck with Integrated Graphics on the new MBP?
 

puckhead193

macrumors G3
May 25, 2004
9,294
528
NY
I hope its true! Hopefully it will hold me over till the MPs come out...
I can't stand 5 hour render times for an hr and 15 min. video :eek:
 

t0mat0

macrumors 603
Aug 29, 2006
5,439
268
Home
Is anyone else terribly concerned that Intel has only demoed these chips with Integrated Graphics?

NVIDIA can't make chips for them (the legal dispute between them and Intel) and Intel has never demoed them with an ATI chip (which makes sense since ATI=AMD).

Are we going to be stuck with Integrated Graphics on the new MBP?
I thought it was more nuanced than that? Nvidia weren't going to sort something out. Doesn't stop Apple doing somebing using Nvidia chips and intel CPUs
sounds a bit harsh on macworld too - to their credi I honk they have found a niche. I'd say they hav more of a solid backing now that they aren't so reliant on Apple for it's momentum.
And who's to say Apple wont steal CESs limelight again this year?
Intel might not be showing heir full range. Dependent on what they show in the next announcement will likely indicate a hit more about HD and IGP. Apple can wait out things a bit if they want I guess.
 
Is anyone else terribly concerned that Intel has only demoed these chips with Integrated Graphics?

NVIDIA can't make chips for them (the legal dispute between them and Intel) and Intel has never demoed them with an ATI chip (which makes sense since ATI=AMD).

Are we going to be stuck with Integrated Graphics on the new MBP?
Al MBP's have integrated graphics, but the most of the 15 inchers and the 17 inch have additional 9600M GT graphics card. So Nvidia/ATI cannot make integrated graphics for these processors, but they can make discrete graphics. If this issue doesn't get resolved, we'll most likely see these processors with the Intel integrated graphics and ATI/Nvidia for discrete graphics. I'm worried about the 13" MBP, though. It currently does not have the option of a discrete card, so if gets Arrandale, we're back to intel graphics (square 1) with no other options. I'm thinking we'll finally see discrete graphics on the 13 MBP? I have Mid 2007 MacBook with the Intel GMA 950, and it's terrible. The machine overall is great, but the graphics on here, ugh.
 

str1f3

macrumors 68000
Aug 24, 2008
1,859
0
Is anyone else terribly concerned that Intel has only demoed these chips with Integrated Graphics?

NVIDIA can't make chips for them (the legal dispute between them and Intel) and Intel has never demoed them with an ATI chip (which makes sense since ATI=AMD).

Are we going to be stuck with Integrated Graphics on the new MBP?
No thank you. I'll either get a used last gen 13" MBP 9400 or get a Windows laptop. Hear that Cupertino?


I'm waiting to hear from some of the proponents of the Intel IGP come from the Arrandale thread.
 

Azmordean

macrumors 6502
Mar 10, 2004
250
0
Silicon Valley
Well the 13" is now branded MacBook PRO, so Apple does have room to add discrete graphics to the mix. Back in the day of the 12" powerbook, it had discrete graphics. I can easily see an all-discrete line of MBPs and then MacBooks continuing to run beefed up C2D with 9400M (and a price cut?).

At least, if I were making the decisions, that's the route I'd take!
 

macduke

macrumors G4
Jun 27, 2007
11,037
14,852
Central U.S.
I'm worried about the 13" MBP, though. It currently does not have the option of a discrete card, so if gets Arrandale, we're back to intel graphics (square 1) with no other options. I'm thinking we'll finally see discrete graphics on the 13 MBP?
There is no way that Apple would release an updated 13" MBP with an Intel integrated graphic card. At least not in it's current form. I thought I read somewhere that the built in Intel graphics, even the latest versions, are somewhere around half the speed of the current nVidia solution. I have also been saying for awhile that the 13" update would most likely get discrete graphics. My first roommate in college had a 12" Powerbook G4 with what I believe is a 32mb discrete graphic card that he used to play Halo. If they could do it back then, then they can surely do it now. Sure it might not be the beast that the MBP gets, but it will surely be much better than what Intel offers, and probably several times faster than nVidia's integrated solution.

The primary reason that I haven't purchased a 13" MBP are no discrete graphics and the low resolution of the monitor. I would gladly upgrade when both of these requests are satisfied. I believe 13" is a great size, and I dock it to my workstation when I'm at home anyway, so for my big projects 13" doesn't hurt. Not that my 15" is burning out, but at this point I might as well wait for quad core to make it into a 13" form factor. It won't take long, probably within a year or so.
 

heisetax

macrumors 6502a
Jun 12, 2004
943
0
Omaha, NE
Why waste in this tie of shortages?

Since Intel has not made a good graphics processor yet why do they insist on wasting all of those transistors? Wouldn't theyy be better used as cache storage?
 

Markov

macrumors 6502
May 18, 2007
399
0
Philadelphia
I honestly wouldn't mind having Intel integrated graphics... if they weren't 50 different brands of suck. In my opinion, Intel is digging themselves a hole with this legal battle. Sure they may win, but at the cost of manufacturers turning their backs on them (like Apple) who want better integrated graphics. If I had to guess, Intel will realize they may lose business if they do not suck it up and let nVidia make chipsets again.

I understand that the likelihood of this is naught, but I think Intel knows their integrated GPU's suck.
 

Michael CM1

macrumors 603
Feb 4, 2008
5,677
273
I have a degree in networking, and I must ask this: IN ENGLISH?

Seriously, I have no clue how many nanometers wide or whatever my CPU is. I know it runs at 2.16 GHz and maybe has a 600-ish MHz bus.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.