Core Duo or Core 2 Duo (Merom)? Given the 2 GB of RAM I suspect it's a Core Duo. Both parts are in 65 nm.
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 will Unleash 32-nm Processors on January 7th
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Maybe someone can answer this question for me. Is there anything stopping Apple from using an Intel chipset with something like a discrete Geforce 9400 GPU? Does the 9400 even come in a discrete variety?
No Nvidia/AMD can only not use Intel QPI. They can still use PCI, and all the old connections, so if there is a discrete 9400, it can be used. Whether there is one or not, I don't know.
Any more news on the AMD 5 series release date? GDDR5 VRAM across the board sounds pretty special.
Mobility HD 5000 parts are scheduled for Q1 2010. CES 2010 should show off some notebooks with the Mobility HD 5850.
they won't do MBPs with integrated only graphics. Firstly it'd be a step backwards from the previous models, and secondly it doesn't let anyone leverage the openCL stuff they've done for snow leopard.
My MBP is the awkward child of the family. The first 15" unibody so no nice new battery, and no core i-whatever come January. But its too soon to replace it.
What benefits are there from a newly architected core i-thingy if its still dual core? Don't we need to wait for quad core to get a big boost in speed? And even then, do we have any visibility on what kind of application support there will be to properly leverage multiple cores in the next 12 months or so?
My MBP is the awkward child of the family. The first 15" unibody so no nice new battery, and no core i-whatever come January. But its too soon to replace it.
What benefits are there from a newly architected core i-thingy if its still dual core? Don't we need to wait for quad core to get a big boost in speed? And even then, do we have any visibility on what kind of application support there will be to properly leverage multiple cores in the next 12 months or so?
Well, It's probably a stretch to think that any MBP will get a 5850. But would be nice if there was a MBP with a 5670 in it at CES
Integrated memory controller, QPI, turbo boost, more cache, better power management,
Quads will have lower clock speed, and the mobile quads Intel released so far have very high power requirements (45W to 55W), which means they're going to annihilate your battery.
There are as far as I can tell no new quads on the roadmap, at least for Arrandale.
None whatsoever.
I'm currently holding off my purchase of 13" mbp, but I honestly think only the 15" en 17" will get the new processors + (better?) discrete graphics.
My bet is the 13" will stay C2D + 9400, and prolly a slight CPU boost, bigger HDD, ...
I hope not of course, but I can't see where they'd put the gfx really.
Another question remains: why it's still branded "pro"... Only the unibody design (and what: 1 port?) is what makes it "better" than the MB.
Hell, how Apple even dares to keep selling the 13" at such a premium is beyond me (not really, it's smart from their point of view; ppl keep buying it? No problemo!)
Anyway, if the mbp doesn't get updated before the end of January I'll just buy the 13" and upgrade the HDD (and memory) myself.
My bet is the 13" will stay C2D + 9400, and prolly a slight CPU boost, bigger HDD, ...
I hope not of course, but I can't see where they'd put the gfx really.
Another question remains: why it's still branded "pro"... Only the unibody design (and what: 1 port?) is what makes it "better" than the MB.
Hell, how Apple even dares to keep selling the 13" at such a premium is beyond me (not really, it's smart from their point of view; ppl keep buying it? No problemo!)
Anyway, if the mbp doesn't get updated before the end of January I'll just buy the 13" and upgrade the HDD (and memory) myself.
For now that is true, but the architecture of i5/i7 with Turbo boost allows for a product with relatively low speeds when working with quad cores (or more) to scale quite high when only using 1 core. (using Turbo boost, the same TDP is sustained when working with 1 core, 2, 3 or 4 cores)
Anyway : I don't see Apple releasing this revision of Arrandales in its MBP line, the "rumor" of the waiting for a slightly revised part without the GPU is very credible imho.
As far as I can tell it's even quite easy to do for Intel : right now cpu's like the i5 660 work perfectly on a P55 motherboard without using the integrated graphics (actually they run better and OC a lot better on a P55 then on a H55/H57 when using integrated graphics, which makes sense of course).
I don't think that makes any sense. Currently, the 13" MBP blows goats. It barely has anything to differentiate it from a 13" MB, and clearly not $250 worth of difference. The 13" MBP is in dire need for an upgrade, it's the MBP which needs it most.
Right now? Nothing. It has the SD and the FW800 slots, backlit keyboard, AL unibody… and that's it.
It is very unfortunate how low-spec the 13" MBP is these days and it would be equally disappointing if this particular model of the MBP is not significantly updated in the next go-around. However, it's Apple's 'best selling' computer, so what incentive do they have to improve it (i.e. add one of these newfangled Intel processors)?
Apple's MBP line, in my opinion, is ridiculously underpowered and that's because the people buying them in the largest quantities are people who could give a crap about having a fast machine, like (some)girls/families/college kids who just want a slim form factor and the status of having that nice, bright Apple emblazoned on the back of the monitor. Apple doesn't need to cater to 'pro' users, because it seems to me that this is becoming a smaller and smaller minority of users.
When I bought my first PowerBook (Titanium), it could hold its own against some lower end desktops at the time. Now? The MacBook Pro can't hold a candle to most PC laptops out there (aside from those in the bargain bin or maybe netbooks). I REALLY want to get a 13-inch MacBook Pro. They're so enticing and I want a reason to be pulled away from my damn PC desktop. The only thing I've got going now is a recent eBay purchase of a clamshell iBook for £10! Fantastic. Love OS 9. =P
Apple's MBP line, in my opinion, is ridiculously underpowered and that's because the people buying them in the largest quantities are people who could give a crap about having a fast machine, like (some)girls/families/college kids who just want a slim form factor and the status of having that nice, bright Apple emblazoned on the back of the monitor. Apple doesn't need to cater to 'pro' users, because it seems to me that this is becoming a smaller and smaller minority of users.
When I bought my first PowerBook (Titanium), it could hold its own against some lower end desktops at the time. Now? The MacBook Pro can't hold a candle to most PC laptops out there (aside from those in the bargain bin or maybe netbooks). I REALLY want to get a 13-inch MacBook Pro. They're so enticing and I want a reason to be pulled away from my damn PC desktop. The only thing I've got going now is a recent eBay purchase of a clamshell iBook for £10! Fantastic. Love OS 9. =P
I really don't agree here. Apple is currently using the best possible notebook CPU's with exceptional battery life. Sure, there are core i5/i7 notebooks out there, but they're useless unless they've got a permanent attachment to your wall.
Arrandale is the first batch of core i5/i7 cpu's that will get you reasonable battery life in a notebook, but they're handicapped by their integrated GPU (which Intel definately would like to sell in one package). In this respect I'm curious whether Apple will be able to get a dedicated CPU from Intel once more, or if they're at all allowed to NOT use the integrated GPU
I totally agree, Im looking to buy the 13" pro but the spec isnt different enough for me to justify the extra money. I would just buy the 13" macbook but i've heard bad things about the plastic breaking and lets face it the MBP is far nicer looking machine.
Duno wither to buy now or not tho.
It is a stupid move on Intels part and probably a management decision aimed at NVidia
Cache might be one answer but there are a lot of other goodies that could go on the chip without wasting space. More cores for one. Serial I/O lines such as Ethernet, SATA, USB and the like.
Except at the very lowest end Intels integrated GPUs simply blow the thermal budget for the module. Module is a key word here as the build in GPU is really a second chip on the module. The point is any GPU of reasonable performance will take up a lot of die area and emit heat. In a laptop it actually makes sense to spread that heat load around.
One has to acknowledge the advantage of faster transfers for one
Cache might be one answer but there are a lot of other goodies that could go on the chip without wasting space. More cores for one. Serial I/O lines such as Ethernet, SATA, USB and the like.
Except at the very lowest end Intels integrated GPUs simply blow the thermal budget for the module. Module is a key word here as the build in GPU is really a second chip on the module. The point is any GPU of reasonable performance will take up a lot of die area and emit heat. In a laptop it actually makes sense to spread that heat load around.
One has to acknowledge the advantage of faster transfers for one
wait, so Apple would have supposedly known about Intel's future offerings being as they have a close enough relationship, so Apple would have maybe known about Intel adding discrete graphics to their CPUs and preventing Nvidia from manufacturing discrete options?
so why would have Apple added Nvidia discrete graphics to their MacBook/Pro line when they may have known about Intel adding their own discrete graphics to Arrandale and therefore creating a graphics performance dead end to their MacBooks. maybe not?
so why would have Apple added Nvidia discrete graphics to their MacBook/Pro line when they may have known about Intel adding their own discrete graphics to Arrandale and therefore creating a graphics performance dead end to their MacBooks. maybe not?
God, I hope so. I love the 13" form factor because it's almost as portable as a netbook and I do miss having a discrete graphics chip. If they put discrete graphics in the 13" MBP, I'm getting one the day it comes out. I'm also not a fan of Intel graphics. Not only because of performance issues but also because there are some very good programs that only run on Nvidia graphics chips.
I'm fully aware of the MHz myth, but c'mon, still 2.66 GHz?
http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/495/opinion/
http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/495/opinion/
Yes. The days of judging a processor by its clock speed are over (for now).
Wrong. That's their max TDP, which may be for use only when plugged in. I'd guess they can scale back to a single core, which could mean a 2+ GHZ processor running at 14-16 watts. Not bad.
Another way of doing it is to have all 4 cores running at 25%, which electrically, uses much less power than a single core running at 100%.
HTH. HAND.
No, they'll not "annihilate" your battery.
Uh, lots of graphic, 3D, video and music apps.
And anybody who does heavy multitasking.
Why are you spreading fear and misinformation?
Oh, I get it. Because you can get quad cores in $800 PC laptops
and not in $3,000 MBPs, you don't need them and never will.
That is, until Apple offers them.
Kind of reminds me how stupid everybody said FM tuners were in iPods.
Until Apple started "innovating" and offered FM tuners in iPods.
10 years after other MP3 players had them.
