I think you're in the minority there. I've been wrong before and I'll be wrong again but I don't see apple updating its line so soon after this current update. Especially w/o any major chips it can put into its laptop (without cooking the user).
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's Clarksfield (Mobile Nehalem) 45/55W... Whats Apple gonna do?
- Thread starter iBunny
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I think you're in the minority there. I've been wrong before and I'll be wrong again but I don't see apple updating its line so soon after this current update. Especially w/o any major chips it can put into its laptop (without cooking the user).
Well, I think Apple's going with Clarksfield on the high end 15 and the 17. And this is why:
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/blogs/2009/09/18/intel-core-i7-for-laptops-first-review
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/blogs/2009/09/18/intel-core-i7-for-laptops-first-review
Well, that's not fair since he made his prediction half a year before yours and before the June update.
45-55W TDP for the processor is high for a laptop. Unless you want to double the thickness of your laptop, which I doubt Apple would be willing to do (aesthetics first, functionality second).
You mean after the recent DOWNgrade?
MBPs haven't been UPgraded since they were introduced. Jumping from a better CPU to a worse one but slightly faster isn't an update. I'd rather have the 3MB of extra cache than measly 200Mhz or whatever it was...
Code:
Price Early 2009 Mid 2009
$1699 - 2.53GHz/3MB
$1999 2.40GHz/3MB 2.67GHz/3MB
$2299 - 2.80GHz/6MB
$2499 2.67GHz/6MB 2.80GHz/6MB
$2799 2.80GHz/6MB -I dunno... seems like the timing would be just right for phase 2 of an anti-windows 7 campaign. (SL being phase 1 of course).
And I'm never wrong.
I never really understood this attitude - multiple cores can run multiple processes at once. I currently have almost 50 processes running, and all I'm doing is web surfing, with Mail running in the background. Double or triple that when I'm working. Add a virtual machine to the mix, and I'll take all the cores I can get, regardless of any speed improvements to a single application.No they dont, not unless your using a multi thread open cl application which most home applications dont.
If Arrandale release is going to be in very late '09 (Nov-Dec) or 2010, I can see Apple updating the 17" MBP with Clarksfield because it was left out in June (only 3.06 option and SD slot). Basically, Apple will skip Clarksfield and move to Arrandale
Clarksfield was announced today. Here is what we know.
1) It has much better performance then either a Core 2 Quad or Core 2 Duo. Turbo boost allows it to essentially dynamically switches between 1, 2, 3, or 4 core processor, and increase clock speed when cores are switched off.
2) Since the processor includes the northbridge a 45 W clarksfield is equivalent to a 35W Penryn since you don't have an extra 10 W northbridge on the logic board.
3) The chips are fairly expensive starting at $346 going up to $1000.
This thing will fit quite nicely in the high end 15", 17" MBP and iMacs. The 13" will probably need to wait until Arrandale next year and will only be a dual core.
Anything currently using the 9400M will probably use Arrandale, and be cheaper. Anything with discrete graphics will probably use clarksfield 9600M GT120, GT130 etc, and remain at current price points, but have much better performance.
1) It has much better performance then either a Core 2 Quad or Core 2 Duo. Turbo boost allows it to essentially dynamically switches between 1, 2, 3, or 4 core processor, and increase clock speed when cores are switched off.
2) Since the processor includes the northbridge a 45 W clarksfield is equivalent to a 35W Penryn since you don't have an extra 10 W northbridge on the logic board.
3) The chips are fairly expensive starting at $346 going up to $1000.
This thing will fit quite nicely in the high end 15", 17" MBP and iMacs. The 13" will probably need to wait until Arrandale next year and will only be a dual core.
Anything currently using the 9400M will probably use Arrandale, and be cheaper. Anything with discrete graphics will probably use clarksfield 9600M GT120, GT130 etc, and remain at current price points, but have much better performance.
Sorry for thread necromancy, but does anyone know which i5/i7 chip Apple decided to use in the recently released iMacs slated for November? Is it Clarksfield, or do they use desktop chipsets for the iMacs?
Everyone here is saying it is Lynnfield. That fits with the clock speeds, i5/i7 labels of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Nehalem, but I haven't seen any formal proof.
There can't be any formal proof, because the machines haven't been released yet
I have a gut feeling that Apple might skip Intel Core 2 Quad and Clarksfield for laptops if they are using Lynnfield in their iMac.
It's almost a definite bet that Apple will be using Arrandale, the question is whether they will have some laptops using Clarksfield at all.
True.There can't be any formal proof, because the machines haven't been released yet
Almost certain they with skip Core 2 Quad, since they've had plenty of time. You may be right about Clarksfield sadly: not MBP with quads for a while if they stick to Arrandale.
And whether the stick with C2D for the 15" or 13" (which seems likely given their iMac updates today.
