Intel's Upcoming Quad-Core "Mobile" Chip Realistic For Laptops?

[EspressoLove]

Actually : black anodized Al MB, with 2,4Ghz T8600 & much more serious (still non-gaming) X4500, and "essential" 4Gb RAM,
slimmer with 45Wh battery & 4 pounds, but with 320GB "generic" HDD ....
could easily become my new darling

and I believe with 45Wh battery I'd still manage 3 hours of starbucking, as I do now

 

[EspressoLove]

They're also slower than the current 35W CPUs. How exactly is Apple going to explain a drop in clock speed to 2.26 and 2.4ghz?

Are you just clueless, or simply too arrogant to research ?

MBP has 2.5/2.4 gets 2.53/2.4
MB has 2.4/2.1 gets 2.4/2.26
So NO drop in Ghz, and some gains in FSB/RAM departments.
All this with decrease in TDP from 35W to 25W.

The only missing from new lineup - MBP BTO 2.6.
Technically you can use 2.8 with the same as 2.6 TDP, but that will mess with new design based on significant decrease in heat generation.

The only possibility "Apple Exclusive" part around 2.66 with 25W.
But I guess they can easily just drop it, citing few orders of BTO etc.

 

[CWallace]

Technically you can use 2.8 with the same as 2.6 TDP, but that will mess with new design based on significant decrease in heat generation.

Unless the MBP is actually getting a new chassis to support the 45W TDP QX9300 and Q9100 in which case the 35w of the T9600 would be fine.

Worst case, you could underclock the T9600 to 2.6GHz which would likely save a few watts (though admittedly not likely 10). Or perhaps Intel will skim off the cream of the P9500's and clock them to 2.6GHz as P9600s if they can hit it at 27-28w or so which should not push the cooling system.

 

[twist2b]

could that not create overheat issues very easily? Or is it the graphics cards that are bad? either way, I think cooling technology should cetch up!!!!

That would be nice for future MBP

 

[EspressoLove]

Unless the MBP is actually getting a new chassis to support the 45W TDP QX9300 and Q9100 in which case the 35w of the T9600 would be fine.

There's no way they would support QX9300 as the BTO. Both because of cost (1038$) and TDP.
I mean choosing between a new chassis with 25W - which can be slender & support "Air" as a platform (thinnovative© & wireless), or beefing up whole system in order to accommodate 45W, which on the cost alone would be a choice of a too few for now, Apple would certainly choose the former.
(Apple/MBP is not very efficient at cooling systems, remember?)

Question is if they'll decide to "remain" in the middle of the road (i.e. still use 35W capable chassis, with primarily 25W parts).

Direction is pretty clear, as in fall 2007 Intel stated that all Penryns will be 25W. So if Apple was making design decisions back then, they already have no place for 35W parts, leave alone quad-monsters.

So I guess there's no point to use 35W parts in coming Montevina MBPs.
Unless they postpone case redesign until 2009 Nehalem launch.

 

[Aron Peterson]

Rock already makes a quad-core notebook based on Penryn and has dual 8800GTX graphics! I would love a MacBook Pro with those specs.

Sadly I have to sell all my computers and gadgets because of my new job. No time for computing any longer and have all I need at work.

 

[BenRoethig]

That rock is a specialized DTR/Moble workstation based on desktop parts. Its more than twice the thickness of a Macbook Pro and weighs almost twice as much.

 

[Manic Mouse]

Maybe if the MBP gets quad CPUs then the MB has a hope of getting a graphics card...

 

[CWallace]

Well not having the QX9300 is certainly not going to cripple the MacBook Pro sales against PCs that will (though you'd never know it from the hue and cry on this forum when it does. ).

So if Apple does want to move to a thinner new chassis designed around 25w Penryns and Nehalems, then the top-end chip will likely remain a tweaked P9500 or de-tuned T9600 running at 2.6GHz.

 

[mjteix]

Direction is pretty clear, as in fall 2007 Intel stated that all Penryns will be 25W. So if Apple was making design decisions back then, they already have no place for 35W parts, leave alone quad-monsters.

Intel NEVER said that "all Penryns will be 25W". Their improvement of the process has made 25W possible. That means that even smaller notebooks/desktops can use those parts and that the battery life will be better.

Don't even think that Nehalem will follow trend, 'cause from what I've seen so far the TDP of cpus will be going up again (integrated memory controller and/or gpu), the difference will be in the chipset: one chip (i/o hub) vs two (north+south bridges).

Some PC manufacturers are already releasing quad-core notebooks with desktop parts or even server parts. The MBP is very important to Apple, in terms of image as well as in revenue. I truly believe that it will remain a "35W" computer. I can't see Apple not offering it with up to 2.80GHz Montevina cpus this summer and with the Q9100 as a BTO option early next year.

The 25W parts will be very good for the MacBook as it will have a smaller enclosure than the MBP (and hopefully for the Mac mini if it is ever updated).

I don't think one second that the MBP will loose its ODD and removable battery anytime soon. I don't think Apple will "Airify" everything yet.

 

[mjteix]

As it is related to the subject, it looks like Montevina is being delayed (again):
ETA is now July 14th for most of the parts and late July for the remaining.

Intel delays Centrino 2 to July 14

I don't think that this will change much the launch of the quad-core part that was already forecasted for late Q3 (September?).
But that may delay the rumored redesigned MBP and MB both to an August launch.

 

[EspressoLove]

Intel NEVER said that "all Penryns will be 25W". Their improvement of the process has made 25W possible.

Yes, they did. And no, it's not just process - we already have Penryns, on the same 65nm process, remember?

The MBP is very important to Apple, in terms of image as well as in revenue. I truly believe that it will remain a "35W" computer.

That's true, but I think innovation, especially for Apple, is not always top Ghz .....
They might just twist things a bit, so that you'd realize that you have plenty already
And it's more important to effectively running your V10 Dodge on V2 for most tasks/commuting, then craving for V20.

And wrap it with sleek & probably quite useful stuff, say advanced multi touch )) that comes only in bundle with new .... greener platform

Instantly they have a winner, as nobody talks about "ghz deficiency", and fanboys even start to call 2.8Ghz CPUs obscene and irresponsible

 

[EspressoLove]

Look at this tricks they pulled to market Air :
A really crippled and deficient machine .... if you look at it from experience with ... ordinary laptops you got used to.
It tries to makes up in few areas (Remote DVD, iTunes Rentals), but it's still awkward.
But they have made this making sense, and it's no longer stupid machine ....

Just think what they could do with MBP ....
and MBAirPro won't be that crippled :

• it'll have double the ports (just two USB in total, but claim of doubling is still there )

• it'll have "generic" HDD (up to 7K320Gb)

• proper 2,53Ghz tops

• NV9600G(S/T?) underclocked even more than ever?

• 2Gb soldered with one other slot behind "unremovable" battery?

• And some "usual" integration trickery : more ways to synchronize with TV, or advanced .Mac making up ... or some USB trickery, that makes it work even better than FireWire(RIP) did.

Just think how brilliant this whole setup might turn out, and how much Different Thinking/Apple'ness it'll encompass
Can you compare it with stuffing MBP with quad cpu, just like others will, and then pray it won't blow up or fry your manhood.

I was angry with Air for weeks, but then it gradually grew on me, and now I don't care what "experts" say - I get it now and I love it.
(Only waiting for Rev.B or MBAirPro whichever comes first)

 

[mjteix]

Yes, they did. And no, it's not just process - we already have Penryns, on the same 65nm process, remember?

EL, you're so wrong on so many levels that I don't know where to begin.
My advise to you is to do more research on Penryn and Intel's 45nm process in order to have a more accurate view on the subject.

In fact, I recommand learning more about Firewire and USB too, you may find out that: 1) FW is far from dying, 2) USB isn't even in the same league as FW.

There's nothing "brilliant" with your setup.

 

[EspressoLove]

EL, you're so wrong on so many levels that I don't know where to begin.
My advise to you is to do more research on Penryn and Intel's 45nm process

Yeah, thanks for hitting me on the head with my stuckiness with 65nm.
Still it's not that bad as SJ announcing 500Mb Time Capsule, eh?

I recommand learning more about Firewire and USB too, you may find out that: 1) FW is far from dying,

I'd take your recommanding, but maybe you'll review tech specs of MacBook Air? Or iPods? Big or small for that matter. Do you see any FW? It's gone? Oh, boy ....
Now do you get anything?

BTW I'll miss target mode, though used it only once. But are you seriously thinking Apple is not capable .... even with standard unmodified USB circuitry of recreating this functionality over USB?

2) USB isn't even in the same league as FW.

Why not? It can not do things FW can? It can not be improved/Apple'fied? As a standard, or as Apple exclusive implementation? That's more capable, and yet still compatible with the rest of the world?

There's nothing "brilliant" with your setup.

OK, I won't argue, to each his own ....
Anyway there's no point to defend my dream config ....
Only if I'd guesstimate Apple's intentions right

 

[BenRoethig]

EL, you're so wrong on so many levels that I don't know where to begin.
My advise to you is to do more research on Penryn and Intel's 45nm process in order to have a more accurate view on the subject.

In fact, I recommand learning more about Firewire and USB too, you may find out that: 1) FW is far from dying, 2) USB isn't even in the same league as FW.

There's nothing "brilliant" with your setup.

USB2.0 may not be in the same league as firewire, but its taking over for most consumer tasks. Unless you look really hard or shop at a smaller, Mac only retailer, its hard to find firewire devices. Camcorders don't even use it anymore.

 

[retroneo]

As it is related to the subject, it looks like Montevina is being delayed (again)

The delay affects the Intel WiFi chip and the GM45/GM47 northbridge with integrated graphics.

Apple doesn't use either in the MacBook Pro.

They will use the GM47 northbridge in the MacBook however - but the wait will be worth it with a huge improvement to integrated graphics performance:

3DMark06:
T8300+Geforce 8400M GS-1333
T9300+Geforce 8400M G-1044
X9100+GMA X4500-955
T9400+GMA X4500-949
T7700+GMA X3100-586
T7500+GMA X3100-555

http://www.notebookjournal.de/praxis/79/3

 

[mjteix]

USB2.0 may not be in the same league as firewire, but its taking over for most consumer tasks. Unless you look really hard or shop at a smaller, Mac only retailer, its hard to find firewire devices. Camcorders don't even use it anymore.

We are talking about the MacBook Pro, there's a world outside the consumer market. I can find firewire devices in my area of work pretty easily, in fact, for what I do, "similar" USB devices are considered toys.

It will take a couple of years for USB to reach 3.0 (I mean to get USB3 on computers and on devices), but by this time FW will reach the 3200 specs that have been ratified earlier this year. USB and FW are not intended for the same purpose. That consumer devices use USB, it's fine with me, those don't need the performance and reliability that some higher-end devices need. The MacBook Pro as the Mac Pro and, to some extent, the iMac are computers that address the professional market too and I believe they will all support FW for many more years.

 

[Bubba Satori]

Apple does NOT need a mini-tower as everyone keeps clamoring for.

All they really need to do is offer a couple Mac Pros with a single Quad Core Xeon chip with a price starting at $1499.

This is how Apple always used to handle the Power Mac G3's, G4's and G5's, why not go back to a system that worked and no one was screaming for a model between the iMac and the PowerMac.

Here is an example of what could make sense with the next Mac Pro revision:
- Single Quad Core 2.8GHz XEON $1499
- Single Quad Core 3.0GHz XEON $1999
- Double Quad Core 2.8GHz XEON $2499
- Double Quad Core 3.0GHz XEON $2799
- Double Quad Core 3.2GHz XEON $3299
- Double Quad Core 3.4GHz XEON $3699

For this to work out, Apple would also have to offer either a $999 or $1099 iMac.

For me personally at home I would pick up the lowest end Quad Core Mac Pro, while at work I would put in for the mid-high range Octo Core Mac Pro.

"Apple does NOT need..." Excuse me. It's not what Apple needs. It's what the customers need and have been clamoring for, for years.

Apple offers no monitor less desktop Mac between the mini and the Mac Pro and many people don't want the unexpandable mini or the overkill, for their needs, Mac Pro. Apple's refusal to build a $1k mac is extremely aggravating and arrogant. And it has nothing to do with cannabilizing iMac sales. The customers who are begging for a headless mac don't want their computer in the back of an lcd that's had all sorts of problems for the last two years. Or a computer that's restricted to slow and expensive laptop parts with cr*ap video cards that are not upgradeable. Pride goeth before a fall. Apple needs to remember who has made them as successful as they are. Their customers.

 

[Jonathanoee]

Need to say something from a pro-mac-user point of view.

The Mac Pro dual quad core has made a little revulotion for us working with 3D animation. I use my 2,8Ghz x 8 = 22,4Ghz, 24 hours a day. Yes!, due to smart programing in 3D applications the rendertime is as fast as in eight single core 2,8 Ghz machines.

But my mobility last year has been really limited. A regular dualcore Mac book pro is no good anymore due to low overall Ghz-power. The advantage of having 8 processors in the Mac Pro is so big that I find my self dragging the 20kg Mac Pro and a 24" inch screen in a taxi whereever I go and work theese days...

A quad-core Mac Book Pro would be a great thing to have as a secondary workstation. And yes, I as a professional user I need Firewire 400/800, I need a ethernet port, I need a dvd-burner. And it would be nice with a 12-13" version so I can have it with me all the time, and be able to take the bicycle. For me all those extras is crucial, lacking one of those things makes it a less professional workstation. As an example I think mac book air is a joke, a totaly worthless machine for my kind of work. I wont buy one for my spare time either since I can do the same things on my iphone, checking mail etc. So, yes I hope for a Mac book pro quad really soon....

 

[Digital Skunk]

....

WHOA!!!

You're a pro that wants a quad core MacBook Pro in a 12"-13" screen size??

That doesn't add up but to each his/her own.

Give me the quad core in the 17" hi def screen variant with dual FW800 and 400 ports and I am happy. After using a screen as immaculate as that there is no way I am going back to anything as tight as a 15" or even a 13" even if I have to ride a bike.

 

[CWallace]

WHOA!!!

You're a pro that wants a quad core MacBook Pro in a 12"-13" screen size??

That doesn't add up but to each his/her own.

Actually it does in that you can use the Mac Pro for the heavy lifting and have the MacBook Pro with the power necessary to do "edits on the fly", but not render the whole shebang.

Mind you, it will be a bit before Intel has ≤22mm package-size (not process size) quad-cores that draw the sub-20 watts to fit in such a small machine.

 

[bucky]

quad core iMac please.

Here Here. I will be buying an iMac sometime this year and I am really hoping apple will release a Quad Core version and an iMac with bluray built in.

 

[barijazz]

I want in my imac...
Quad Core
Blu Ray
Watercooling
Better GPU
Overclocking
Run Windows apps native (W/O wine/VM/parallels etc.)
Remote Detonation.

 

[DoFoT9]

Apple does NOT need a mini-tower as everyone keeps clamoring for.

All they really need to do is offer a couple Mac Pros with a single Quad Core Xeon chip with a price starting at $1499.

This is how Apple always used to handle the Power Mac G3's, G4's and G5's, why not go back to a system that worked and no one was screaming for a model between the iMac and the PowerMac.

Here is an example of what could make sense with the next Mac Pro revision:
- Single Quad Core 2.8GHz XEON $1499
- Single Quad Core 3.0GHz XEON $1999
- Double Quad Core 2.8GHz XEON $2499
- Double Quad Core 3.0GHz XEON $2799
- Double Quad Core 3.2GHz XEON $3299
- Double Quad Core 3.4GHz XEON $3699

For this to work out, Apple would also have to offer either a $999 or $1099 iMac.

For me personally at home I would pick up the lowest end Quad Core Mac Pro, while at work I would put in for the mid-high range Octo Core Mac Pro.

im sorry, but i just dont see this happeneing!!! no way...

ok yes i agree with your
- Single Quad Core 2.8GHz XEON $1499
- Single Quad Core 3.0GHz XEON $1999
- Double Quad Core 2.8GHz XEON $2499
options. but with the double quad core, what is the use of having the
- Double Quad Core 3.0GHz XEON $2799
- Double Quad Core 3.2GHz XEON $3299
- Double Quad Core 3.4GHz XEON $3699
?? they are all so close together, the cost isnt even worth it.

personally, i believe it should be something like this:
- Single Quad Core 2.8GHz XEON $1499
- Single Quad Core 3.0GHz XEON $1999
- Double Quad Core 2.8GHz XEON $2499
- Double Quad Core 3.0GHz XEON $2799
- Double Quad Core 3.4GHz XEON $3699
and even that is pushing it. i dont think the costs would be that low (i cant convert from my dollar so i dont really know...)