That's terrible and reminiscent of when Apple was stuck at 500 MHz on their Motorola G4 chips in their machines for 18 months. My Power Mac was an early variant of the 500 MHz G4, dual processors at that speed in fact, but for many months after that, 500 MHz was a barrier on any single chip.
Ouch. Also reminds me of the last two PowerBook G4 revisionss staying at 1.5/1.67 GHz. But on the good side, Arrandale should give a healthy speed boost over Penryn.
If the Mac Pro is at 8 cores right now, new Intel Nehalem micro-architecture and all, the iMac should have 4 cores by next year in some format, don't you think?
Absolutely! But given that Apple has conveniently ignored the 3 mobile quad-core models out there (Clarksfield probably will have 3 models too) and gave a speed bump to
half the iMac line this update tells me that they might not be very interested in CPU performance. And the cheapest mobile quad-core right now is $348, and the 2.67 GHz dual-core is $3xx, which leads me to think price itself may not be the issue here. Maybe it's single-thread performance, in that case I would hope that Nehalem provides a good boost. So I suppose quad-cores with Clarksfield would be another optimistic prediction.
😀
I would hope all Macs could have at least 4 cores by the end of next year,
My hopes would also be for all Mac lines by then to have at least one model with at least 4 cores. My predictions however…
MacBook Pro: 2011, possibly 2009/2010 since Apple allows lower-clocked quads with higher-clocked duals in the Mac
Pro. There will be a Clarksfield cool enough for the MacBook Pro, it's up to Apple to use it.
MacBook: Probably 2011 or later. Even later if the enclosure can only handle 25 W (as opposed to 35 W), since I would think 25 W quad-cores would arrive later than 35 W ones.
Mac mini:
🙁
with the Mac Pro holding at 8 cores, or more through 2010 and beyond.
Mac Pro is on target for 6 and 12 cores with Gulftown and Sandy Bridge. Which is good.