Quad core timeframe, anyone?

[nickane]

Does anyone have an idea when we will see quad cores in the iMacs and MBPs? I don't really know much about TDP of current intel chips and the upcoming roadmap.

I really need a new mac, and will probably buy a whitebook to tide me over, but as I can't afford one for a coupla months, a more permanent solution might have be just around the corner by then. I was wondering when ppl in the know are expecting quadcores to trickle down to the mobile/consumer line. I have thought about buying a MP but its way out of my budget, especially now they seem to come with less cores but cost more (in £, at least), besides 8 cores is prob overkill for me (unless I could pick up an 2008 model secondhand on the cheap).

I had a dream the other day that Apple made the Mac Pro smaller, less powerful and with a cheaper desktop chip option and suddenly realized that I didn't need a midrange tower anymore because the mac pro had effectively become one. Definitely the lamest dream I've ever been annoyed enough to remember in the morning.

 

[DoFoT9]

not until at least end of 2010.. at the minimum..

there is a thread going around, give it a search.

 

[Hellhammer]

Mobile Nehalems are coming in Q4 I think, but Arrandales are coming as well. Arrandales are not quad-core but they are made using 32nm technic and that's why they are faster than 45nm quad-cores, I think. Clarksfield are possible though, but they are so expensive when they come.

 

[DoFoT9]

Mobile Nehalems are coming in Q4 I think, but Arrandales are coming as well. Arrandales are not quad-core but they are made using 32nm technic and that's why they are faster than 45nm quad-cores, I think. Clarksfield are possible though, but they are so expensive when they come.

arent the Nehalems only in the lower frequency?? 1ghz etc? apple wont put them in the MBPs. i think they will wait and use the fact that the frequency of the CPUs will give better results for most users.

 

[Hellhammer]

arent the Nehalems only in the lower frequency?? 1ghz etc? apple wont put them in the MBPs. i think they will wait and use the fact that the frequency of the CPUs will give better results for most users.

Yea, 1.6GHz, 1.73GHz and 2.0GHz. 2GHz will cost over 1000$ so...

Apple will and I hope they use Arrandales. Clock speeds and prices will be similar to current Penryns, I guess.

 

[DoFoT9]

Yea, 1.6GHz, 1.73GHz and 2.0GHz. 2GHz will cost over 1000$ so...

Apple will and I hope they use Arrandales. Clock speeds and prices will be similar to current Penryns, I guess.

ahhh right, yea it will be SO SO expensive! the MBP i want already costs $4,500 Aus, putting a quad core into it will make it HOT and bloody expensive!

 

[Hellhammer]

ahhh right, yea it will be SO SO expensive! the MBP i want already costs $4,500 Aus, putting a quad core into it will make it HOT and bloody expensive!

Yeah, Clarksfields are expensive. Hopefully Apple won't use them. Arrandales are cheaper, cooler and should provide great performance.

Cheers

 

[DoFoT9]

Yeah, Clarksfields are expensive. Hopefully Apple won't use them. Arrandales are cheaper, cooler and should provide great performance.

Cheers

ok right, are Arrandales 32nm? or still 45... last question i promise!!

 

[Hellhammer]

ok right, are Arrandales 32nm? or still 45... last question i promise!!

No problem, mate. Yes they are. Look at this article from Wikipedia. It's my source of information

 

[DoFoT9]

No problem, mate. Yes they are. Look at this article from Wikipedia. It's my source of information

yea i prefer getting it from people rather then wiki haha! thanks for the link ill read up on it

 

[wesleyh]

Apple will come out with quad cores this year, and they'll be desktop chips. I'm sure of it. They would be too far behind if they continued to use mobile chips in the imac. A redesign of the imac can surely handle a desktop chip.

 

[Hellhammer]

Apple will come out with quad cores this year, and they'll be desktop chips. I'm sure of it. They would be too far behind if they continued to use mobile chips in the imac. A redesign of the imac can surely handle a desktop chip.

Are you Steve, huh? Apple won't use desktop chips and current design will probably last at least a year. Apple want iMac to be even thinner not fatter. Low-end Lynnfield (2.13GHz) could be possible if it's 45W, but I doubt it.

What you mean behind? Arrandales will be a huge bump in performance. Cores and clock speed aren't everything...

 

[wesleyh]

Are you Steve, huh? Apple won't use desktop chips and current design will probably last at least a year. Apple want iMac to be even thinner not fatter. Low-end Lynnfield (2.13GHz) could be possible if it's 45W, but I doubt it.

What you mean behind? Arrandales will be a huge bump in performance. Cores and clock speed aren't everything...

The current imac hasn't changed from last years (at least not the cpu). The march "upgrade" was simply a in-between model and they'll probably release a new imac in time for snow leopard.

The comparison to similar pcs is looking pretty bad already.. Quad core has been mainstream in the desktop market for more than a year already. I cannot recommend it any more to people asking me for advice, especially at the price they're asking for it. And yes, I compare with desktops because this is a desktop system.

They simply need to get rid of mobile cpus for their flagship desktop system. Mobile cpus are always years behind, that's ok for a laptop. Not for a desktop.

 

[DoFoT9]

the iMac WONT have desktop quad core chips.. nor desktop dual core chips.. full stop.

They simply need to get rid of mobile cpus for their flagship desktop system. Mobile cpus are always years behind, that's ok for a laptop. Not for a desktop.

years behind??? righto.. didnt realise that..

 

[Tallest Skil]

The current imac hasn't changed from last years (at least not the cpu). The march "upgrade" was simply a in-between model and they'll probably release a new imac in time for snow leopard.

That's doubtful, in that NOTHING exists with which to upgrade.

Quad core has been mainstream in the desktop market for more than a year already.

Impossibly wrong.

I cannot recommend it any more to people asking me for advice, especially at the price they're asking for it.

How about all that software for Windows that USES quad-cores, eh? WOW, it's... oh, wait.

They simply need to get rid of mobile cpus for their flagship desktop system.

Not happening.

Mobile cpus are always years behind, that's ok for a laptop. Not for a desktop.

Funny, because it seems that these "years behind" chips do absolutely everything that about 75% of all computer users are, oh, DOING, and the rest of us will either buy computers that do what we need to do (Mac Pro, et. al.) or we complain about it.

Guess which I am and guess which you are.

 

[wesleyh]

Why is it impossible to use desktop cpu's? Didn't they do that with the G5 imac? (Still have one of those, and yes it's hot, but it still works after all those years)

With some new cooling tech, they could do it if they wanted to.

 

[Tallest Skil]

Why is it impossible to use desktop cpu's? Didn't they do that with the G5 imac? (Still have one of those, and yes it's hot, but it still works after all those years)

With some new cooling tech, they could do it if they wanted to.

But they really don't want to. And that's all that matters.

Again 75% of users don't NEED any more than what already exists! They don't need Nehalem, Westmere, Sandy Bridge, or Haswell.

 

[wesleyh]

But they really don't want to. And that's all that matters.

Again 75% of users don't NEED any more than what already exists! They don't need Nehalem, Westmere, Sandy Bridge, or Haswell.

Oh ok, that means apple doesn't have to make any new imacs ever? They don't need any more than what already exists.. That is a lame argument. Why did they make snow leopard? We don't NEED it!

And why wouldn't they want to? Desktop cpus are CHEAPER and FASTER. It's a marketing advantage.

And don't say it will bite into the mac pro sales, that thing probably does not get sold a whole lot anyway.

 

[iMav]

And yes, I compare with desktops because this is a desktop system.

Which all-in-one desktop offerings are you comparing the iMac's to?

 

[Tallest Skil]

Why did they make snow leopard? We don't NEED it!

75% is not 100%. They made Snow Leopard for those of us who actually need or care to have more performance out of existing hardware.

And why wouldn't they want to? Desktop cpus are CHEAPER and FASTER. It's a marketing advantage.

No, their marketing advantage comes from being able to have the thinnest desktop computer on the market with an eleven year history of reliability.

Again, they don't care.

And don't say it will bite into the mac pro sales,

It wouldn't. No one cares.

that thing probably does not get sold a whole lot anyway.

Sure, it doesn't.

 

[wesleyh]

Which all-in-one desktop offerings are you comparing the iMac's to?

Doesn't need to be compared to an all in one since apple doesn't offer a "normal" desktop system. I simply compare to desktop systems in the same (but mostly lower) price range.

And no one cares about it being the thinnest desktop.. (I'm talking about adding one inch or so for extra cooling won't stop people from suddenly buying it)

The fact of the matter is if they did offer desktop cpus with this kind of system it would sell through the roof, there is no denying. And making money, they do care about that..

 

[Tallest Skil]

Doesn't need to be compared to an all in one since apple doesn't offer a "normal" desktop system.

That's EXACTLY why comparing it to towers is an absolutely useless comparison.

And no one cares about it being the thinnest desktop..

Apple does, and that's all that matters.

The fact of the matter is if they did offer desktop cpus with this kind of system it would sell through the roof, there is no denying.

Except you can't possibly know that, and I would like to refute it.

 

[nickane]

not until at least end of 2010.. at the minimum..

there is a thread going around, give it a search.

I did do a search and none of the threads seemed particularly insightful, let alone comprehensive.

No problem, mate. Yes they are. Look at this article from Wikipedia. It's my source of information

Cheers. That's answered a lot of my questions.

years behind??? righto.. didnt realise that..

To be fair to the OP, whilst the mobile equivalent is only ever about 9 months behind in the intel roadmap, it always involves compromises, many of which Apple aren't willing to make. There was always a mobile variant of the G5, as I remember it (can't remember the product code). It was just way too hot and power-hungry to fit into a Powerbook. By the time IBM made one that could just about meet apple's standards (maybe... just), the switch had already just been announced.

The quad-core issue is no different. There have been desktop quad-cores available for years, and laptops available for over 6 months, but it'll be another year before they fit into Apple's neat casings. Same goes for bluray. Notice that there are many other manufacturers prepared to take on that "bag of hurt", even if their machines aren't as well-designed.

But, considering I wasn't trying to start an xMac thread (for once), could we stay on-topic pls. Ultimately, Tallest Skil is right. Apple won't put a quad-core in the MBPs until it can maintain the harmony of their product lines (ie by not offering an under-clocked quad-core as an upsell from a faster dual core, which apple fears might confuse us) anymore than they will break the habit of a lifetime by releasing a product that other computer manufacturers have been making for years, with an presumably bigger mac-to-equivalent-pc price ratio than in any other product line (Dell do a quad-core desktop for peanuts).

Ultimately, despite Snow Leopard's advances in multithreading, there are not that many people out there, like me, who need the extra cores.

 

[iMacmatician]

Does anyone have an idea when we will see quad cores in the iMacs and MBPs?

I think they'll wait until quad-cores become cheap enough so that they can replace all the dual-cores with quad-cores (to avoid issues of lower-clocked quads vs. higher-clocked duals), which could be soon with the iMacs but would be later with the MacBook Pros. So MacBook Pros I think 2011 (or maybe later).

For iMacs, although the CPU prices are probably not too far from quad-core prices, 2 out of the 3 are expensive (which means only one CPU for the lower-end and midrange). Plus, quad-core prices won't go down with 1st generation Clarksfield (although the middle one will drop in price), so if Apple didn't use quad-core for this update, it's probable they won't in the next one when the quad-core landscape hasn't changed too much.

The midrange quad price drop makes it more likely with Clarksfield and Turbo Boost makes it even more likely, but I don't think it's still not that likely so I'm saying 2011 for the iMacs, although 2010 or even late 2009 is the optimistic prediction.

Another option I can see is that Apple avoids core count and clock speeds for the most part, and focuses on the Core i3/i5/i7 monikers. That plus Turbo Boost would largely avoid the clocks issue.

In the interim we'll see Arrandale. The rumored fall update of the iMacs may see Clarksfield if we're lucky but my pessimism says overclocked Penryns.

Yea, 1.6GHz, 1.73GHz and 2.0GHz. 2GHz will cost over 1000$ so...

Don't forget Turbo Boost, which gives 2.8 GHz, 3.07 GHz, 3.2 GHz. But then again we don't know Arrandale's clocks or (if it will have) Turbo Boost (and if so how much).

Why is it impossible to use desktop cpu's? Didn't they do that with the G5 imac? (Still have one of those, and yes it's hot, but it still works after all those years)

The iMac's G5 was 49 W but I don't know if the TDP's measured the same way. The 24" iMac can take up to at least 55 W.

Quad-cores can fit into the iMac heatwise, it's just that Apple chose not to use them

 

[DoFoT9]

and of course... apple wont replace all their laptops with quad-core at the same time!!

they will leave the base/mid range MBPs as duals, and the high end 15"/17" as Quad.