Evidence points to new MacBook Pros on horizon

[AppleInsider]

After examining the configuration files included in the latest build of OS X, a new report has discovered references to two new MacBook Pro models.

The 10C531 build of the 10.6.2 update contained the configuration files in question, according to Spanish-language site Applesana.es. The models referenced are the MacBook Pro 6.1 and the MacBook Pro 6.1b. The current crop of MacBook Pros have a 5.(x) designation, spanning 5.1 through 5.5.

The MacBook Pro line was not updated during the latest Apple refresh, when Apple introduced Intel's Core i5 and i7 processors to the newly redesigned iMac line.

The Intel Core i7 mobile processors, formerly code named Clarksfield, reportedly offer better performance with multi-threaded applications and can increase the processor clock speed up to 75 percent to match workloads.

According to the report, all indications point to two new MacBook Pros with Quad Core Mobile processors and ATI series 4500 GPUs.

The MacBook Pro line was last updated at the beginning of June at the Worldwide Developers Conference where Apple announced 17, 15, and 13 inch versions of the Pro. These models all featured Intel Core 2 Duo processors and NVIDIA GeForce 9400M and 9600M GT GPUs.

[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]

[Drow_Swordsman]

EDIT: My bad, I didn't know what I was talking about. .

[clexman]

Too bad Nvidia and Intel didn't make nice with each other. Now we're back to Intel chipsets.

[mdriftmeyer]

Originally Posted by clexman

Too bad Nvidia and Intel didn't make nice with each other. Now we're back to Intel chipsets.

You'll get your nvidia on these boxes as dedicated GPUs. That isn't the problem with the business Nvidia is exiting--the custom controller market where Nvidia replaces the Intel north/south bridge set up with their own.

Folks you'll still see nvidia or ati chipsets in a hybrid format on the Macbook Pro.

[Isomorphic]

Great. New MacBook Pros. The question is: When? January?

[the cool gut]

Originally Posted by clexman

Too bad Nvidia and Intel didn't make nice with each other. Now we're back to Intel chipsets.

That only affects computers that use Intels integrated graphics (mac books).

[JeffDM]

Originally Posted by Drow_Swordsman

A much needed update - though I'd be surprised if the i5 or i7's get in the MBP's, I'm thinking it'll be the Xeon's.

Why? There aren't any Xeons marketed for notebook use, and it's needlessly expensive. There are some very low power Xeons, but still, it goes back to the price again.

[sheff]

I guess we are down to ATI as the only mobile graphics provider. That's what you get for being greedy Intel.

I wonder if i5 or i7 will make it into MBP13... though i7 will probably be 17' only. Also I predict 16:9 aspect ratio.

[astrosmash]

There are always new MacBook Pros on the horizon.

[Mr. K]

Why the suggestion of the Radeon 4500s? That's a step sideways if not backwards. If the new MBPs are going the ATI graphics route, They should be using the midrange 5500/5600 series (which should be out by the time the refresh happens). Or, hell with it, a 4670.

[ltcommander.data]

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

According to the source, all indications point to two new MacBook Pros with Quad Core Mobile processors and ATI series 4500 GPUs.

Normally I'm a supporter of ATI, especially with them on a role since the HD4000 series, but please no. Despite the ever creative marketing names the Mobility HD4500 series is not a mid-range GPU, but a low-end GPU. Even the fastest, HD 4570 is slower than the 9600M GT.

The 9600M GT has a TDP of around 23W. Direct replacements candidates include the nVidia GT240M which has 48 SPs (50% increase) with higher clocks and the ATI HD4600 series which looks to be faster than the GT240M. Both are DirectX 10.1 parts and are produced on a 40nm process. Personally, I'd love to see a Mobility Radeon HD4670 in 512MB and 1GB configurations, but I could live with the GT240M in 256MB and 512MB configurations which is probably more likely.

I'm also curious about what Apple is going to do about quad core Clarksfield. There are only 2 models that have the lower 45W TDP (reasonable given the previous 35W CPU + ~10W northbridge), but 2 models isn't enough to make a whole MacBook Pro product line. The clock speeds are also pretty unimpressive with the lower clock Core i7-720QM at 1.6GHz in quad core mode and 2.4GHz Turbo in dual core mode and the Core i7-820QM at 1.73GHz in quad core mode and 2.8GHz Turbo in dual core mode. The means that it's quite possible that the average user who only really needs a dual core could see no performance gain or could even lose performance compared to the generally higher clocked dual cores we have now with their larger L2 cache which is more useful in common desktop applications and games than a small, fast L2 cache and large, slow L3 cache as in Clarksfield. Hopefully, if Apple can't squeeze the 2GHz Core i7-920XM into the MacBook Pro as a BTO, they'll be able to convince Intel to release a 45W 1.86GHz Clarksfield early. Presumably either Apple will get first dibs on dual core Arrandale this year or will wait for Arrandale next year until they refresh the MacBook Pro lineup. Certainly the 13" MBP will be completely Arrandale and perhaps the 15"/17" models will come with Arrandale standard too, and leave Clarksfield as a BTO.

[Chintan100]

Originally Posted by astrosmash

There are always new MacBook Pros on the horizon.

+1 to this... MacBooks are updated 2 or 3 times every year so this is no news...

[daniel84]

Originally Posted by sheff

I wonder if i5 or i7 will make it into MBP13... though i7 will probably be 17' only.

MacBook Pros get hot enough as it is. You'll never see these hot, power-hungry CPUs in any laptop Apple makes.

[solipsism]

Originally Posted by clexman

Too bad Nvidia and Intel didn't make nice with each other. Now we're back to Intel chipsets.

It is too bad. I have been hoping to get the IGP and GPU switching without restarting working, and even hoped that both could work together using OpenCL. C’est la vie.

Originally Posted by Isomorphic

Great. New MacBook Pros. The question is: When? January?

If it’s in this developer build I would guess that they are coming out shortly. This holiday season, which means an announcement before Black Friday.

Originally Posted by sheff

Also I predict 16:9 aspect ratio.

Please, no! Going to 16:10 already reduced the height of my 13” display despite having a 12” PB before it. I know we can’t go back to 4:3, but these wider screens are simply horrible for reading text on a small display.

Originally Posted by daniel84

MacBook Pros get hot enough as it is. You'll never see these hot, power-hungry CPUs in any laptop Apple makes.

If they remove the optical drive they can position the GPU and CPU farther away and with larger heat sinks, like they did in the new wider iMacs. I can dream, can’t I?

[ltcommander.data]

Originally Posted by solipsism

It is too bad. I have been hoping to get the IGP and GPU switching without restarting working, and even hoped that both could work together using OpenCL. C’est la vie.

The preferred solution for Arrandale models, particularly the 13" MacBook Pro is to have the Intel GMA and a low-end discrete GPU. Intel IGPs can do dynamic GPU switching as well.

Originally Posted by solipsism

If it’s in this developer build I would guess that they are coming out shortly. This holiday season, which means an announcement before Black Friday.

I thought Apple usually has a fall MacBook Pro refresh so I'm hoping for a November release.

[clexman]

Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer

You'll get your nvidia on these boxes as dedicated GPUs. That isn't the problem with the business Nvidia is exiting--the custom controller market where Nvidia replaces the Intel north/south bridge set up with their own.

Folks you'll still see nvidia or ati chipsets in a hybrid format on the Macbook Pro.

I'm talking about chipsets. You are mixing up graphics & chipsets.

Originally Posted by the cool gut

That only affects computers that use Intels integrated graphics (mac books).

It affects every portable mac. Currently they all use an nvidia chipset. No current portable macs use intel chipsets. Currently there are only Intel chipsets for Core i5 & i7 processors.

For a computer to use a Core i5 or i7 it will need to run on either:

A 2 chip system with an intel CPU & intel chipset/GPU or
A 3 chip system with an intel CPU, intel chipset & AMD or Nvidia GPU.

All the current portables use a 2 chip system with an intel CPU & an Nvidia chipset/GPU, with the higher end models adding a 2nd GPU that can be turned off to save power.

So, I'm willing to bet that no low end portables (or the Air) will get a Core i5 or i7 chip anytime soon because they will use more power if they go the 3 chip route or have worse graphics performance if they go the 2 chip route.

[isaaclev]

Doesn't surprise me. Another indicator is that the default HD configuration on the current 13" MBP is 120GB, while the new macbook has a 160GB HD. So I would expect at least a minor update before main holiday season...

[solipsism]

Originally Posted by isaaclev

Doesn't surprise me. Another indicator is that the default HD configuration on the current 13" MBP is 120GB, while the new macbook has a 160GB HD. So I would expect at least a minor update before main holiday season...

Actually, the size difference is more extreme than that. The 13” MBP is 160GB while the new MB is 250GB at their default configurations.

[ltcommander.data]

Historically, Apple does have a fall notebook refresh, but with so many notebook refreshes this year, I'm wouldn't be surprised if we don't see one. Certainly, it'd seem in Apple's best interest to wait for Arrandale which is due next year, although it's possible they'll split the product line with Core 2 Duo and Core i7 like they did in the iMac although that is a lot of extra design work unlike Arrandale and Clarksfield which can share chipsets.

Seeing the LCD manufacturers are pushing toward 16:9 displays, even if I hate it, I think there's not that much Apple can do to stem the tide without having to pay more for 16:10 displays as volume production moves toward 16:9. As such it wouldn't surprise me to see Apple move to 14" 1366x768, 15.6" 1600x900, and 17.3" 2048x1152 displays. Still with this change, maybe they can bring back the ExpressCard slot for the 15" model.

Assuming Apple convinces Intel to give them Arrandale early for a November MacBook Pro refresh, my guess on a lineup would be as follows:

14.0" 1366x768 Low-End MacBook Pro
~2.26GHz Core i5 Arrandale with 3MB L2 cache (OEM model like current 2.26GHz Core 2 Duo)
2GB DDR3 1333MHz
250GB HDD
Intel GMA + nVidia GT210M with 256MB GDDR3

14.0" 1366x768 High-End MacBook Pro
2.4GHz Core i5-520M Arrandale with 3MB L2 cache
4GB DDR3 1333MHz
320GB HDD
Intel GMA + nVidia GT210M with 256MB GDDR3

15.6" 1600x900 Low-End MacBook Pro
2.4GHz Core i5-520M Arrandale with 3MB L2 cache
4GB DDR3 1333MHz
320GB HDD
Intel GMA + nVidia GT210M with 256MB GDDR3
ExpressCard Slot

15.6" 1600x900 Mid-End MacBook Pro
2.53GHz Core i5-540M Arrandale with 3MB L2 cache
4GB DDR3 1333MHz
320GB HDD
Intel GMA + ATI 4830 with 512MB GDDR3
ExpressCard Slot

15.6" 1600x900 High-End MacBook Pro
2.66GHz Core i7-620M Arrandale with 4MB L2 cache
4GB DDR3 1333MHz
500GB HDD
Intel GMA + ATI 4830 with 1GB GDDR3
ExpressCard Slot

17.3" 2048x1152 MacBook Pro
2.66GHz Core i7-620M Arrandale with 4MB L2 cache
4GB DDR3 1333MHz
500GB HDD
Intel GMA + ATI 4830 with 1GB GDDR3
ExpressCard Slot

Both the High-end 15" and the 17" MacBook Pro can have the 1.73GHz Core i7-820QM Clarksfield as a BTO.

Given the low clock speeds of the 1.6GHz Core i7-720QM especially in dual core mode where it can only Turbo to 2.4GHz, I can't see Apple being very enthused with using it, since you could actually lose performance in the average dual core application compared to current 2.66GHz+ Core 2 Duos in comparable MacBook Pros. So I didn't include the 1.6GHz Core i7-720QM Clarksfield as a regular configuration even though it's priced similar to the 2.66GHz Core i7-620M Arrandale.

I don't see USB 3.0 since there is no chipsets with integrated support and I don't see Apple devoting motherboard space for dedicated chips. It's still early for fibreoptic connections. I'm hoping for Firewire 3200 and Bluetooth 3.0 though. The 15" MacBook Pro would hopefully see the return of the ExpressCard slot and all models would still have SD slots including the 17" MacBook Pro which currently doesn't. It'd be interesting to have bi-directional Displayport support too, although it would be kind of a niche feature. Apple could also use the presumably extra width of a 16:9 transition to put in 4 SODIMM slots like in the iMacs. That would better allow 8GB configurations in a 4x2GB configuration to avoid paying the high prices for 4GB SODIMMs. Although I don't think many laptops have 4 SODIMM slots.

For graphics, I figured that combining Intel GMAs with at least a dedicated low-end GPU is a good compromise for OpenCL support. Intel GMAs do support dynamic GPU switching. An alternate GPU arrangement to what I proposed to incorporate the HD4500 series rumour would be to replace the nVidia GT210M with the HD4530, which would be slower, knowing Apple that makes it more likely, but still an improvement over the 9400M. The HD4830 is an aggressive choice being 40nm for mid-range GPU power consumption for the 15"/17" models and not very likely since it's so rare, so I'd settle for a nVidia GT240M (still DX10.1 compliant) or the faster Mobility Radeon HD4600 series. It wouldn't surprise me either if Apple stuck with 256MB and 512MB VRAM configurations.

[solipsism]

Originally Posted by daniel84

MacBook Pros get hot enough as it is. You'll never see these hot, power-hungry CPUs in any laptop Apple makes.

The mobile C2Q and mobile i7s both run at 45W. The current C2Ds are 35W. But don’t the i7s integrate a chip that uses 8W(?) thereby making them a solid upgrade option for notebooks while keeping within similar TDP?

Originally Posted by ltcommander.data

I thought Apple usually has a fall MacBook Pro refresh so I'm hoping for a November release.

They do, but the last MBP update wasn’t that long ago. 140 days when the average is 200, according to MacRumors’ Buyer’s Guide. That puts the mean average in December, a horrible time to release anything. I’d say it could both ways, but this revelation in the 10.6.2 Beta tips the scales to the Autumn release, or Spring for the australs.

edit: nice post above (#19), ltcommander.data.

[cycomiko]

Originally Posted by isaaclev

Doesn't surprise me. Another indicator is that the default HD configuration on the current 13" MBP is 120GB, while the new macbook has a 160GB HD. So I would expect at least a minor update before main holiday season...

new macbook has 160?

[caljomac]

I agree, xeons are good...but expensive. I would have a 17 inch option with a quad core, probably an i5, and that would do me fine

[ediedi]

Please, no! Going to 16:10 already reduced the height of my 13” display despite having a 12” PB before it. I know we can’t go back to 4:3, but these wider screens are simply horrible for reading text on a small display.

Yes!
My dock is on the side of the screen, and I even hide the bookmark toolbar in Safari so I can get a few more lines of text. (needless to say i was a fan of tabs on top for the same reason).

[solipsism]

Originally Posted by ediedi

Yes!
My dock is on the side of the screen, and I even hide the bookmark toolbar in Safari so I can get a few more lines of text. (needless to say i was a fan of tabs on top for the same reason).

Me too. I used that Safari 4.0 Beta for as long as I could. I don’t want it to be the default, but an option would be nice.

[applebook]

Why would Apple have to move to 14" for 16:9 WXGA? There are plenty of 13" 16:9 WXGA displays out there. For Apple to replace the 13" MBP so quickly is nonsensical.

If we see any quad-core chips in the 15" MBP this year, I'd be shocked, unless the case is redesigned, allowing more airflow and cooling. A major redesign of a one-year-old enclosure doesn't seem cost effective.

I wouldn't be surprised if Apple added a special new MBP that is slightly thicker and has a quad-core in it.

[macologist]

Hope Ant-Glare - Matte Screen never goes away

[solipsism]

Originally Posted by applebook

If we see any quad-core chips in the 15" MBP this year, I'd be shocked, unless the case is redesigned, allowing more airflow and cooling. A major redesign of a one-year-old enclosure doesn't seem cost effective.

I wouldn't be surprised if Apple added a special new MBP that is slightly thicker and has a quad-core in it.

Dell has there Studio 15 and 17 notebooks with a Core i7 option. They go from 1” at the front to 1.5” at the back. You can get the i7-720QM or i7-820QM CPU for $999 or $1,349, respectively. That CPU bump from 1.6GHz to 1.73GHz will cost you $350. Crazy!

I have more faith in Apple’s engineering than Dell’s, but that does seem like a lot of crunching to maintain the same 1” height.

[applebook]

Originally Posted by solipsism

Dell has there Studio 15 and 17 notebooks with a Core i7 option. They go from 1” at the front to 1.5” at the back. You can get the i7-720QM or i7-820QM CPU for $999 or $1,349, respectively. That CPU bump from 1.6GHz to 1.73GHz will cost you $350. Crazy!

I have more faith in Apple’s engineering than Dell’s, but that does seem like a lot of crunching to maintain the same 1” height.

The difference between .98" and 1.5" is MASSIVE! We're talking more than 50%. I don't see how Apple can cram even the lowest clocking i5 in there. It could happen, but I'd be more willing to bet that it doesn't for the 15."

[Marvin]

Originally Posted by Chintan100

+1 to this... MacBooks are updated 2 or 3 times every year so this is no news...

Yeah but putting the reference to a new model in this OS update suggests the update is between this OS update and the next i.e soon as new models don't usually come in December.

This has implications for what the update will be as there's no Arrandale yet so it seems they might try using the quads.

Given the power consumption of the 2GHz chip at full load, I don't think they'd go for that one. But they should do something to rival the 1.6GHz quad 15" HP Envy at $1799 with 6GB Ram and 1GB Radeon 4830. They list this model at having 7.25 hours of battery life without wifi. The CPU is only 10W higher than the 3GHz chip Apple offer in the MBP.

I don't think 6GB needs to be standard but it would be nice to see the chip on the $1999 model and above. Maybe put the 1.73GHz quad model on the 17".

The desktop line is interesting because they switched entirely to dedicated ATI chips, which adds weight to Apple's disagreements with NVidia. The GT240M would be a good GPU but the Radeon 4830 is fine. Apple never used the 9400M with the 9600M GT anyway, it was always one or the other.

It would be nice to see the lower models move up in spec - start the 13" at 2.53GHz for example to give it an edge over the plastic one - but it's not absolutely necessary.

[Zandros]

Originally Posted by clexman

I'm talking about chipsets. You are mixing up graphics & chipsets.



It affects every portable mac. Currently they all use an nvidia chipset. No current portable macs use intel chipsets. Currently there are only Intel chipsets for Core i5 & i7 processors.

For a computer to use a Core i5 or i7 it will need to run on either:

A 2 chip system with an intel CPU & intel chipset/GPU or
A 3 chip system with an intel CPU, intel chipset & AMD or Nvidia GPU.

All the current portables use a 2 chip system with an intel CPU & an Nvidia chipset/GPU, with the higher end models adding a 2nd GPU that can be turned off to save power.

So, I'm willing to bet that no low end portables (or the Air) will get a Core i5 or i7 chip anytime soon because they will use more power if they go the 3 chip route or have worse graphics performance if they go the 2 chip route.

With the Arrandale, you'll end up with Intel integrated graphics no matter what since it's integrated in the CPU, possibly with a discrete GPU tacked on. For the Clarksfield, there are no Intel GPU solutions at all so you need a discrete GPU.

[Henriok]

What actual evidence are there for quad core CPUs in these new machines? Is there info in these plists that actually say what CPU and GPU they are using or is the "evidence" we are talking about just really speculations taken from Intel's current roadmap?

[mdriftmeyer]

Originally Posted by clexman

I'm talking about chipsets. You are mixing up graphics & chipsets.



It affects every portable mac. Currently they all use an nvidia chipset. No current portable macs use intel chipsets. Currently there are only Intel chipsets for Core i5 & i7 processors.

For a computer to use a Core i5 or i7 it will need to run on either:

A 2 chip system with an intel CPU & intel chipset/GPU or
A 3 chip system with an intel CPU, intel chipset & AMD or Nvidia GPU.

All the current portables use a 2 chip system with an intel CPU & an Nvidia chipset/GPU, with the higher end models adding a 2nd GPU that can be turned off to save power.

So, I'm willing to bet that no low end portables (or the Air) will get a Core i5 or i7 chip anytime soon because they will use more power if they go the 3 chip route or have worse graphics performance if they go the 2 chip route.

I'm not confused. You're worried that the hybrid set up for Apple will be lost and you're going to be stuck with Intel.

The Arrandale architecture out this January for a core i5 32nm fab has integrated graphics for the laptop market, but the graphics performance won't match the Nvidia 9400M.

I don't see Apple jumping onboard the Core i5/i7 bandwagon until Larabie has made it into the market.

Apple will not cripple their Macbook Pro after moving the latest Macbook to the 9400M baseline.

Intel's Larabie won't be ready by January.

Either they hedge and just do an incremental update in CPU and use the 9400M and bump the dedicated GPU for the Macbook Pro that are OpenCL ready:

http://www.nvidia.com/object/product...t_230m_us.html

or they wait.

I just don't see Apple jumping into the Core iSeries until they can keep their margins and Intel has part of the OpenCL/OpenGL equation capacity to justify using them.

Hell, I'd just keep the current CPUs or bump up a bit, where possible, use the 9400M Chipset and drop in the GT 230M or GT240M and make Hybrid access without any need to logout/login work out of the box and be leveraged system-wide all those OpenCL cores on the 230M and 240M OpenCL ready GPGPUs.

[mr O]

Originally Posted by solipsism

If they remove the optical drive they can position the GPU and CPU farther away and with larger heat sinks, like they did in the new wider iMacs. I can dream, can’t I?

That'll be great:

1. It will give us the option to attach a seperate BluRay drive afterwards whenever we like!
2. It will bring the cost down as the seperate drive will be an option.
3. It might extend the battery life.
4. And as Solipsism mentions, it will give us a cooler Macbook Pro

[mr O]

Originally Posted by solipsism

They do, but the last MBP update wasn’t that long ago. 140 days when the average is 200, according to MacRumors’ Buyer’s Guide. That puts the mean average in December, a horrible time to release anything. I’d say it could both ways, but this revelation in the 10.6.2 Beta tips the scales to the Autumn release, or Spring for the australs.

Yes, it seems to be too early for a refresh.

However, a release right before the shopping season will give the MBpros enough time to shine before the much anticipated Tablets will be announced in January 2010?!

[Mr. H]

Originally Posted by solipsism

The current C2Ds are 35W.

Not correct.

Originally Posted by ltcommander.data

There are only 2 models that have the lower 45W TDP (reasonable given the previous 35W CPU + ~10W northbridge)

No, 45 W is not reasonable. The current MBP uses "P" Core 2 Duos, which are 25 W parts (apart from the top-end 17" which uses the standard 35 W "T" type).

Where did you get your 10 W for the northbridge? I've tried looking a few times but have been unable to find power consumption details.

We're looking at the MBP moving from

CPU+9400M (replaces north and south bridge) + Dedicated GPU

to

CPU+Southbridge+Dedicated GPU.

In the current line-up, you can disable the dedicated GPU to give longer run time on battery and lower heat. If we then go to a 45 W CPU and have to have the dedicated GPU running all the time, it's going to result in shorter battery life and hotter laps. In terms of power consumption, this is like going back to the original Core Duo-based MBP, anyone remember that? Very poor battery life and they got seriously hot. I'm not pleased .

[doyourownthing]

Originally Posted by ediedi

Yes!
My dock is on the side of the screen, and I even hide the bookmark toolbar in Safari so I can get a few more lines of text. (needless to say i was a fan of tabs on top for the same reason).

i miss the split title / tab bar of safari 4 beta, i'm sad they canned that idea...

[MacFinder]

Apple, if you'll do it, that will be AWESOME!
Quad-core MBP !
However, I hope you will not drop the NVIDIA,
it's much more powerful than ATI's GPUs.

[Parkettpolitur]

I'll buy one in an instant if they include Blu-Ray and perhaps some next-gen connectivity (Light Peak would be awesome). Otherwise, I'll stay with my trusty Santa Rosa MBP.

[Mister Snitch]

Originally Posted by mr O

Yes, it seems to be too early for a refresh.

However, a release right before the shopping season will give the MBpros enough time to shine before the much anticipated Tablets will be announced in January 2010?!

Could these be 2 new tablet models, in disguise?

[ltcommander.data]

Originally Posted by Mr. H

No, 45 W is not reasonable. The current MBP uses "P" Core 2 Duos, which are 25 W parts (apart from the top-end 17" which uses the standard 35 W "T" type).

Where did you get your 10 W for the northbridge? I've tried looking a few times but have been unable to find power consumption details.

We're looking at the MBP moving from

CPU+9400M (replaces north and south bridge) + Dedicated GPU

to

CPU+Southbridge+Dedicated GPU.

In the current line-up, you can disable the dedicated GPU to give longer run time on battery and lower heat. If we then go to a 45 W CPU and have to have the dedicated GPU running all the time, it's going to result in shorter battery life and hotter laps. In terms of power consumption, this is like going back to the original Core Duo-based MBP, anyone remember that? Very poor battery life and they got seriously hot. I'm not pleased .

Well, if we agree that the 55W TDP of the 2GHz Core i7-920XM is too hot for the MacBook Pro, then that only leaves Apple with 2 45W Core i7 options. Apple generally allows for a BTO, which would most likely be the 1.73GHz Core i7-820QM. That leaves the 1.6GHz Core i7-720QM as the only CPU available to be integrated as a standard CPU in the MacBook Pro. It's unlikely that Apple would use the same 1.6GHz Core i7-720QM across all 4 15"/17" MacBook Pro models, so the it'll probably replace the top-end current CPU in the high-end 15" and the 17" MacBook Pro which is a 2.8GHz Core 2 Duo. I believe this one has a 35W TDP. So in the models where Apple would offer the Core i7 Clarksfield either as a standard option or as a BTO, Apple already uses 35W TDP CPUs rather than 25W TDP so the power difference should be negligible. I believe Core i7's new power controller is also smarter so that idle power consumption and temperatures are generally lower than Core 2 Duo, which is probably more important for a notebook, even if peak power consumption when fully loaded is the same or a little higher.

http://www.intel.com/Assets/PDF/datasheet/320122.pdf
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...om,2153-4.html

Intel rates the PM55 with a 7W TDP in Table 23 while nVidia claims the 9400M in their ION platform has a 12W TDP including IGP. Estimating around 10W TDP for the northbridge doesn't seem unreasonable. Even if the 9400M shuts off it's IGP, it's doubtful that it'd be able to reach the TDP of the PM55 given that TSMC's 65nm process is less efficient than Intel's 65nm process.