Intel to launch first quad-core notebook chip by Fall

[AppleInsider]

Intel is readying its first quad-core mobile processor for a release during the third quarter of 2008, though elevated pricing and power requirements make it seem unlikely that the chip will immediately find its way in Apple's notebook systems.

Citing sources at motherboard makers, DigiTimes claims the chip -- dubbed the Core 2 Extreme QX9300 -- will set a new high for pricing at $1,038 a piece in thousand-unit allotments when it makes its debut sometime between the months of July and September.

The 45-nanometer design will sport a core frequency of 2.53GHz, support for up to a 1066MHz front-side bus, and include 12MB of Level 2 cache. But with demand for high-end notebook systems reportedly below average, "Intel expects the quad-core notebook CPUs will not become standard in the performance/mainstream notebook market until the second half of 2009."

Also working against immediate widespread adoption is the chip's thermal design power (TDP) of 45-watts, compared to the 35-watt range of today's mainstream mobile Core 2 Duo processors.

While providing the first hints at CPU last April, Intel mobile chief Mooly Eden noted that this specification would limit usage to high-level gaming and mobile workstations, where users are willing to trade battery life for more performance.

"You'll see it at the high-end, but I don't see it running so fast into the mainstream because I don't believe there will be enough threaded applications that will justify the tradeoffs," he said.

[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]

[looksthatkill]

get this bad-boy in the iMac then!

[ajay]

if this baby gets into mac laptops, i would suggest a name change from MacBook Air to MacBook Tornado!

[backtomac]

Originally Posted by ajay

if this baby gets into mac laptops, i would suggest a name change from MacBook Air to MacBook Inferno!

There, FTFY.

[emig647]

I MIGHT be able to drop the need for a mac pro if this happens. Still battling storage on my mbp and screen real-estate... but it's working.

[melgross]

I was wondering when AI was going to notice this.

[ajay]

Originally Posted by backtomac

There, FTFY.

My logic: Tornado = Extremely fast "Air"

But considering the possible (over)heating issues, your argument of Inferno (thighs on fire) is also well justified!

[melgross]

This chip may consume 45 watts. Compare that to the 35 watts for the current model.

[JeffDM]

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

Unlike Intel's quad-core server and desktop chips, which essentially feature two dual-core chips "stuck together," the QX9300 is likely to be the first offering from a new Intel mobile architecture that will feature all four processor cores on a single piece of silicon, Eden's previous comments suggest.

I am pretty sure that is part outdated and part incorrect. All the Penryn based quad core chips are like that now, four cores on a single die.

I think the iMac is really the only place it can go when it's first launched, maybe what's currently the 2.8GHz model. It's not suitable for the MBPro unless they manage to make a binning that's rated at 35 Watts at a clock that's as quick as the fastest dual core.

[FuturePastNow]

I haven't heard anything about a native-quad core Penryn processor. This is almost certainly going to be based on a MCM.

[backtomac]

Originally Posted by ajay

My logic: Tornado = Extremely fast "Air"

But considering the possible (over)heating issues, your argument of Inferno (thighs on fire) is also well justified!

Joking aside, this is what I'm hoping will make it into the iMac.

I'm holding out for it.

[Walter Slocombe]

Originally Posted by looksthatkill

get this bad-boy in the iMac then!

I dont understand why the main article completely ignored the iMac?

after all {copy}"Apple Inc. the Cupertino, California based Mac maker is well known for its Intel based all in one" {paste}

assuming there are no obvious restrictions? the iMac doesn't run on batteries and has more room that a laptop for easier/better thermal distribution.

the high price "should" be well down by macworld 2009 so I'd expect them around then??

[Crtaylor]

Apple needs to put this is at least one of their computer lines. It would definitely redefine the standards for both the iMacs and the Macbook lines (all three of them). Therefore, Steve should get a hold of those chips regardless of the price!

[Kolchak]

I normally don't participate in the "headless midrange Mac" wishful thinking threads, but if they put this in a slightly larger than Mini case with a couple of 3.5" HD bays and maybe a replaceable PCIe graphics card, I'd buy it.

[MariusX86]

I'd certainly love the quiet and tidy power of such a beast

[solipsism]

1) Have Apple ever put an Extreme version of an Intel processor in any of it's notebooks or consumer desktops? I don't think so.

2) The heat and battery usage are prohibitive to the current case designs.

3) The price is prohibitive for the iMac.

[backtomac]

Originally Posted by solipsism

1) Have Apple ever put an Extreme version of an Intel processor in any of it's notebooks or consumer desktops? I don't think so.

Isn't the 2.8 ghz chip in 24" iMac an Extreme version?

I thought it was.

[solipsism]

Originally Posted by backtomac

Isn't the 2.8 ghz chip in 24" iMac an Extreme version?

I thought it was.

Why yes it is.

Checking on the price of that chip now...

edit:
The current 2.8GHz X9000 with 6MB L2 and 800MHz FSB is $851. The QX9300 is only $189 more. I guess that it is a possible inclusion for the top end iMac. Thanks, Backtomac.

[i386]

I'll have mine please...

One with quad cpu, 256Gb SSD, BD drive, 17" big Macbook Pro please with a side order of 4GB of ram.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by solipsism

1) Have Apple ever put an Extreme version of an Intel processor in any of it's notebooks or consumer desktops? I don't think so.

2) The heat and battery usage are prohibitive to the current case designs.

3) The price is prohibitive for the iMac.

I also thought they had an Extreme model in the MBP.

[solipsism]

Originally Posted by melgross

I also thought they had an Extreme model in the MBP.

The MBPs have been using the fastest non-Extreme Intel processors.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by solipsism

The MBPs have been using the fastest non-Extreme Intel processors.

I thought the 2.6 was also an extreme chip, but upon a closer look, it doesn't appear to be.

The 2.8 is.

[aiolos]

I agree with the fact that these processors are unlikely to make it into the MBP or MB lines because of power usage and thermal output. However, for Apple not to offer this as a BTO option on the iMac would be stupid as the iMac is not hindered very much by thermal output, and certainty not by power usage.

Also, if Apple puts this processor in the Mini, that could allow for a major increase in Mini purchases and make it from a joke to a very nice Mac. there is of course the problem of pricing, mainly that these chips cost more than the price of an entire Mini now. Apple would therefore probably need to make it a separate line like the headless xMac that people have been asking for Jobs to offer for years. On the other hand, a Mini Pro with this processor would be a great product IMHO.

Originally Posted by Kolchak

I normally don't participate in the "headless midrange Mac" wishful thinking threads, but if they put this in a slightly larger than Mini case with a couple of 3.5" HD bays and maybe a replaceable PCIe graphics card, I'd buy it.

If those were the specs of this Mini Pro, I think Apple could make some SERIOUS dinero.

I also don't think that this would hinder iMac sales very much, because those who would want an AIO with very little cables will get an iMac. Those who want a cheaper Mac Pro that is still customizable and has a fair amount of power and the freedom for any type of display would get what they want as well.

If I didn't care so much for the mobility of a notebook, I would totally buy it if Apple offered it. However, there's still the chance I could get my Dad to get one

[solipsism]

Originally Posted by melgross

I thought the 2.6 was also an extreme chip, but upon a closer look, it doesn't appear to be.

The 2.8 is.

If Apple sticks with the same $851 chip (which is most likely) they will use the X9100. It is only 2cores but it's 3.06GHz.Most consumers still look at clock speed.

I don't think many are going to pay an extra $700 for a chip that lists a slightly slower clock speed. Plus, I don't think that it will help the average iMac user. In other words, it's not a good marketing move to use the QX9300 over the X9100.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_C...ture#Laptops_2

[jeffharris]

Absolutely!

I could certainly live with shorted battery life to get a quad-core into a MacBook Pro.

I rarely use the battery for more than an hour or two.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by solipsism

If Apple sticks with the same $851 chip (which is most likely) they will use the X9100. It is only 2cores but it's 3.06GHz.Most consumers still look at clock speed.

I don't think many are going to pay an extra $700 for a chip that lists a slightly slower clock speed. Plus, I don't think that it will help the average iMac user. In other words, it's not a good marketing move to use the QX9300 over the X9100.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_C...ture#Laptops_2

I was thinking about the MBP. I would hope that Apple offers the fastest chips for the iMac they can.

In fact, I'm wondering what has happened to the Penyrn iMacs. They should have been out by now.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by jeffharris

Absolutely!

I could certainly live with shorted battery life to get a quad-core into a MacBook Pro.

I rarely use the battery for more than an hour or two.

Heh! Well, if they go to the quad 45 watt chips, one or two hours is all anyone would get.

[aplnub]

I think it is pretty clear that Apple would use this chip in the iMac and not in the notebook lines. Let's face it. Apply has been moving toward better battery life per that special SJ unit of measure.

This would finally separate the iMac from the MBP totally as far as processor power goes and you would see some definite separation and if the top end iMac was the only one to receive this, you can bet this would up sell a large amount of iMac customers, regardless.

So let's all get back down to earth and wait on that quad core that comes in under 35 watts or Apple isn't going to touch it regarding the MB (I like my 6 hour battery life) or MBP (battery life on my CD 2 Ghz kinda sucks).

The only way I would see Apple shoving one of those quad cores in a MBP would be to have processor-on-demand to save battery. To be honest, should be that way now where the OS is smart enough to power the CPU's for optimum battery life or performance by throttling clock rate, core's being shut totally off. The use of stackable CPU's that cut the distance between gates by such a significant factor would be like dropping down to the next nm process.

Of course, I am sure they are working on this crap and we won't see it for some time.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by aplnub

I think it is pretty clear that Apple would use this chip in the iMac and not in the notebook lines. Let's face it. Apply has been moving toward better battery life per that special SJ unit of measure.

This would finally separate the iMac from the MBP totally as far as processor power goes and you would see some definite separation and if the top end iMac was the only one to receive this, you can bet this would up sell a large amount of iMac customers, regardless.

So let's all get back down to earth and wait on that quad core that comes in under 35 watts or Apple isn't going to touch it regarding the MB (I like my 6 hour battery life) or MBP (battery life on my CD 2 Ghz kinda sucks).

The only way I would see Apple shoving one of those quad cores in a MBP would be to have processor-on-demand to save battery. To be honest, should be that way now where the OS is smart enough to power the CPU's for optimum battery life or performance by throttling clock rate, core's being shut totally off. The use of stackable CPU's that cut the distance between gates by such a significant factor would be like dropping down to the next nm process.

Of course, I am sure they are working on this crap and we won't see it for some time.

Core throttling is a part of the chips microcode. It does it on its own. The OS is responsible for other power saving measures, and Apple seems to have that down pretty well. There's only so much that can be done.

[solipsism]

AnandTech has a new article on Intel's roadmap.

• Intel Details Nehalem and Tempts with Larrabee

[minderbinder]

Originally Posted by Kolchak

I normally don't participate in the "headless midrange Mac" wishful thinking threads, but if they put this in a slightly larger than Mini case with a couple of 3.5" HD bays and maybe a replaceable PCIe graphics card, I'd buy it.

This is really the absolute worst chip for that application. Intel already makes a Core Quad chip, why put a laptop chip into a minitower when there's a (I assume cheaper) desktop version available already.

That's apple's biggest issue with their desktop, using laptop parts which raises the price (and sometimes limits performance) for little benefit.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by solipsism

AnandTech has a new article on Intel's roadmap.

• Intel Details Nehalem and Tempts with Larrabee

This is showing up in a bunch of places.

http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquir...sh-future-chip

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/...2276789,00.asp

The only thing that's upsetting right now is the memory specs.

It says that it will be compatible with DDR3 800, 1066, and 1,333.

DDR3 1,333 is considered to be the minmun required to surpass DDR2 800, because of latency.

As DDR3 is already surpassing 2,000 speeds, I would hope that those specs are upgraded by the time the chips arrive later this year, or we will see memory at 2,500. Well above the spec, except for the performance market which buys special mobo's capable of resetting the cpu voltage, speeds, and bus speeds.

What's the bet Apple will move outside the specs?

[FuturePastNow]

Originally Posted by melgross

I thought the 2.6 was also an extreme chip, but upon a closer look, it doesn't appear to be.

The 2.8 is.

There was a 2.6GHz extreme chip. That little chart is for the current Penryn processors.

The Merom-core line included the 2.8GHz X7900 and the 2.6GHz X7800. I doubt Intel sold very many of either.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by FuturePastNow

There was a 2.6GHz extreme chip. That little chart is for the current Penryn processors.

The Merom-core line included the 2.8GHz X7900 and the 2.6GHz X7800. I doubt Intel sold very many of either.

Yeah. That's what I was thinking of. It doesn't show on my search.

[solipsism]

Originally Posted by FuturePastNow

There was a 2.6GHz extreme chip. That little chart is for the current Penryn processors.

The Merom-core line included the 2.8GHz X7900 and the 2.6GHz X7800. I doubt Intel sold very many of either.

According to MacTracker, the current 2.8GHz iMac is the first iMac to sport the Extreme processor. The previous 24" iMac build from late 2006 offered a 2.16 (T7400) or 2.33GHz (T7600) C2D Merom.

[winterspan]

Originally Posted by JeffDM

I am pretty sure that is part outdated and part incorrect. All the Penryn based quad core chips are like that now, four cores on a single die.
I think the iMac is really the only place it can go when it's first launched, maybe what's currently the 2.8GHz model. It's not suitable for the MBPro unless they manage to make a binning that's rated at 35 Watts at a clock that's as quick as the fastest dual core.

Originally Posted by FuturePastNow

I haven't heard anything about a native-quad core Penryn processor. This is almost certainly going to be based on a MCM.

FuturePastNow is right, there are CURRENTLY NO NATIVE QUAD CORE PROCESSORS FROM INTEL. This mobile quad core is a multi-chip module based on two dual cores placed together.

True, native quad-core chips will come with Nehalem's release, in addition to native octo-core (8) for high-end 4P servers. Note that however, there has been material released noting a possible native 6-core PENRYN processor for high end servers.

But regarding the quad core mobile chip, extreme series chips are always very expensive and run hot. For Penryn, there are two mobile extreme series announced so far, both with 45W TDP ratings:
1) Core 2 Extreme X9100, 3.06Ghz Dual Core
2) Core 2 Extreme QX9300, 2.53Ghz Quad core.

However, With the release of the Nehalem architecture in Q1 2009 (mobile variant), you'll see similar processors in the regular laptop lineup, NOT extreme, which will be much cheaper and most likely use less power. Hopefully we'll see a Quad core mobile at a 34 watt TDP.

Nehalem also introduces the first NATIVE quad core (4 cores on one die) chips for mobile, desktop, server in addition to native 8-core chips for 4+ socket servers. Either way, Nehalem is a totally new architecture than Core, including on-board memory controller and Quickpath front-side-bus replacement (similar to AMD HyperTransport). according to Wiki, Nehalem will, compared to Penryn, have up to1.25x the single-threaded performance, and up to 2x the multithreaded performance and 30% lower power usage for the same performance. Also, there will be big increases in floating point performance which has always lagged integer performance in Intels processors vs AMD. This will allow Xeons to scale much better in multi processor systems versus Opterons, which is why AMD has had a big lead in 4P+ HPC and scientific computing.

[ruel24]

Apple really needs to do something with the Mini because there are lots of people that want a Mac that don't want the iMac, and the Mac Pro is both too much and too expensive. A nice non-extreme quad core and at least the ATi 2600HD graphics in something like the Mac Mini, even if it costs a bit more, would be a boon for Apple. $1000 would be a nice price point.

[JeffDM]

Originally Posted by ruel24

Apple really needs to do something with the Mini because there are lots of people that want a Mac that don't want the iMac, and the Mac Pro is both too much and too expensive. A nice non-extreme quad core and at least the ATi 2600HD graphics in something like the Mac Mini, even if it costs a bit more, would be a boon for Apple. $1000 would be a nice price point.

This is not going to happen, for several reasons. I'll give one: it looks like this quad core CPU will cost $850 or more.

[solipsism]

Originally Posted by ruel24

Apple really needs to do something with the Mini because there are lots of people that want a Mac that don't want the iMac, and the Mac Pro is both too much and too expensive. A nice non-extreme quad core and at least the ATi 2600HD graphics in something like the Mac Mini, even if it costs a bit more, would be a boon for Apple. $1000 would be a nice price point.

The processor alone costs more than your $1000 price point. The Mini needs an update but along its current price line.

edit: You said non-extreme; I missed that. Refer to JeffDM's post.

[ruel24]

Yes, I did say non-extreme. I am assuming that they'll produce reasonably priced non-extreme quad cores in the near future (1st Q '09?). Like I said, there is definitely a market out there for a Mac that uses a separate monitor that's not a Mac Pro level computer. A reasonably fast and reasonably affordable one would be a home run. Of course, it has to be much cheaper than an equally fast iMac, but it has to have enough performance that would-be buyers don't overlook it like they currently do the Mini. Just a thought since someone mentioned the Mini...