Apple waiting on quad-core desktop chips from Intel

[AppleInsider]

Apple is among a handful of PC manufacturers who're waiting on a new family of quad-core chips from Intel that are designed for small form-factor PCs like the Mac mini and all-in-one systems like the iMac.

Taiwanese rumors mill DigiTimes is citing sources who say the chip maker plans to launch the 65W low-power chips in the middle of January and that "Apple, Acer, Hewlett-Packard and Dell have already decided to launch products based on these CPUs."

There will be a total of three new chips, according to the report, including the Core 2 Quad Q8200 (2.33GHz/4MB L2), Core 2 Quad Q9400 (2.66GHz/6MB L2) and Core 2 Quad Q9550 (2.83GHz/12MB L2), which will cost $245, $320 and $369, respectively, in lots of 1000.

The new chips reportedly share the same specifications and model number as Core 2 Quad processors that were launched in March and August of this year, but will see their TDP drop from 95W to 65W.

[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]

[amac4me]

So Macworld ... we are likely to see new models announced with delivery dates in late Jan or early Feb.

[solipsism]

I wonder if Apple finally offer desktop-grade CPUs in their iMacs or will they do what Apple usually does and make their machines thinner.

PS: does anyone have the info on the iMac and Mac mini's current CPU TDPs and the cost per/1000 for the current iMac CPUs?

[Bageljoey]

But nobody buys Macs anymore because of DRM...

[Wiggin]

Good for an iMac and, perhaps, the fabled xMac. But I'd rather they use a cheaper Core2 Duo in the mini and use the savings to upgrade the graphics and wireless and to keep Firewire (FW800 would be nice) while keeping the price as low as possible.

[zunx]

"TDP drop from 95W to 65W". This seems too much for me: about THREE TIMES MORE than current Mac mini, iMac and MacBooks. So, NO WAY!

What are the current TDP for the chips used on Mac mini and iMac?

What are the current TDP for the chips used on any past and present Mac?

Thanks.

[BenRoethig]

These could fit in the iMac, put putting a 65w chip in the Minis current enclosure would be near impossible. There's not enough room for cooling, it would have to grow in size.

Originally Posted by zunx

What are the current TDP for the chips used on Mac mini and iMac?

Mini: 35w
iMac 55w.

[Kasper]

Originally Posted by BenRoethig

These could fit in the iMac, put putting a 65w chip in the Minis current enclosure would be near impossible. There's not enough room for cooling, it would have to grow in size.



Mini: 35w
iMac 55w.

I believe this is correct.

K

[BenRoethig]

The (ALU rev. B) iMac CPUs are also sort of a hybrid between the desktop and mobile versions of the core 2 duo.

[JeffDM]

Originally Posted by BenRoethig

The (ALU rev. B) iMac CPUs are also sort of a hybrid between the desktop and mobile versions of the core 2 duo.

That was a bizarre chip that I recall, old core, bigger than standard cache and odd TDP rating.

Still, I don't think they used anything near 65watt rating, but I wasn't aware they used 55W chips. That sounds like it might be higher wattage than the G5s they used in the bigger white enclosures.

[BenRoethig]

The 970FX used in the iMacs was around 55w if I recall.

[Kolchak]

I can't imagine a mini being built with a $245 processor. That's almost half the cost of the entire system.

[Bengt77]

Originally Posted by Kolchak

I can't imagine a mini being built with a $245 processor. That's almost half the cost of the entire system.

The mini has basically always been a MacBook in a box, so I don't see it using these chips. The mini will get the 2,0GHz and 2,4GHz chips the MacBook has now.

[BenRoethig]

The 1.83ghz T5600 that's currently in the Mini was listed at $241. That being said, I see the mini remaining dual core.

[8CoreWhore]

This is what the 17" MacBook Pro is waiting on.

[egz4u2]

Intel has a few categories; All Core2 Duo desktop cpu's are 65W TDP (xtreme 75w) All standard mobile are 35watts- (xtreme 44w) low 25w
These are MAX power displacement - like setting your CPU to Highest, or running some CPU intensive apps. Automatic would lower average etc.

Quad are ~95 or extreme ~130w

but at IDF intel had an experimental quad at 48w 2.66GHz

Mac mini has a maximum 110Watt power supply
only chips meeting the specs are:
T5600 1.83 GHz 34 W 2MB (FSB 667) (65nm Merom)
T5750 2.0 GHz 35 W 2MB (FSB 667)

20" iMac has 200W power supply
24" iMac has 280 watt PS

these chips are desktop
E7200 2.53 GHz 65 W 3MB (FSB 1066) (Wolfdale-3M)

Macbook Pro 15" has 85w power supply
T9400 2.53 GHz 35 W 6MB (FSB 1066)


E = Desktop (~65W); X6... = Desktop (~75W); X = Mobile (extreme) (~44W); T - Mobile (standard voltage) (~35W); P - Mobile (medium-voltage) (~25W); L - Mobile (low voltage) (~17W); U - Mobile (ultra-low voltage) (~10W)

[BradMacPro]

The top of the line dual 3.06 is 45W, so a 65W model would mean a new enclosure, which is unlikely. The core 2 quad at 2GHz is 45W TDP so that may be an option on the next gen iMac and maybe even a 17" MacBook Pro. Should ship just before the new year and thus introduced at MacWorld but not shipping for 4 weeks or so afterwards. It typically takes 6 weeks from shipping from Intel before we see it in a shipping Mac.

If Apple did want to make a mini-tower, the so-called xMac in a tower the size of the old Power Mac/Performa 6400, then a single 65W quad core could be used there. I'm sure it could sell better than the Mac mini.

[solipsism]

Originally Posted by BradMacPro

The top of the line dual 3.06 is 45W, so a 65W model would mean a new enclosure, which is unlikely. The core 2 quad at 2GHz is 45W TDP so that may be an option on the next gen iMac and maybe even a 17" MacBook Pro. Should ship just before the new year and thus introduced at MacWorld but not shipping for 4 weeks or so afterwards. It typically takes 6 weeks from shipping from Intel before we see it in a shipping Mac.

That TDP is certainly too high. Now, is it remotely possibly that Apple could underclick the chips while still offering more performance at a cheaper price per CPU?

[BenRoethig]

Originally Posted by BradMacPro

The top of the line dual 3.06 is 45W, so a 65W model would mean a new enclosure, which is unlikely. The core 2 quad at 2GHz is 45W TDP so that may be an option on the next gen iMac and maybe even a 17" MacBook Pro. Should ship just before the new year and thus introduced at MacWorld but not shipping for 4 weeks or so afterwards. It typically takes 6 weeks from shipping from Intel before we see it in a shipping Mac.

If Apple did want to make a mini-tower, the so-called xMac in a tower the size of the old Power Mac/Performa 6400, then a single 65W quad core could be used there. I'm sure it could sell better than the Mac mini.

Apple isn't using the mobile 3.06ghz CPU. They're using what basically amounts to a slightly more efficient version of the desktop core 2 duo in a socket P package. Its a hybrid, and possibly a prototype for the Small form factor desktop chips coming out in the not too distant future.

[BradMacPro]

Originally Posted by solipsism

That TDP is certainly too high. Now, is it remotely possibly that Apple could underclick the chips while still offering more performance at a cheaper price per CPU?

Apple under-clocks the CPU in the iPhone, so it's remotely possible but more likely they would use the lower clocked chips that are cheaper. The Q9000 series seems most affordable in a quad core chip and the timing is about right. at 2.5GHz trim the Q9300 is 95W, which is close to the 130W of the MacPro class models. The 2GHz is 35W The 2.26GHz Q9100 is 45W and has a 12MB cache so sound like the sweet spot Apple has used in the past. It's a $851 chip, so it won't come standard.

[robb01]

Originally Posted by solipsism

That TDP is certainly too high. Now, is it remotely possibly that Apple could underclick the chips while still offering more performance at a cheaper price per CPU?

Id say its quite possible

_________________

[Zandros]

Originally Posted by BenRoethig

Apple isn't using the mobile 3.06ghz CPU. They're using what basically amounts to a slightly more efficient version of the desktop core 2 duo in a socket P package. Its a hybrid, and possibly a prototype for the Small form factor desktop chips coming out in the not too distant future.

Well, the only major difference between the Mobile and Desktop CPUs are the socket and the TDP, and I believe the high-end iMac still has Socket P. Intel is releasing a range of 35W desktop processors later this year too.

T9800 2.70 GHz 6MB 1066 MHz $530
Q9000 2.00 GHz 6MB 1066 MHz $348
P9600 2.66 GHz 6MB 1066 MHz $348
T9550 2.66 GHz 6MB 1066 MHz $316
P9600 2.53 GHz 3MB 1066 MHz $241

[rain]

Is there any software that takes advantage of the quad core processors?

[mjtomlin]

Originally Posted by rain

Is there any software that takes advantage of the quad core processors?

Snow Leopard will.

[BradMacPro]

Originally Posted by rain

Is there any software that takes advantage of the quad core processors?

Photoshop, Final Cut Pro and Compressor and I'm sure many more. Just running the Finder, Safari, Mail and iTunes at the same time will use 4 cores. Add Photoshop, Dreamweaver, Adobe Reader or any other apps for creating a web site, and you can see why even a 8 core MacPro can be kept busy just doing a web site.

[Wiggin]

Originally Posted by BradMacPro

Photoshop, Final Cut Pro and Compressor and I'm sure many more. Just running the Finder, Safari, Mail and iTunes at the same time will use 4 cores. Add Photoshop, Dreamweaver, Adobe Reader or any other apps for creating a web site, and you can see why even a 8 core MacPro can be kept busy just doing a web site.

Will it make MobileMe any faster?

(Sorry, couldn't resist after noticing that recently non-email syncs to the cloud are taking forever to complete.)

[wizard69]

Originally Posted by egz4u2

Intel has a few categories; All Core2 Duo desktop cpu's are 65W TDP (xtreme 75w) All standard mobile are 35watts- (xtreme 44w) low 25w
These are MAX power displacement - like setting your CPU to Highest, or running some CPU intensive apps. Automatic would lower average etc.

Quad are ~95 or extreme ~130w

but at IDF intel had an experimental quad at 48w 2.66GHz

Mac mini has a maximum 110Watt power supply
only chips meeting the specs are:
T5600 1.83 GHz 34 W 2MB (FSB 667) (65nm Merom)
T5750 2.0 GHz 35 W 2MB (FSB 667)

20" iMac has 200W power supply
24" iMac has 280 watt PS

these chips are desktop
E7200 2.53 GHz 65 W 3MB (FSB 1066) (Wolfdale-3M)

Macbook Pro 15" has 85w power supply
T9400 2.53 GHz 35 W 6MB (FSB 1066)

The above power supply specs mean nothing! First, new hardware would be redesigned around the correct power supply. Really that is what engineering is all about, figure out your power budgets and craft a machine to meet those losses. Second, the power dissipation of the processors is only part of the equation, even if they kept the same power supply the over all power budget will change with the rest of the hardware implemented.

For example if they can save 5 watts on the support chipset /GPU that is 5 more watts that can be budgeted for the CPU. More so if they drop a few ports, like Firewire they can save a lot more power. Power that can go to the CPU and its cooling.

E = Desktop (~65W); X6... = Desktop (~75W); X = Mobile (extreme) (~44W); T - Mobile (standard voltage) (~35W); P - Mobile (medium-voltage) (~25W); L - Mobile (low voltage) (~17W); U - Mobile (ultra-low voltage) (~10W)

Like I said earlier the Min and to lesser extent the iMac have a reputation as being power stingy. I'm hoping that Apple leaves us with at least one desktop computer that can support low power operation. So I'm not sure what is up, I just hope Apple has a range of computers in mind.

Dave

[FuturePastNow]

Ha! I was right. I saw those chips on Intel's roadmap for a January release and said to myself, "iMac." No one would want those processors more than Apple.

They can't be any hotter than the G5 processors the iMac used before Intel.

[solipsism]

Originally Posted by FuturePastNow

Ha! I was right. I saw those chips on Intel's roadmap for a January release and said to myself, "iMac." No one would want those processors more than Apple.

They can't be any hotter than the G5 processors the iMac used before Intel.

They probably aren't, but the G5s were never in the current, extra-thin iMacs.

[FuturePastNow]

Originally Posted by solipsism

They probably aren't, but the G5s were never in the current, extra-thin iMacs.

Are they really that much thinner, though? The iMac G5 was redesigned with an iSight, and the first Core Duo iMacs used that same body. Then they switched to aluminum... but they aren't much thinner except at the edges.

[BenRoethig]

Originally Posted by solipsism

They probably aren't, but the G5s were never in the current, extra-thin iMacs.

No, but the 970FX was in the thinner front row iMacs for a couple of months before the core duo iMacs arrived.

[Bregalad]

I don't understand Apple's obsession with thin. Slimming notebooks is good because it makes them lighter, but on the desktop it makes no sense. Who looks at their iMac from the side? Who would really care if it was another inch thicker? A little bit bigger case would allow a lot of very positive things:
- larger power supply to power quad core variants
- larger heat sinks to dissipate the heat from more powerful chips
- space to re-design the insides so the display wouldn't have to come out just to find the hard drive
- space to stack components so the 24" model could sport two hard drives

Just by making the iMac a little thicker Apple could probably provide many features the xMac people want. We'd still be stuck with Steve Jobs' choice of display and be forced to replace it every time we upgrade, but it might be good enough for some.

Unless there's an xMac this year I'll stick with used Pro towers because I need room for a lot of hard drives. I keep my apps, data and multimedia on separate drives and I try to replace two of them annually. I currently have 9 hard drives split between active duty, primary backup, off-site backup and archival storage, and I have no interest in switching to a machine with only one internal hard drive because that would mean having even more external drive cases littering the place.

[BradMacPro]

I wish Apple would use more efficient copper heat sinks. I don't see Apple allowing two hard drives in the iMac, but it sure could make it a tiny bit thicker for the more powerful processors and required cooling. The first generation iMac G5 you could take the back panel off and get to the hard drive, optical drive and fans and RAM easy enough. I wish they brought back a bit of that.

[dfiler]

Originally Posted by rain

Is there any software that takes advantage of the quad core processors?

A good question. But it is also important if there are any usage patterns that take advantage of quad core processors.

My 2' iMac is also my TV. In the evenings I work on the computer and have HD television running in the background. Decoding a full HD stream from an OTA antenna is pretty processor intensive. It consumes an entire core of my 2.16mhz core2duo. This leaves only one core for everything else. Merely running iPhoto at the same time as EyeTV is enough to bring an iMac to its knees. Attempting to run iPhoto, iWeb, and EyeTV at the sametime is an exercise in patience. A quadcore chip would help in a scenario such as this.

With that in mind...
Are we likely to see a quadcore core 2 duo with the same or lower heat disipation as what is currently in the iMac?

I would like to drop a quadcore into my iMac eventually but am skeptical if this will ever be possible. Hell, the GPU is socketed as well but I don't have high hopes for that either.

[backtomac]

Originally Posted by rain

Is there any software that takes advantage of the quad core processors?

Handbrake. Check out the benchmarks forum at the HB website. More cores is more better for HB.

[egz4u2]

Apple buys stock CPU's, so TDP 65w is what current iMac's use. That is for both cores. However; Windows doesn't have the energy saving features OS X has.... Simply using the "Automatic" CPU in energy saver cuts power unless you require it.

These are quad core chips @ the same rating with hyperthreading ( looks like 8 cores -performs like 8!) Memory is built in, and did they include graphics as well? Will it still need an nVidia GPU?

iPhone, same OS X energy settings - runs 400MHz unless you need power - then shoots to 700MHz.

[BenRoethig]

Not exactly, Apple has used pre-production or custom CPUs before. Some of those CPUs, like the smaller package Core 2 for the MBA have proven to be successful enough to develop into a new line.

[mjteix]

Originally Posted by egz4u2

Apple buys stock CPU's, so TDP 65w is what current iMac's use. That is for both cores. However; Windows doesn't have the energy saving features OS X has.... Simply using the "Automatic" CPU in energy saver cuts power unless you require it.

These are quad core chips @ the same rating with hyperthreading ( looks like 8 cores -performs like 8!) Memory is built in, and did they include graphics as well? Will it still need an nVidia GPU?

iPhone, same OS X energy settings - runs 400MHz unless you need power - then shoots to 700MHz.

While you're right about the energy savings features. You're wrong on the rest: The current iMac uses custom-made cpus with a TDP of 55W. The new 65W quad-core cpus are not nehalem but still penryn. That means no hyperthreding, no memory controller built-in, etc... Just regular desktop chips with a lower TDP, hence slightly more expensive than the regular parts, but much more affordable than mobile 45W quad-core cpus.

If Apple can find a way to use them on the iMacs, it will be a great speedbump.

[FuturePastNow]

Originally Posted by egz4u2

Apple buys stock CPU's, so TDP 65w is what current iMac's use. That is for both cores. However; Windows doesn't have the energy saving features OS X has.... Simply using the "Automatic" CPU in energy saver cuts power unless you require it.

These are quad core chips @ the same rating with hyperthreading ( looks like 8 cores -performs like 8!) Memory is built in, and did they include graphics as well? Will it still need an nVidia GPU?

iPhone, same OS X energy settings - runs 400MHz unless you need power - then shoots to 700MHz.

Nothing in this post is correct.

[mrochester]

Just to correct some wrong information here. Windows does have power saving features. The clock speed and power is reduced to the processor when idle.