Intel to launch Calpella with quad-core notebook chips in Q3

[AppleInsider]

Intel still plans to launch its next-generation Calpella notebook platform, expected to find its way into Apple's MacBook lines, sometime in the the third quarter of this year, according to a new report.

Citing its usual "sources at notebook makers," DigiTimes claims the chipmaker recently outlined its notebook plans for the remainder of the year to its partners. The plans were broken down by the nicknames Intel has given to its various mobile platforms and theretail price segments they're expected to target.

Of interest to Apple followers is Calpella, Intel's Nehalem-based, sixth-generation Centrino platform for mainstream performance notebook PCs and the successor to the Montevina platform found, in part, in the current line of MacBooks and MacBook Pros. It will reportedly target 14-, 15-, 17-, and 18-inch notebooks that will retail for prices above $1,200.

There had been rumors that Intel would be forced to delay Calpella until late October at the earliest so that its manufacturing partners could clear inventories of existing chips that have piled up due to the poor economy. However, Tuesday's report claims the Santa Clara-based firm remains committed to a third-quarter launch, which would see the platform come to market in some capacity by the end of September.

While Intel hasn't gone on record to talk about Calpella's family of microprocessors, rumors suggest the platform will initially launch with three 45-nanometer quad-core "Clarksfield" chips: a 1.6GHz Core 2 Quad P1, a 1.73GHz Core 2 Quad P2, and a 2.0GHz Core 2 Extreme XE. The chips are expected to retail in lots of 1000 for $364, $546, and $1,054, respectively. Each is expected to sport an 8MB Level 3 cache except the 1.6GHz model, which will reportedly have a 6MB Level 3 cache.

Based on what Apple is believed to pay Intel for chips in its current MacBook Pros, the Mac maker would be most likely to adopt the 1.6GHz and 1.73GHz variants for its professional notebook line if it were to use any of the quad-core chips. Intel will follow up the release of Clarksfield with "Arrandale" 32-nm dual-core chips sometime in the first half of 2010, which will sport higher clock speeds and could play to the 13-inch MacBook line. Arrandale chips could also be used in the MacBook Pro line if Apple forgoes adoption of the first round of quad-core Clarksfield chips.

Intel's rumored initial Clarksfield lineup of quad-core mobile chips under the Calpella platform.

Here's what Apple paid (estimated) for its MacBook Pro chips prior to swapping out the 2.53GHz chip with a 2.66GHz chip.

Still, as AppleInsider noted in its report on the expected release of more affordable Macs, Apple should be afforded the option of tweaking its notebook lines as early as this spring if it so chooses. Arriving a few months ahead of Calpella and Clarksfield will be a refresh to Intel's current Montevina notebook platform that will introduce a T9900 3.06GHz chip and P8800 2.66GHz chip alongside price cuts to existing models.

[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]

[amac4me]

Great, this would line up with my plans to replace my Early 2008 MBP with a new model in early 2010. I'd love to have a new machine for Snow Leopard ... quad core would be ideal

[dagamer34]

Eh... they swapped out a chip with less TDP for one with more just to save $32? That sucks for decreased battery life!

[shadow]

I am not sure SL will compensate for the clock speed drop for the majority of the apps. Not Photoshop and Lightroom for sure. Let's hope for Aperture...

Apple may skip this round.

[JeffDM]

Quad core is a bit more complicated here. I wonder if Apple would bother, they don't seem to like introducing any complexities beyond a certain level, even if the pro market can handle it.

[Hattig]

Slow Quad Core or Fast Dual Core?

This is a really tough decision to make one way or the other for Apple.

Apple could be selling 3GHz dual core Core 2 Duos very soon in the Macbook Pro. For non-multithreaded applications these will far outperform a 1.73GHz core, even if that core is slightly better per clock than Core 2 Duo (probably around a 2GHz Core 2 Duo core).

Also the chipset will be different - it isn't a matter of offering two options on the same motherboard - fast dual core or slow quad core, depending on what the user wants.

More multithreaded applications, the quad core will be lovely. Apple might go this route just to show off about Snow Leopard. They might keep the current Macbook Pro around as well with the faster Core 2 Duo + NVIDIA 9400M for people that want that.

[backtomac]

Does anyone know if these chips have the turbo boost feature?

That might compensate for apps that aren't able to use all cores.

Still those clock speeds are pretty low.

[elroth]

How does Grand Central factor into this? Isn't that supposed to use the extra cores for more speed, even in apps that don't normally take advantage of the extra cores?

[backtomac]

Originally Posted by elroth

How does Grand Central factor into this? Isn't that supposed to use the extra cores for more speed, even in apps that don't normally take advantage of the extra cores?

IIRC, no apps have to be written to take advantage of GC.

[hmurchison]

Originally Posted by elroth

How does Grand Central factor into this? Isn't that supposed to use the extra cores for more speed, even in apps that don't normally take advantage of the extra cores?

Even if no apps explicitly take advantage of GC the system will still perform better because GC sits above the kernel and enhances the multitasking of all processes running.

A lot of performance issues can be traced back to a slow and inefficient kernal.

Clarksfield will not only be a laptop proc but these could also end up in the iMac.
Personally I'm in the mode of you want more cores even if they run slower. I mean how long have vendors failed to educate the public on the myth of megahertz? You can have a processor that's 3Ghz dual core but it's still going to hit the wall when memory bandwidth or the pipelines are full.

You will likely be totally happy with a 1.73Ghz Clarksfield Macbook Pro running an Intel or equivalent SSD and Snow Leopard.

[ulfoaf]

Originally Posted by hmurchison

Even if no apps explicitly take advantage of GC the system will still perform better because GC sits above the kernel and enhances the multitasking of all processes running.

A lot of performance issues can be traced back to a slow and inefficient kernal.

Clarksfield will not only be a laptop proc but these could also end up in the iMac.
Personally I'm in the mode of you want more cores even if they run slower. I mean how long have vendors failed to educate the public on the myth of megahertz? You can have a processor that's 3Ghz dual core but it's still going to hit the wall when memory bandwidth or the pipelines are full.

You will likely be totally happy with a 1.73Ghz Clarksfield Macbook Pro running an Intel or equivalent SSD and Snow Leopard.

I need a new machine and want an 24" iMac. I plan on waiting for quad core and Snow Leopard. I sure hope both are available by fall.

[TEAMSWITCHER]

I think that using the Core 2 brand for these chips is fishy. The Clarksdale CPU is based on Core i7 architecture, so why use the Core 2 brand designation? I think that at 45nm the core i7 architecture makes for a god-awful mobile chip, that's why the clock speed is so low, to keep the power/thermal specifications in check. They don't want to launch these lemons under a new Core i7M brand.

If Apple uses this chips, I will wait to see what the 32nm versions are like before I upgrade. I have been fooled by Intel before with lemons such as this....

[hmurchison]

Originally Posted by TEAMSWITCHER

I think that using the Core 2 brand for these chips is fishy. The Clarksdale CPU is based on Core i7 architecture, so why use the Core 2 brand designation? I think that at 45nm the core i7 architecture makes for a god-awful mobile chip, that's why the clock speed is so low, to keep the power/thermal specifications in check. They don't want to launch these lemons under a new Core i7M brand.

If Apple uses this chips, I will wait to see what the 32nm versions are like before I upgrade. I have been fooled by Intel before with lemons such as this....

There's no such thing as Core i7 architecture. Both chips are based on Nehalem Architectecture. Core i7 is simply the enthusiast model that supports triple channel memory, lacksPCI-Express support ondie and has a much larger die size.

Intel will be sticking with "Core" branding for Nehalem

I'd rather have Apple redesign the imac to look beefier and more menacing and support a 95W Lynnfield processor. If I have a computer on my desktop then I want desktop performance.

[ltcommander.data]

I too find that the clock speeds of Clarksdale are too low. It's basically a no brainer to go for a quad core if it's clock speed is only a bit lower than a dual core, but 40% slower is significant. For people using multithreaded applications than Clarksfield will be great. But I'm betting the average user who mainly surfs, plays music and movies, does office work, some light multimedia editting, and plays games will find the new low-clockspeed Clarksfield slower than a high-clock speed Penryn, especially if Apple has a spring refresh to 3.06GHz. Perhaps they won't do the Penryn refresh for precisely this reason.

[hmurchison]

Originally Posted by ltcommander.data

I too find that the clock speeds of Clarksdale are too low. It's basically a no brainer to go for a quad core if it's clock speed is only a bit lower than a dual core, but 40% slower is significant. For people using multithreaded applications than Clarksfield will be great. But I'm betting the average user who mainly surfs, plays music and movies, does office work, some light multimedia editting, and plays games will find the new low-clockspeed Clarksfield slower than a high-clock speed Penryn, especially if Apple has a spring refresh to 3.06GHz. Perhaps they won't do the Penryn refresh for precisely this reason.

Yes the clock differences don't matter as much for a laptop but for a desktop they are too low and too expensive. Lynnfield will but higher end 2Ghz chips yet they will be affordable for the most part.

All Apple needs to do is back away from highlighting form or function and thicken the iMac up a bit. If its sitting on my desk ...I don't need it to be wafer thin.

My ideal iMac would be a thicker chassis with easy to access RAM and HDD bays. I'd like two 2.5" bays rather than one 3.5" bay.

Macbook Pro would do just fine with slower clocked Quad Core chips as the tradeoff is more power in a lower power envelope.

Crossing my fingers but I don't have much faith in Apple breaking their current pathological "thin is everything" mantra.

[georgetang]

I have 2007 SB MBP, and max out my RAM to 4GB, and HDD twice, 1st to 200GB and then to 320GB 16MB Cache 72K RPM.

My next MBP it'll be a new Alum MBP. However, not this year (2009) neither (2010).

More likely in 2011 and Apple introduce next gen of MAC OSX 10.7 taking advantage from Intel's Sandy Bridge platform.

There are lots of feature that Sandy Bridge would make a good use of Multiple-Core with improved power management, running much cooler than today's Dual-Core Penryn on Montevina Platform.

I've read that Intel would focus on the connections of the CPU cores, if I'm not mistaken, it'll be the 1st gen of inter-connected multiple and scalable core, something like our Neuron... Freaking! Reminds me of the CPU chip from Terminator.

I can't wait to see this platform running at 8GB or 16GB RAM.

[copeland]

Where does that leave the iMac? 2GHz sounds a bit low for a desktop (for $ 1,000).
After Apple skimped on the Quad Core 2 Duos I thought that they would use the mobile Nehalem variant.
But at this speed and THIS price it doesn'd sound likely.

[mello]

I love the idea of an 18" macbook pro. Give me the option of a blu-ray burner & I will replace my
1.67ghz powerbook on day 1.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by hmurchison

Yes the clock differences don't matter as much for a laptop but for a desktop they are too low and too expensive. Lynnfield will but higher end 2Ghz chips yet they will be affordable for the most part.

All Apple needs to do is back away from highlighting form or function and thicken the iMac up a bit. If its sitting on my desk ...I don't need it to be wafer thin.

My ideal iMac would be a thicker chassis with easy to access RAM and HDD bays. I'd like two 2.5" bays rather than one 3.5" bay.

Macbook Pro would do just fine with slower clocked Quad Core chips as the tradeoff is more power in a lower power envelope.

Crossing my fingers but I don't have much faith in Apple breaking their current pathological "thin is everything" mantra.

I don't know why you, and a few others here think that the thin thing is just Apple.

It's everywhere.

People want thin. It's pretty simple. From phones, laptops, to book readers, to monitors, to Tv's, to watches, to just about anything.

Apple is just feeding what people want. Most people would rather have a desktop AIO that's a half inch thinner than 20% faster. That's just the way people are, and manufacturers know it. Otherwise, why would Sony make an 11" OLED Tv that' got a 4 mm thin screen, but a big brick box of electronics on the bottom? It's because people want a thinner screen. Why would other Tv manufacturers show OLED prototype models that are 32" dia, but 6mm deep? Because that's what people want.

Right now, MS is preying on the idea that portable Macs aren't as powerful as portable PCs, and they may be scoring points. But when most people go into a store to buy a computer they rarely even know about speed, and just want to know if the machine will do what they want it to. These days, like with any other thing they buy, they also want to see how good it will look in their living room. And for that, they want it to be as thin as possible.

[hmurchison]

That must explain why computers in ATX cases are the dominant form factor <tsk tsk>

People buy thin iMacs because that's what they've been presented with for Apple desktops and in turn they buy boxy ATX cases for PC because that's largely what they've been presented with.

I don't have a proble, with either form factor "until" it begins to hamper sound design.

Intel desktops are efficient but the fact is even with a 45nm process you're going to have 95 watt CPU. The iMac's current case cannot accomodate this and thus needs to be changed.

[hmurchison]

Originally Posted by iStink

I don't understand the thin tv thing. I mean, my family has a 52" samsung, and it's probably what, like 3-4 inches thick? We wouldn't know any better if it was .000001 inches thick! We're looking at the front, not the side lol.

When it comes to laptops, thin is better because lighter is better. But then again, if a laptop twice as thick as the mbp weighed half as much, people would suspect it was cheap as crap. Remember in jurassic park? "Is it heavy?" "Yes" "Then it's expensive, put it back!"

Hear hear! The first time I moved to a LCD at home it became evident that you can make a LCD thin as paper but depending on the size/resolution I have to place it at an optimal distance for comfort. This means an iMac sitting on my desk needs to be at a certain distance and once it's there it really doesn't matter if it's 2 inches thick or 4 inches.

However the difference in cooling requirements and internal design required to shave those two inches down from the 4 inche model are extensive IMO. Is it really worth it?

I can see it for a laptop where size and weight add up quickly. But a desktop? Noooooo.

Here's hoping for Quad core Macbook Pro based on Calpella and sensible Quad core iMacs based on Lynnfield.

[solipsism]

Originally Posted by hmurchison

I'd rather have Apple redesign the imac to look beefier and more menacing and support a 95W Lynnfield processor. If I have a computer on my desktop then I want desktop performance.

I think that the new low-power C2Qs for AIOs are pretty likely at some point. I think they are 65W, but even now they can't seem to handle the 45W as well as we'd like.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by hmurchison

That must explain why computers in ATX cases are the dominant form factor <tsk tsk>

People buy thin iMacs because that's what they've been presented with for Apple desktops and in turn they buy boxy ATX cases for PC because that's largely what they've been presented with.

I don't have a proble, with either form factor "until" it begins to hamper sound design.

Intel desktops are efficient but the fact is even with a 45nm process you're going to have 95 watt CPU. The iMac's current case cannot accomodate this and thus needs to be changed.

You're assuming that most people actually care about a 95 watt cpu. They don't. They wouldn't understand the difference if it were carefully explained. They want these for the living room where they will look good along with their other gear and furniture.

The ugly PC case computers are usually hidden away. But even the major PC makers have been selling AIOs that are after the Apple fashion. They're selling much better than the old really ugly, thick AIOs of the past.

Most people are opting for laptops, which are even thinner when set up and can be put away completely when not being used.

Most people are rarely practical.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by iStink

I don't understand the thin tv thing. I mean, my family has a 52" samsung, and it's probably what, like 3-4 inches thick? We wouldn't know any better if it was .000001 inches thick! We're looking at the front, not the side lol.

When it comes to laptops, thin is better because lighter is better. But then again, if a laptop twice as thick as the mbp weighed half as much, people would suspect it was cheap as crap. Remember in jurassic park? "Is it heavy?" "Yes" "Then it's expensive, put it back!"

Did you buy an LCD or Plasma rather than a rear projection DLP (with a better picture)?

The practical thing to do would have been to buy the cheaper, better quality image, and also cheaper DLP.

But DLPs are dying because people want the even thinner LCDs and plasmas.

In fact, the plasmas, which are noticeably thicker than LCDs are dying out for the same reason, people want the thinner LCD models.

That's just the way it is.

(I have a 61" LED backlight DLP).

[melgross]

Originally Posted by hmurchison

Hear hear! The first time I moved to a LCD at home it became evident that you can make a LCD thin as paper but depending on the size/resolution I have to place it at an optimal distance for comfort. This means an iMac sitting on my desk needs to be at a certain distance and once it's there it really doesn't matter if it's 2 inches thick or 4 inches.

However the difference in cooling requirements and internal design required to shave those two inches down from the 4 inche model are extensive IMO. Is it really worth it?

I can see it for a laptop where size and weight add up quickly. But a desktop? Noooooo.

Here's hoping for Quad core Macbook Pro based on Calpella and sensible Quad core iMacs based on Lynnfield.

Murch, we talking about us, not the average consumer. I don't care either. But when friends come over and look at either my wife or daughter's iMac, one of the first things they comment on is how thin it is. They love that. My daughters friends think the same thing.

You have to understand that fact. Apple may lose some sales to people who are more concerned with that last iota of speed, but they will more than make up for it from sales to people who care about that last 1/2".

And the truth is that iMacs are plenty fast enough for most people, esp. for the large majority of software that doesn't do much with more than 2 cores. My daughters' 3.0.6 GHz iMac is faster than most Mac Pro's when working on Photoshop, a program she uses all the time.

[hmurchison]

So true but Apple is furthuring this impracticality.

Say i'm editing a video in iMovie 09. My shot was extremely shaky but it can be saved with iMovie's stabiliztion feature. The difference between a laptop CPU and a desktop CPU though could be minutes of processing time.

I like thin too but when it begins to cost me what is most precious (my available free time) the value of that svelte shape wears a bit "thin".

I think laptops simply come with inherent tradeoffs that are easier to accept.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by hmurchison

So true but Apple is furthuring this impracticality.

Say i'm editing a video in iMovie 09. My shot was extremely shaky but it can be saved with iMovie's stabiliztion feature. The difference between a laptop CPU and a desktop CPU though could be minutes of processing time.

I like thin too but when it begins to cost me what is most precious (my available free time) the value of that svelte shape wears a bit "thin".

I think laptops simply come with inherent tradeoffs that are easier to accept.

Right now, even my dual cpu 2.66 Mac Pro has a hard time with that. I know because for the fun of it, I tried.

So when an iMac is two or three times as fast, maybe it will work quickly.

But no matter what they can reasonably do know, it won't make much difference for work like that. That's a future technology if you want speed. Otherwise, you'll do what most others will, either hit the button can come back after dinner, or if it's long enough, in the morning.

That's life.

[mdriftmeyer]

Originally Posted by Hattig

Slow Quad Core or Fast Dual Core?

This is a really tough decision to make one way or the other for Apple.

Apple could be selling 3GHz dual core Core 2 Duos very soon in the Macbook Pro. For non-multithreaded applications these will far outperform a 1.73GHz core, even if that core is slightly better per clock than Core 2 Duo (probably around a 2GHz Core 2 Duo core).

Also the chipset will be different - it isn't a matter of offering two options on the same motherboard - fast dual core or slow quad core, depending on what the user wants.

More multithreaded applications, the quad core will be lovely. Apple might go this route just to show off about Snow Leopard. They might keep the current Macbook Pro around as well with the faster Core 2 Duo + NVIDIA 9400M for people that want that.

What are those non threaded applications Apple uses that aren't daemons, shells or other low level tasks which are usually just run in a thread to do their tasks while being managed by a larger daemon which is threaded?

All applications that can run their threads simultaneously by spreading those threads across the available cores will benefit far more than timing delays in a single core to manage those threads.

[Bregalad]

Originally Posted by hmurchison

All Apple needs to do is back away from highlighting form or function and thicken the iMac up a bit. If its sitting on my desk ...I don't need it to be wafer thin.

My ideal iMac would be a thicker chassis with easy to access RAM and HDD bays. I'd like two 2.5" bays rather than one 3.5" bay.

I totally agree. The emphasis on thin is important when trying to reduce the bulk of a notebook, but makes no sense for a desktop machine.

Burying the HDD and everything else under the LCD only makes sense from a "sealed box" standpoint, but computers aren't sealed boxes that get tossed into the recycling bin when something goes wrong. Apple service technicians must hate the fact that it takes suction cups, 21 screws and assorted other fiddling with cable connectors and adhesive tape to do any work on an aluminum iMac. Then they have to put it all back together without leaving the slightest finger print or speck of dust inside. The white iMacs were far from perfect, but taking out 3 screws enabled the entire rear case to come off.

I'm not sure I'm ready for 2.5" HDDs. They don't have the speed of a 3.5" drive and are less than half the capacity per dollar. SSDs are fast, but you get almost no storage for the money.

If I bought a refurbished iMac with a 320GB internal drive I'd have to run multiple external drives or pay someone to open up my iMac and install a 1TB drive. Of course then I'd be worried that the replacement drive might run too hot for the ultra thin enclosure to handle and that whoever did the installation would leave smudges and/or dust inside the glass.

Why do I need multiple drives? Ask Apple why two users can't share an iPhoto library unless it's on a separate volume with permissions disabled. Once you do that Time Machine can't back up the entire computer because it's impossible for a single volume to back up one volume with permissions and a second without.

I think using slow quad core chips is a bad idea. Not only will it take time for developers to adjust to writing for OpenCL, some applications are by their very nature highly linear and simply cannot take advantage of parallel processing.

Over on the desktop side where quad core chips are clocked almost as high as dual core chips, the situation is completely different. Quad core desktop PCs have been available at aggressive price points since the summer of 2007 and hackintoshes made from such machines make the iMac look like a joke.

I like the direction Mac OS X is going, but there isn't a single machine in the lineup that interests me.

[Marvin]

Originally Posted by hmurchison

Personally I'm in the mode of you want more cores even if they run slower.

GPUs are good examples of lower clocked but numerous cores and I'd say in a lot of cases they work out pretty well. But I can't help but think of the odd case that crops up more than it should where say a video encoding process or Finder preview chokes up just one CPU core and those odd examples can take much longer - I wouldn't expect the new chips to make up for a 40% decrease in clock through more efficient design.

It may not be significant enough to notice though. Clarksfield is hyper-threaded too so it should show up as 8-cores. This can add 10-15% on top of a non-HT system. It can also be slower in some cases and likely won't effect how single threads perform.

The TDP of the T9550 2.66GHz CPU is 35W so if the Clarksfield is 35W as rumors are suggesting then it could go in the MBP. The MB processors are 25W. This could certainly be a way for Apple to push those models further apart.

The integrated GPU goes in Arrandale, which wouldn't be too good if the Macbook depended on that alone and it may do if it increases the power consumption. Clarksfield doesn't have the GPU integrated so it shouldn't affect the options there.

[foljs]

Originally Posted by shadow

I am not sure SL will compensate for the clock speed drop for the majority of the apps. Not Photoshop and Lightroom for sure. Let's hope for Aperture...

It wouldn't require only SL technologies (Grant Central) to compensate.

Lightroom, for example, has multi-core support built-in. Quad Cores would come in handy.

IIRC, this is true for Photoshop, too.

[Bregalad]

Originally Posted by melgross

Did you buy an LCD or Plasma rather than a rear projection DLP (with a better picture)?

The practical thing to do would have been to buy the cheaper, better quality image, and also cheaper DLP.

But DLPs are dying because people want the even thinner LCDs and plasmas.

In fact, the plasmas, which are noticeably thicker than LCDs are dying out for the same reason, people want the thinner LCD models.

That's just the way it is.

(I have a 61" LED backlight DLP).

Television thickness is a whole different matter than computer display thickness. People don't mount their computer displays on the wall for obvious reasons. A large number of people hang their TVs on the wall. That makes thickness and weight serious considerations.

Plasma has been at a serious disadvantage up until recently on the whole resolution thing. Uninformed consumers always believe more is better so LCDs with horizontal resolutions of 1366 or 1920 sold far better than plasmas offering only 840. Plasmas also consume vast amounts of electricity.

To be honest I haven't seen a DLP advertised in years. People buy what the retailers tell them to buy. If it's not in the weekly Best Buy flyer it doesn't exist.

I understand why people prefer light, thin displays over bulky CRTs, but things have gone too far. After all, the stand holding up the display is already several times deeper than the display itself so it's not like a thinner display actually saves any space.

Thin is also creeping into the shape of displays. 4:3 and 5:4 are gone in favor of "thinner" wide screens sporting 16:10 or 16:9 dimensions. This, of course, is inefficient for most content viewed on computer screens, but people don't seem to care about that. Don't get me started on the prevalence of TN displays with their bad, uneven color or super glossy displays that have to be cranked up to headache inducing brightness to hide the reflections.

It's all about fashion and form. Nobody seems to care about performance anymore.

[foljs]

Originally Posted by hmurchison

That must explain why computers in ATX cases are the dominant form factor <tsk tsk>

Actually they are not.

It's been several years that laptops outsell desktops.

http://www.engadget.com/2005/06/04/l...st-time-again/

[Mr530]

I think that quad core is definitely the correct direction. I have a feeling that Apple (keep in mind my fairly limitied developer knowledge) will make all of their programs (if not already) multi-threaded, while allowing it to be fairly easy to incorporate it into a developer's application.

But even more so, I would not be suprised if Apple came out with a feature (yes I could actually see Jobs presenting this) in Snow Leopard that will simply allow you to "combine" cores for processing power. Perhaps the OS could assign tasks among processors on its own, independently of the application itself.

My bottom line: Multi-threaded applications and 64-bit have been kind of a lagging feature among PC programs. This is/will be less of an issue for Mac applications. I feel like apple can pull a little bit more tweaking than Windows because THEY CHOSE THEIR OWN SPECIFIC UNIFORM HARDWARE AND THEY DEVELOP FOR THEIR OWN UNIFORM HARDWARE.

[Carmissimo]

My question is, how long will it take for quad core Nehalem to trickle down to the Mac Mini form factor.

I realize that's certainly out of the question for 2009 but it would seem to me inevitable in 2010, especially if the Macbooks go there.

I could well imagine the desire for a midrange desktop sitting between the mini and the Mac Pro would be significantly diminished were that to happen.

[hmurchison]

Originally Posted by foljs

Actually they are not.

It's been several years that laptops outsell desktops.

http://www.engadget.com/2005/06/04/l...st-time-again/

By Jove you're right!

Originally Posted by Mr530

But even more so, I would not be suprised if Apple came out with a feature (yes I could actually see Jobs presenting this) in Snow Leopard that will simply allow you to "combine" cores for processing power. Perhaps the OS could assign tasks among processors on its own, independently of the application itself.

Yup that's what Grand Central does you can coalesce multiple threads onto one core or split tasks across multiple cores actually I shouldn't say "you" because GCD is supposed to do this with little developer interaction other than setting things up. The "Blocks" aspect is pretty unique for Apple as I believe the Smalltalk language uses a Blocks to encapsulate code for efficient processing. I'll let the propellerheads expound more as I've tapped my fledgling brain cells on this one. It should be interesting

[hmurchison]

Originally Posted by Carmissimo

My question is, how long will it take for quad core Nehalem to trickle down to the Mac Mini form factor.

I realize that's certainly out of the question for 2009 but it would seem to me inevitable in 2010, especially if the Macbooks go there.

I could well imagine the desire for a midrange desktop sitting between the mini and the Mac Pro would be significantly diminished were that to happen.

The Intel Arrandale will be a Dual Core SMT processor that's perfect for the mini. It's not Quad Core but it is a Dual Core 4 thread computer.

[Aizmov]

Wont touch a quad MacBook (or any laptop) until the TDP drops under 30W

Heat and battery life are more important to me than processing power.
I've got a desktop and it does the processing, don't need a laptop for that.

But I'd certainly love a quad core MacBook once a lower TDP is possible.

[FuturePastNow]

The clock speeds are low because Intel's desktop and mobile processors now (since the transition to 45nm) are essentially the same silicon. So 95W on the desktop, 45W on mobile, the tradeoff is lower speeds. And the speeds will ramp up with the introduction of 32nm.

[CU10]

Holy molt!!! (what does molt mean anyway?)