Intel to detail next-gen MacBook Pro processors at CES - Page 2

something to always keep in mind. 1% growth for apple is much easier to obtain than 1% pc market.

the biggest issue i have with apple's hardware is their terrible lack of getting a decent graphics card in their machines for the price that you pay. they build a great box and a good OS, but the price is way out of line for what is in there.

I think that would be a great idea... But I guess I'm daydreaming too

Anyway, one thing that we should note is that nVidia has always proven to be a reliable company, be it in terms of hardware or anything else. Nvidia really 'supported' AMD with the nForce. And, very quickly, the nForce proved to be a superb chipset. Besides, it is well known that nVidia makes better hardware than ATI, although ATI does a better job at GPU-image processing level. I was 'shocked' when I heard the news about nVidia halting development(or processing, whatever, I forgot) to focus on the lawsuit.

Really, it's high time someone check Intel. Intel has been a real bully in the IT industry. Intel has the worst monopolistic behaviors in this industry...

Well, some might say it's due to the hardware, or beautiful box, but one very important thing to remember: Apple does not want any dumb/idiot to buy a Mac, and not know how to really 'use' it. Generally, Mac users are better informed/knowledgeable than their PC counterparts. Imagine if Macs were priced as the 'casual' PC. Who wouldn't be buying a Mac?? Every dumbas$ would want a Mac, yet not know the significance of owning one, of even the philosophy behind Apple's computers. I personally think people should deserve a Mac to earn one/ buy themselves one.

The best way to sum his up is to quote Steve when he once said something like: "....I always thought people must think different to use our products..."

I wonder if anybody knows what bit rate the new graphics will have? Is it still 8bit or are they finally seeing the light and bumping it to 10bit? There are more monitors coming out that can display 10bit. It sure would be nice...

This. On the CPU side things are usually pretty good, but the graphics are just terrible for what you're paying. Honestly, A 9400 In a $1000+ machine? That's a joke. And a 9600M GT w/ 256 VAM in a $2K machine? That's a ripoff.

The problem there is a lack of better options that fit into what must be a rather limited thermal/power envelope the Macbook Pro has. That has changed somewhat since the last update, with the arrival of 40nm GPUs from both ATI and Nvidia, so I would expect a slight improvement soonish.

I suppose if you're excited about new chips that could be a reason to wait, but Core i3 is like the lowest end of the new Core i series. I don't think there are any benchmarks yet but I think the performance improvement may not be that great... Say 10%? I don't know, but one thing for sure is I can't wait for the Westmere benchmarks... Particularly the GPU ones.

ATI's 5-series at 40nm should be a real game-changer and I am definitely looking forward to them. There are three hindrances though.

1. Enough 40nm chips from TSMC which has been having yield problems
2. Fast enough roll out of Mobility Radeon 5-series designs for OEMs
3. ATI Branding/Image... Competing with Nvidia rebranding the 9 series as 200~M, also their marketing clout is still huge.

One more thing... Whether Apple will want to deliver higher GPU performance in MacBook Pros in the 1st half of 2010 or keep using the 9600M for now.

Well, because the primary Mac user simply in some cases does not need that better GPU, for example. In some cases Apple lags behind in hardware... in some cases, eg. 27" LED it moves ahead.

Whatever the case, Apple seems to be able to focus on the "right" things to be ahead in.

With the economic recovery starting to happen and Apple really making it through quite brilliantly during the 2009 downturn, Apple will continue to have growth in various forms.

do you guys think these processors will be included in all Macbook pro models or just the higher end ones?

IMO hard to say until CES when more specs, prices and then benchmarks come out. The rest of you guys/gals(if any)? What do you think?

Here's the first real benchmark of a Mobility Radeon 5-series. Just out:
http://www.fudzilla.com/content/view/16916/1/
Original german article: http://www.notebookjournal.de/tests/...tx-nkmo-1073/6

We're looking at the Mobility Radeon 5650 which is a DX11, 40nm part. Compute power appears to be about just under that of the GTS 250M.

No real info on wattage but Fudzilla infers from the German article that the power draw is good.

For the next Arrandale Core i5 MacBook Pro 15" discrete GPU, an Nvidia GTS250M or ATI 5650 would be great.

Exactamundo. Dude, this is a brilliant plan.

I will almost replicate this. It's time to replace my Dual G5 monster and the ancient 21" LCD (DVI Apple) I purchased back in 1998. The 27" iMac 2Q10 sounds perfect.

Now, if I could trade in my 13" MacBook for a 10" or an 11" ultra-lightweight MacBook, I would have everything I need: road warrior & desktop. Sadly, Apple just doesn't make equipment for guys who are on 130-140 flights a year...

thanks for the ATI benchmark nvidia2008! if compute is close to the 250GTS but with lower TDPthis would make a great 9600M replacement...

With Steve making comments like that, why hasn't Apple been fired from the Blu-ray association's board of directors? How would Apple like members of its own board of directors publicly making anti-Mac comments?

Well i know you cant always have the latest and greatest, but If I have to wait a little longer and then get an i3 I would be a happy camper. They might not be much better, but I would be much happier with that cool naming scheme, and maybe different video cards??

Okay listen up Haggar, here is what my leader (Steve Jobs) said and I quote:

"Blu-Ray is just a bag of hurt. I don't mean from the consumer point of view. It's great to watch movies, but the LICENSING (see haggar LI..CEN..SING..) is so complex..... We're waiting until things settle down, and waiting until Blu-Ray takes off in the marketplace before we burden our customers with the cost of the licensing and the cost of the drives"
See Steve doesn't want to burden me or the millions of other happy Apple users, with the cost of a "feature" we really don't need. Like I said. Not that Big of a Deal.

I'm very glad Steve thinks about us before making a decision on something just based on fanboy emails, and complainers etc... For people who say Blu-Ray is easy to put on a mac, then by all means go ahead and do it yourself.... IN REGARDS TO YOUR ARGUMENT ...... THE JURY SAYS ............. THE PLANTIFF (HAGGAR) HAS NONE.

Now back to the topic

Nvidia may be right alec, If the specs are only equivalent to a 1 or 2x speed ups in real world use, then it's not worth Apples time. I personally would like to see a more advance GPU (even though the current ones are GREAT AND POWER HOUSES) it would be nice to see what limits we can take the GPU's with GCD and eventually OpenCL.

Can't wait for 2010

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264/MPEG-4_AVC

I'm glad I could help grow your knowledge base. Cause reading this grew mine.

No problem. Yeah, the Mobility Radeon 5-series 40nm paired with an Arrandale CPU would really be a nice boost for the MacBook Pro line in 2010. Hopefully seeing 512MB dedicated VRAM minimum, and 1GB VRAM on the higher ends. It's a matter of what Apple decides to do, how the models are configured, and whether AMD-ATI can step up to the plate with quantity and quality.

I'm thinking at this stage, for the MacBook Pros, Apple could do an update to the MacBook Pro (and Snow Leopard accordingly) that allows on-the-fly switching between the Arrandale built-in integrated GPU and the discrete GPU. Gives the user the best of both worlds.

Or maybe with the Mobility Radeon 5-series 40nm Apple will just outright disable the Arrandale GPU and do all the power management etc. directly with the discrete GPU.

Crap!

This "news" is the most reasonable argument for updated MBPs in the next 1.5-3 months. Which makes my upgrading choice a lot harder.

It sounds like the new chipset will force apple to use a dedicated GPU but the CPUs are a huge step forward - faster memory controllers, on the fly overclocking, better power management, etc.

That's been my guess as well. MB and Mini stay C2D with the 9400M and there additional reason to upgrade to the 13" MBP and the iMac. That temporary window where the mini was a better bang for the buck than the iMac completely closes with arrandale/clarksdale.

Dunno why nvidia2008 is having such heartache given that the IGP is so wimpy that it's really only good enough for powersaver mode that a dedicated GPU becomes so much more likely.

Well i think that some believe or worry that by bundling the crappy IG with the Arrandale cpu that perhaps that would dissuade Apple from using these cpus. That's the fear that some of the rumor sites are spreading.

I think this is very unlikely. Arrandale cpus will likely be faster and use less power. I wouldn't doubt that Apple would prefer to use Arrandale cpus with NVIDIA'a 9400m IG but I doubt they'll avoid using them just over this. That would be stupid.

That's certainly one fear I have, that this would delay Arrandale (not Clarksdale) adoption by Apple.

My bigger fear is that Apple will try and get away with the Intel GPU on the Macbook, Mac mini and entry-level or maybe all the 13" MacBook Pros, and even the lowest-end 15" MacBook Pro. It is something Apple is audacious enough to do. Who knows, maybe my fears are unfounded and I'm emotionally involved in what I agree with the FTC -- that Intel is going to monopolise the GPU market with inferior (GPU) products.

Now, all that said, Vinea, maybe you're right in the sense that the Intel GPU is just way too wimpy to even worry about Apple bothering to use it at all.


The benefit of Arrandale is too big to ignore. The most reasonable prediction right now is that Apple will go Arrandale with a low-power discrete GPU for the MacBook Pros and Clarkdale with discrete GPUs *across* the iMac line. This would happen within the next 4 months, I predict.

Mac Mini and MacBook would stay 9400M and Core 2 Duo as Vinea mentions... However would transition to Arrandale in the 2nd half of 2010... By which time Intel may totally phase out and no longer manufacture Core 2 Duo chips.

Apparently the FTC trial only goes to court in September 2010, assuming no delays... By which time Intel will be speeding towards Sandy Bridge where the GPU is on-die so that pretty much would mean the death of AMD-ATI or Nvidia integrated GPUs. During 2010, Intel probably won't open up licensing of the DMI (Southbridge) chipset since the FTC lawsuit is so far away, even if even Intel gave a damn about the lawsuit.

In 2010 with Arrandale and Clarkdale Intel looks to deliver solid CPUs. The GPU is "good enough" for most of the PC market. Nvidia is relegated to the smaller discrete GPU market and is gambling big on high-performance computing. ATI is also relegated to the smaller discrete GPU market but being paired with AMD and with AMD combining the CPU and GPU in 2011, AMD-ATI remains a smaller but still significant player.

Intel gains, increases it's monopoly, AMD survives, Nvidia's fate is up in the air. Maybe I am now coming to terms with this. Apple's fine, it will do what it has always done and continue to sell Macs.

I'm trying to hold off until the middle of next year, maybe getting a MacBook Pro 15" antiglare then. For now, I'll wait until the dust settles and eagerly look forward to the CPU and GPU benchmarks on all Arrandale and Clarkdale chips.

Of course, a big factor for me would be to see what discrete GPU goes into the MacBook Pro 15".

Now, if I can resist the temptation though, and a reasonably fast 250GB SSD comes out at the USD $300 price point within the 1st half of 2010, I'll pop that into my MacBook and enjoy the rest of 2010 without having to get another laptop. If... I can resist... the... temptation... Of course, if an Apple tablet comes out next year, it could be hard to ignore that.

It maybe that the rumors are simply picking up on other rumors about Arradales without the GPU. This actually would be real easy for Intel to do because Arrandale is a multi chip module with the GPU as a separate chip. It is a good rumor from the technical standpoint thus I'd suspect that more customers than Apple have rejected Arrandale on that point

The reality is customers can stand up to Intel if they want. It is also a reality that many customers don't care and simply want to build the cheapest laptops possible. So we aren't going to see Arrandale with GPU go away either.

Plus they have the option of very viable ATI GPUs right now. Well now in the sense that they would be ready for launch in 2010. Frankly NVidia is slipping grossly right now with nothing really fresh and new for mobile. The biggest problem with the support of external graphics is the amount of PCI Express lanes available on Arrandale.

Dave

I think I'd like to have the IG enabled and a dedicated gpu. It won't be as nice as the 9400m/9600gt solution on the current MBPs but I'd like to have the option of using the Intel IG if it results in better battery life, which it almost certainly will.

Since NVIDIA can't make nehalem chipsets there isn't a possibility for an NVDIA integrated graphics a la 9400m, which was pretty nice for IG by most accounts. So you might as well pinch your nose and take the Intel IG. It still may come in handy even if it sucks compared to the 9400m.

With the 8000 series bump gate fiasco, it is hard to be sympathetic to NVIDIA. But at the end of the day you're right, its better to have them around rather than see them disappear.

The cards seem stacked against them but with Larrabee on the shelf and if Fermi is a smash hit, ...who knows NVDIA's fortunes could totally reverse. Lets hope so.

Not possible. The memory controller is on the 45nm die with the GPU.

It's easy enough to add a discrete graphics chip. Apple doesn't need special processors.

Anyone here going to be upset if the next MBPs get 32nm dual-core “Arrandale” Core-i7s instead of 45nm quad-core “Clarkdale’ Core i7s?

For me, the Hyperthreaded-ness of it will satisfy my reasons to upgrade at work.

I expect the 13 and 15 to be arrandale and the 17 to be clarkdale.

I think that would only be for a BTO configuration, like the extreme model since it uses a 45W CPU instead of the 35W max of the Arrandale, which the current MBPs use.

They arent even using an Extreme" BTO option right now. The 3.06GHz T9900 Penryn is still only 35W. The 45W Clarkdale is considerably cheaper than the 3.06GHz Penryn and uses the same chipset as Arrandale so I dont think its too far fetched to expect that as an option. Especially since weve gone from 3 CPUs options in the MBP to only 2 and the extra power will surely assist some users.

Do you think well see this as a BTO option in the 15 MBP? Did it ever have a 45W option?


PS: I hope that the MBA goes from using the current low-voltage C2D to using the ultra-low-voltage Core-i7. My reasoning is that they current LV C2Ds are 17W (not including the Northbridge) whilst the LV Core-i7s are 25W and the ULV Core-i7s are 18W (both including the Northbridge).

The ULV Core-i7s are also marginally faster than the current MBA processors in Turbo Mode while having some other features. This power savings from the integrated Northbridge may allow for a little better battery and hopefully a way to get 2x1.8 drives into the machine. If both of things can happen then the MBA may be a viable option for me as power is not the problem, but battery life and storage capacity are.

Regardless, going with the LV to LV CPU means that the battery would likely get worse, which is not good for the Mac with the worst battery life.

Which is exactly what you would want if you wanted discreet graphics over integrated. The only thing that limits the ability to implement this would be the number of PCI Express lanes coming out of the chip.

Sure they do. for one the intel GPU;s are dead weight and may only be of advantage in drawing low power. With ATI's newest even that id debatable since the performance of the Intel hardware is crap. Beyond that Apple really can't effectively leverage them for OpenCL so again more dead weight.

As to adding a discreet chip sure that can be done but the as mentioned above it all depends upon Apples use of the the existing PCI Express lanes. It would be a stretch to wish for more lanes with a GPUless Arrandale but it would be nice.

The way I see it right now Apple has tremendous leverage with Intel. All they really need to do is glance AMD's way for a knee jerk reaction from intel. Loosing even parts of Apples account would be very bad for Intels image right now. Frankly AMD/ ATI is the only organization going right now that has a really excellent CPU / GPU synergy. Since Intel can't do GPU's to save its life they have to accommodate organizations like Apple with the chips they want.


Dave

If we are talking the 13" machine, where battery lifetime is the reason for its existence then not a dual core Hyper-threaded CPU is OK. As you move up the line up that becomes less the case. On the 17" model I'd expect Quad core with Hyper-threading.

You do have an interesting question and I guess it depends upon how Pro you expect the Pros to be relative to the MB. In other words I'd really like to see the 13 MBP perform fairly better than the MB. In fact on the Mac Book I'd rather see Apple lower the price even if that means Intel integrated GPU's. None of the Pros though need to suffer from that.

Like it or not I see the Mac Book as being priced to high for the market it is trying to engage. Arrandale ought to allow for a lower cost mac Book once the price comes down a little. If the chips are even that high priced as the integration ought to Save Apple some assembly costs.

Dave

That may be a valid argument, especially for Mac Book. However some of the latest discreet GPU's form ATI look to be very promising with respect to power usage and far out class the Intel part. for a pro like machine it would likely be better to simply ignore the thought of an Intel GPU as the power savings probably isn't worth it.

The last thing you would want with Arrandale is an integrated solution. The memory controller and PCI Express controller are already integrated on the die. This means Arrandale is the ideal solution for discreet graphics at reasonably low costs. Of course this is Apple so the discreet GPU's will be last years offerings, so you can dismiss some of the statements above!

Even that attitude is old news though as Apple has really been bleeding edge with new tech on its laptops lately. The 9400M was a good example so they may very well offer up something pleasing with ATI hardware in it. What I'm trying to do here is remain positive until Apple debuts the new machines. Apple has been paying attention to its laptop line up lately.

Dave

I'm not sure if you understood... Intel cannot build Arrandale processors without the IGP. The northbridge die contains both the IGP and the memory controller, without which the processor does not function, and Intel is not going to design a second northbridge die with just the MC for Apple's low-volume purchases. That would cost tens of millions of dollars that Apple isn't going to pay.

Apple might get Intel to disable the IGP in microcode, but it'll be the same chip. No different hardware. Or Apple could disable the IGP at the EFI level. However, I think they'll keep it for the power-saving benefits of switchable graphics.

The last sales data had the 13 MBP being the best selling Mac. Perhaps Apples primary goal is the up sell. Apple has already lowered the price of the MB by $100 this year. I dont expect another drop until Apple finds that 13 MB market has been well saturated, which shoudl take longer with each price drop.




Its possible that Apple will just milk the plastic MB machine with the 9400M for as long as possible. I see no reason why it has to be essentially the same as the 13 MBP and as Apple grows having the same parts does seem to be more of a logistical issue. Personally, Id like to see a 15 unibody MB added to the line with the cheaper components and possibly even one CPU configuration/ Make it about $200-$300 more than the 13 MB. The cheapest 15 MBP is $1,700 so making it $1,200 or $1,300 should attract buyers who just want a larger display Mac without all that extra performance.

You mean 45nm quad-core "Clarksfield", I think.

Okay, here's the weird thing I just realised.

On Wikipedia, all of Intel's 32nm offerings, Arrandale and Clarkdale, are listed as only having two cores. Of course, the upper-range Arrandale and Clarkdales will have 4 threads, but still two cores.

So, here's where I'm confused. Does this mean Intel will provide new information on their CES Jan 7 2010 announcement about 4-core Arrandale and Clarkdale?

Or, does this mean for at least half a year Intel will continue with the 45nm non-GPU Penryn, and Lynnfield (desktop) and Clarksfield (mobile) for 4 cores...? (In addition to continuing with Bloomfield)?

I was under the impression that this "Westmere" 32nm process would involve transitioning their whole line within the first few months of 2010.

Instead, could be the first few months would see Arrandale and Clarkdale dual-cores only with the 45nm stuff still being produced until a later transition.

...

As I understand, Clarksfield battery life (a different thing from TDP alone) is horrible so Apple's Macbook Pro 17" will probably not use that. So the next refresh to the MacBook Pro processors would *all* be dualcores (4 threads on the higher-end) but *NO QUAD-CORE* ... at least until 32nm mobile quad-core processors come*

*Which may be announced by Intel next month, or which may come later in the year (middle of the year?)

...

Does anyone know for how long in 2010 will Intel be producing 45nm chips in bulk? I wonder if it is going to be until Sandy Bridge in 2011. Looks like 2010, the first half anyway, will have Intel continuing to produce 45nm Penryn, Clarksfield, Bloomfield, Lynnfield as well as 32nm Arrandale, Clarkdale, Gainstown.

Sandy Bridge would then be the 32nm mobile and desktop chips with on-die GPU and also 4 cores by default.

In other words, unlike what I was assuming, in 2010 there may be no 32nm quad-core mobile CPU.

Yes, thanks. Have I mentioned how much I despise Intel’s code names?