Originally Posted by wk127001
Hello all, I would have to say my guess is the new pros will be released two weeks after the SDK's release on the 26th, probably the 11th or at the latest 18th. I don't have any inside tips but that seems like the most reasonable date. I'm thinking these current supply shortages are due to the fact that Intel messed up the new penyrns and apple didn't have enough stock to cover pushing back the release date. They probably manufactured some additional current models that suppliers will get on the 20th to maintain their bottom line until the new revision is out. Anyway, if I'm wrong and they're out the 19th, I won't be disappointed. Also I expect the base model to contain a 2.5 GHz CPU and upgradeable to a 2.6 GHz, 2.8 GHz in a laptop is frankly unrealistic, way too much power draw. Even if 2.8 was an option I wouldn't take it, I'd rather have the battery life than an unnoticeable increase in performance.
Welcome to AI, wk127001.
In order to avoid comments like thebeat's (above) you may want to express your ratiocination for this "most reasonable date." While it won't work in every instance if we understand you reasoning it may ward off some enmity that will undoubtedly follow a statement that has no supporting evidence or logical train of thought added.
Ten days ago Dell starting shipping Penryn based notebooks. The delay is only a few days as with all their build-to-order notebooks, which means they have them in stock. Unless there is a huge supply issue I don't think Apple will wait until March to update the MBPs. I think Tuesday is the most likely date for this based on other evidence in this thread.
One thing that seems to oft go unnoticed is that while Apple has a small slice of all notebooks sold compared to HP and Dell, they seem to trump them when it comes to higher-end notebooks running current, modern processors. This is the only logic I can think of that would add any validity to your statement and why Apple is always a month or so behind other OEMs when it comes to releasing these new processors. They simply sell a lot more machines with the new hotness inside.
Intel's price lists for the new chip and its predeessor are:
$241 — T7500 "Santa Rosa" (2.20 GHz, 4 MB L2 Cache, 800MHz FSB, 65nm)
• $241 — T8300 "Penryn" (2.40 GHz, 3 MB L2 Cache, 800MHz FSB, 45nm)
• $316 — T7700 "Santa Rosa" (2.40 GHz, 4 MB L2 Cache, 800MHz FSB, 65nm)
• $316 — T9300 "Penryn" (2.50 GHz, 6 MB L2 Cache, 800MHz FSB, 45nm)
• $530 — T7800 "Santa Rosa" (2.60 GHz, 4 MB L2 Cache, 800MHz FSB, 65nm)
• $530 — T9500 "Penryn" (2.60 GHz, 6 MB L2 Cache, 800MHz FSB, 45nm)
• $851 — X7900 "Santa Rosa" (2.80 GHz, 4 MB L2 Cache, 800MHz FSB, 65nm)
• $851 — X9000 "Penryn" (2.80 GHz, 6 MB L2 Cache, 800MHz FSB, 45nm)
There are some differences this time around in L2 Cache: 2.20GH w/ 4MB L2 Cache vs. 2.40GHz w/ 3MB L2 Cache. Does the application being used make a difference here despite the 200MHz speed increase? How does this affect battery usage? (I can't answer these questions)
Assuming they keep the pricepoints the same, the most likely scenario is:
(There will also be other HW improvements)
• $1999 — 15" @ 2.40GHz
• $2499 — 15" @ 2.50GHz +$250 for 2.60GHz option
• $2799 — 17" @ 2.50GHz +$250 for 2.60GHz option
Dell starts off with the "Santa Rosa?" T7250 (2M L2 cache 2.00 GHz 800 MHz FSB 65nm) which is $209 from intel and then charges:
• $75 — T8300 (only $32 more from Intel)
• $200 — T9300 (only $107 more from Intel)
• $475 — T9500 (only $321 more from Intel)
Honestly, this means very little as Dell will undoubtedly sell less of the higher priced models but it's interesting to see the premium being charged for faster machines.