Originally Posted by hmurchison
Apple's current 3.06 Ghz C2D option utilizes a 35 watt TDP proc (T9900) the entry level Clarksfield 1.66Ghz is estimated to have this same 35 watt TDP. So how does a 1.66Ghz Clarksfied use more battery power than a 35 watt C2D? I think logical progression would have Apple utilizing hardware that supports their latest OS. Offering Snow Leopard with Grand Central Dispatch and OpenCL and then standardizing your notebooks (which are Apple's best seller numerically) on Dual Core would be absurd.
We cannot talk about expense because we don't know what Arrandale costs and we've only got estimates for Clarksfield. You know that Clarksfield will likely have Turbo Boost mode and I believe you're just being disengenous here.
My thoughts are Apple will use Clarksfield on the high end and Arrandale (early 2010) on the lower end Macbook Pro models. They will definitely use Clarksfield at some level and people doing audio or video production who need laptops for the portability will buy these because many are hooked to AC %75 of the time. Battery life is important to most but where it ranks on the scale depends on if you're talking about a road warrior or someone that occasionally need to travel.
The problem with Clarksfield, at least the upcoming version, is that:
1- it is very expensive: $350 1.66GHz, $560 1.73GHz, $1,050 2.00GHz, for similar prices, you can get a P9700 (2.80GHz, 25W
, $348) and a T9900 (3.06GHz, 35W, $530). Offering the quad 2.00GHz will be a +$500 option over the most expensive MBPs today.
Just in terms of prices, Clarksfield cannot be used on all models of the current MB(P)s:
$1199/1499 13" MBP ($209 cpus) - no Clarksfield to fill this need
$1699/1999 15" MBP ($209-241 cpus) - no Clarksfield to fill this need
$2299 15"/$2499 17" MBP C2D 2.80 ($316 cpu) could be replace with the quad 1.66GHz
$2599 15"/$2799 17" MBP C2D 3.06 ($530 cpu) could be replace with the quad 1.73GHz
If Apple uses the quad 2.00 model, prices will be at least $3099 and $3299 (and probably $3299/3499).
2- While SL is supposed to take advantage of multiple cores, gpu, etc., those are not a requirement, SL doesn't need
quad-core cpus or multiple gpus to run.
3- Arrandale will have 2 cores + Hyperthreading, that means 4 threads at once, it's better than the C2D we have today. Clocks and prices are supposed to be similar to those of the current C2D. Of course, Arrandale IGP won't be better than the 9400M, but that's where the 16x PCI Express lanes are useful. Since the 13" is now a MBP, I can see Apple using the newly announced 200M series of nvidia GPUs on all MBPs early next year (210M on the 13/15", 230M on the 15/17", 250M as a BTO option)
Depending on the outcome of the Intel/nvidia feud on chipsets, it is possible that nvidia could come up with a version of the 9400M (or whatever) that connects thru DMI, but has a 9400M iGP (or whatever) on the chipset.
While it would be great to have some quad-core notebooks, I don't think Apple will cut the prices again (like they have done recently) to be able to offer a full-line of quad-core notebooks. And if they offer them only on the 15"/17" models, the move of the 13" to MBP status would have been useless.
According to Wikipedia Arrandale is est at 18/25/35 Watts TDP...
Of course, they are: Arrandale will replace the current SL, P, and T series of the penryn C2D:
- 18W Arrandale could be used for the MBA
- 25W Arrandale could be used for the Mac mini, 13/15" MBP
- 35W Arrandale could be used for the 15/17" MBP
And later Arrandale will replace the other series (SU, U, etc.)
I am not that worry about the notebooks regarding the quad-core adoption, they can wait for the 32nm versions or later to move to quad-core, I wonder more about the fate of the iMac, because Apple didn't move to quad-core yet. Lynnfield will be 95W, Clarksfield is too expensive for the iMac, that still uses inexpensive custom-hybrid 55W cpus, 65W Lynnfield will be released early 2010, but yet is 65W too high a TDP for Apple's liking?
All we know is that they didn't use the 65W desktop quads that have been available for +6 months along with nvidia 9300/9400 desktop chipsets. It is possible that Apple would use custom cpus again for the next version of the iMac (propably 2.00/2.13/2.26/2.40GHz models, with a TDP lower than 55W) this fall.Now, don't get me wrong, I'd love for Apple to offer nehalem quads on most Macs, but I think it is unlikely for the next updates (especially the MBP) for reason of prices and/or TDP of Intel cpus.