I wonder if we'll see many computer companies (including Apple) advertising machines with these chips by only the Turbo Boost speeds rather than their actual clock speeds.
"Powered by Intel Core i7 620M at up to 3.33GHz!"
Which is completely dishonest, and totally something retailers would do.
These days, most retailers don't tell you what the chip frequency is. it's a letter with four numbers after it, and those numbers don't decode in a straight forward manner.
These days, most retailers don't tell you what the chip frequency is. it's a letter with four numbers after it, and those numbers don't decode in a straight forward manner.
Much of what has been said above I have been following. The cut and paste from Wiki is good. I predicted the last laptop upgrade from Wiki.
A few things to mull over.
Apple is very concerned about the thermal imprint of the chips - therefore look for upgrades to chips with the same TDP.
Apple often gets chips that are not listed or have slight differences - such as 25W version of a 35W chip. They will most likely have a 10% speed bump between chip offerings.
Turbo boost is like the Turbo in Galaxy Quest. It is only meant for short bursts, not 5 to 30 mins of single threaded activity.
These chips have been ready for months but were delayed at the request of OEM's due to over supply and under demand. This allowed everyone to have better Q3 profits with back to school stuff - that is what pays for the iPod Touch's.
IMac and Mac Mini may get the multithreaded chips early - after school rush. Mac Pro may get a speed bump before new chips early next year. Some GeekBench results for other systems have been seen. I would not be surprised if Apple has some i5 chips ready. for the laptops.
Next years chips will be twice the speed of this years. in 3 to 4 years we will see the return of Altivec like function to the Mac - I miss it. Core i9 is initially a server chip.
If no release September to mid-October, I doubt release before end of year as Apple rarely updates right before Black Friday and will not Update within 2 weeks after due to returns. And by that point nobody will be looking for a MacPro before the new year as it is tough to wrap.
Actually, yes, there is a chance. Intel's Clarksfield processors should arrive in September or October. That's mobile Nehalem quad-core, 45-55W and very expensive. Only Apple's engineers know if Apple can shove that in a Macbook.
Here's a prototype Intel was showing off:
Note the eight threads in the lower left.
Processors that use less power will come in the first half of next year.
Those quad core are possible for the iMac, but way too hot for the ultra slim Macbooks.
Does anyone think it's possible for a Quad-core iMac or MBP to be able to run Diablo III at 100% full speed? I know requirements are far off but that is around the time when I would most likely make my Mac purchase.
Does anyone think it's possible for a Quad-core iMac or MBP to be able to run Diablo III at 100% full speed? I know requirements are far off but that is around the time when I would most likely make my Mac purchase.
Graphics are far more important to game performance than processor. A dual-core iMac with the Radeon 4850 should be able run Diablo III very well.
Do you think such a powerful graphics card will be available for the iMac? The 20" iMac is a bit big for me. I was sort of looking at the 15" MBP though the graphics might not be powerful enough.
I don't think Apple will use Clarksfield, either. There are mobile Core 2 Quads they could be using now, but aren't.
Clarksfield are probably too hot, almost has hot as Core 2 Quads? Core 2 Quads use the Core architecture. Clarksfield use the Nehalem architecture. Remember: P6, Core, Nehalem, Sandy Bridge, Haswell, etc. Its the feature size (45nm vs 32nm) and clock rate, and not the architecture that determines the power consumption. But maybe they're not using the Core 2 Quads now just because they cost more?
Clarksfield are probably too hot, almost has hot as Core 2 Quads? Core 2 Quads use the Core architecture. Clarksfield use the Nehalem architecture. Remember: P6, Core, Nehalem, Sandy Bridge, Haswell, etc. Its the feature size (45nm vs 32nm) and clock rate, and not the architecture that determines the power consumption. But maybe they're not using the Core 2 Quads now just because they cost more?
Yes. Cost is one reason they aren't using the mobile Core 2 Quads, and it's one reason they probably won't use Clarksfield. Heat is another reason, but that can be compensated for with design and by increasing fan speeds.
But I think the real reason Apple doesn't use Intel's current mobile Core 2 Quad and probably won't use Clarksfield is marketing. While other computer makers advertise the CPUs in their machines by relatively meaningless product numbers, Apple still sells on GHz (i7 720QM vs. 1.6GHz). Now, GHz is a meaningless number, too, but Apple has trained its customers to expect that number to go up with each model update.
Switching the notebooks to a quad-core (be it of the Core 2 or Nehalem variety) would cause that GHz number to go way down overnight, and I think that Apple thinks its customers are stupid enough to think that's a downgrade. I think it's a distinct possibility that Apple will make like every other PC maker and start using Intel's model numbers instead of clock speeds to describe processors.
All really great points FPN, although I raise this...
Would it be a smart move (if you were making the decusion) to add one Core 2 Quad MBP or add it as a selection possibly in the 17"?
I don't know what the engineering problems are regarding heat and power with a 45-55W processor in that enclosure (although you can bet Apple has made prototypes with the quads), so I don't know if it's even feasible. But I think that, as a top-tier option, it would probably sell. Enough of the MBP's audience would either need it or want the bragging rights to justify it as an option.
Quad-core notebooks are very hard to find now, but that will change next year.
I expect the next MacBook Air revision will use the 620LM and 640LM. The MacBook would probably use the 520M.
I doubt the air will use that cpu. The TDP is 25 watts and the current MBA uses a cpu with a TDP of 17 watts. They could use the 620UM and/or 640UM but I wonder how they perform compared to the current cpus. They may not be much faster than the current cpus given their low clock speed.
Comments
I wonder if we'll see many computer companies (including Apple) advertising machines with these chips by only the Turbo Boost speeds rather than their actual clock speeds.
"Powered by Intel Core i7 620M at up to 3.33GHz!"
Which is completely dishonest, and totally something retailers would do.
These days, most retailers don't tell you what the chip frequency is. it's a letter with four numbers after it, and those numbers don't decode in a straight forward manner.
These days, most retailers don't tell you what the chip frequency is. it's a letter with four numbers after it, and those numbers don't decode in a straight forward manner.
You're right, most don't. But Apple does.
A few things to mull over.
Apple is very concerned about the thermal imprint of the chips - therefore look for upgrades to chips with the same TDP.
Apple often gets chips that are not listed or have slight differences - such as 25W version of a 35W chip. They will most likely have a 10% speed bump between chip offerings.
Turbo boost is like the Turbo in Galaxy Quest. It is only meant for short bursts, not 5 to 30 mins of single threaded activity.
These chips have been ready for months but were delayed at the request of OEM's due to over supply and under demand. This allowed everyone to have better Q3 profits with back to school stuff - that is what pays for the iPod Touch's.
IMac and Mac Mini may get the multithreaded chips early - after school rush. Mac Pro may get a speed bump before new chips early next year. Some GeekBench results for other systems have been seen. I would not be surprised if Apple has some i5 chips ready. for the laptops.
Next years chips will be twice the speed of this years. in 3 to 4 years we will see the return of Altivec like function to the Mac - I miss it. Core i9 is initially a server chip.
If no release September to mid-October, I doubt release before end of year as Apple rarely updates right before Black Friday and will not Update within 2 weeks after due to returns. And by that point nobody will be looking for a MacPro before the new year as it is tough to wrap.
Actually, yes, there is a chance. Intel's Clarksfield processors should arrive in September or October. That's mobile Nehalem quad-core, 45-55W and very expensive. Only Apple's engineers know if Apple can shove that in a Macbook.
Here's a prototype Intel was showing off:
Note the eight threads in the lower left.
Processors that use less power will come in the first half of next year.
Those quad core are possible for the iMac, but way too hot for the ultra slim Macbooks.
Does anyone think it's possible for a Quad-core iMac or MBP to be able to run Diablo III at 100% full speed? I know requirements are far off but that is around the time when I would most likely make my Mac purchase.
Graphics are far more important to game performance than processor. A dual-core iMac with the Radeon 4850 should be able run Diablo III very well.
I don't think Apple will use Clarksfield, either. There are mobile Core 2 Quads they could be using now, but aren't.
Clarksfield are probably too hot, almost has hot as Core 2 Quads? Core 2 Quads use the Core architecture. Clarksfield use the Nehalem architecture. Remember: P6, Core, Nehalem, Sandy Bridge, Haswell, etc. Its the feature size (45nm vs 32nm) and clock rate, and not the architecture that determines the power consumption. But maybe they're not using the Core 2 Quads now just because they cost more?
Clarksfield are probably too hot, almost has hot as Core 2 Quads? Core 2 Quads use the Core architecture. Clarksfield use the Nehalem architecture. Remember: P6, Core, Nehalem, Sandy Bridge, Haswell, etc. Its the feature size (45nm vs 32nm) and clock rate, and not the architecture that determines the power consumption. But maybe they're not using the Core 2 Quads now just because they cost more?
Yes. Cost is one reason they aren't using the mobile Core 2 Quads, and it's one reason they probably won't use Clarksfield. Heat is another reason, but that can be compensated for with design and by increasing fan speeds.
But I think the real reason Apple doesn't use Intel's current mobile Core 2 Quad and probably won't use Clarksfield is marketing. While other computer makers advertise the CPUs in their machines by relatively meaningless product numbers, Apple still sells on GHz (i7 720QM vs. 1.6GHz). Now, GHz is a meaningless number, too, but Apple has trained its customers to expect that number to go up with each model update.
Switching the notebooks to a quad-core (be it of the Core 2 or Nehalem variety) would cause that GHz number to go way down overnight, and I think that Apple thinks its customers are stupid enough to think that's a downgrade. I think it's a distinct possibility that Apple will make like every other PC maker and start using Intel's model numbers instead of clock speeds to describe processors.
Would it be a smart move (if you were making the decusion) to add one Core 2 Quad MBP or add it as a selection possibly in the 17"?
All really great points FPN, although I raise this...
Would it be a smart move (if you were making the decusion) to add one Core 2 Quad MBP or add it as a selection possibly in the 17"?
I don't know what the engineering problems are regarding heat and power with a 45-55W processor in that enclosure (although you can bet Apple has made prototypes with the quads), so I don't know if it's even feasible. But I think that, as a top-tier option, it would probably sell. Enough of the MBP's audience would either need it or want the bragging rights to justify it as an option.
Quad-core notebooks are very hard to find now, but that will change next year.
My bet is that the MBPs will use the 520m, 540m and 620m chips.
I share that expectation.
I think the MBA and MB may stay with core 2 duos.
I expect the next MacBook Air revision will use the 620LM and 640LM. The MacBook would probably use the 520M.
I expect the next MacBook Air revision will use the 620LM and 640LM. The MacBook would probably use the 520M.
I doubt the air will use that cpu. The TDP is 25 watts and the current MBA uses a cpu with a TDP of 17 watts. They could use the 620UM and/or 640UM but I wonder how they perform compared to the current cpus. They may not be much faster than the current cpus given their low clock speed.
Time will tell.