Core i5 released and what it means for Macs
Core i5/
The chip that Intel have released is the Core i5- 750, this is a quad-core processor which runs at 2.66GHz, in total it has an 8MB cache and draws 95 watts. When purchased in volume the chip will set you back $196.
This chip is pretty revolutionary and very power efficient considering. I wonder how long it will take before we see them in an iMac? My only fear is that Apple will instead go with the core i3 which is even more power efficient but far less powerful.
The chip that Intel have released is the Core i5- 750, this is a quad-core processor which runs at 2.66GHz, in total it has an 8MB cache and draws 95 watts. When purchased in volume the chip will set you back $196.
This chip is pretty revolutionary and very power efficient considering. I wonder how long it will take before we see them in an iMac? My only fear is that Apple will instead go with the core i3 which is even more power efficient but far less powerful.
Comments
Core i5/
The chip that Intel have released is the Core i5- 750, this is a quad-core processor which runs at 2.66GHz, in total it has an 8MB cache and draws 95 watts. When purchased in volume the chip will set you back $196.
This chip is pretty revolutionary and very power efficient considering. I wonder how long it will take before we see them in an iMac? My only fear is that Apple will instead go with the core i3 which is even more power efficient but far less powerful.
I doubt they'll use the cpu you refer to.
They'll wait for the mobile i7 and i5 cpus ( Arrandale) and use them in the MBP and iMac lines of machines, IMO.
The Mac Pros will continue to use the Xenon class Nehalem chips.
I doubt they'll use the cpu you refer to.
They'll wait for the mobile i7 and i5 cpus ( Arrandale) and use them in the MBP and iMac lines of machines, IMO.
The Mac Pros will continue to use the Xenon class Nehalem chips.
They also released Xeon 3400 chips based on this new architecture.
They also released Xeon 3400 chips based on this new architecture.
As much as it saddens me to say this... when it comes to living on the razors edge hardware wise.... Apple can be found crouched down somewhere between the can of shaving cream and the roll on deodorant.
Apple simply isn't in the race to be the TOPS in anything hardware related when it comes to their computers...
Yes, every once in a blue moon they do shock us...
Being one of the first to bring AFFORDABLE LaserJet printers
Being one of the first to bring AFFORDABLE LCD displays
Being one of the first to bring AFFORDABLE WIFI
Being one of the first to bring AFFORDABLE DVD burning
Maybe a few others I'm forgetting...
As you can see, Apple has the ability to identify the 'right time' to make their BOLD hardware presentations but they've also fallen down on some of them too...
CD burners for example, went totally over their heads Steve even said as much in an interview I think or maybe a keynote... Something akin to 'totally dropping the ball with CD burning' - perhaps it was when they rolled out the 'under 1k' superdrive.
But yea.. these BOLD moves are few and far between... heck one only needs to look at what they are giving us in video cards.... It's not even YESTERDAYS NEWS its more like LAST YEARS NEWS.
All this aside, they kick MAJOR ASS in the software department... and I'm confidant that the FAR less frequent hardware changes allows the developers to work on the OS instead of the driver of the day problems that other OSes have to deal with.
I want the best of BOTH worlds.... and if you look around you might find some interesting sites that offer you a taste of that... but you're in for a world of hurt getting things to work (at all) and it can a juggling act trying to keep the system stable when updates get rolled out.
There is no free lunch I'm afraid... I've got 3 Apple Macs in my home and a toy that I love to tinker with... but I wouldn't trust the toy as my primary computer... not me.
Dave
They also released Xeon 3400 chips based on this new architecture.
Great for the Mac Pros. I doubt they'll show up in anything else.
The mobile version of this processor will be 45-55W and won't go in a Macbook Pro. We'll see about the iMac.
Next year, the dual core mobile Nehalem processors in 32nm are what Apple will start using.
On-topic: The price for the i5 doesn't seem too bad. 95w is nice. Lower power consumption has intrigued me though as of late.
I am disappointed for others who are waiting for the iMacs to get something more powerful than the current core 2 duo. These i5's look to be pretty powerful chips. What a shame that the limitations of the form factor preclude the use of the very economical desktop CPUs from Intel. Reminds me of my envy of the Conroe processors when they were first released. It also sucks that the iMac has to wait for the mobile counterparts which are many months away as well as being far slower versions not to mention far more expensive.
I bough a Mac Pro simply because I had no choice. I would have been far happier to buy a Core i7 based Mac. Such is the price we pay to use OS X.
By the way, how many watts do the current iMacs use for comparison?
Apple has never used any processors from Intel's desktop line and they won't start now.
Actually, both the "Early 2008" and the "Early 2009" iMac models use E-series dual-core Penryn desktop chips. The current ones are specifically the E8135 (2.66GHz), E8335 (2.93GHz), and E8435 (3.06GHz).
http://support.apple.com/kb/HT3559
That's likely total power draw which includes the display and other hardware. The display probably uses 40-50W on the 20". This means the TDP of the CPU from the maximum power usage would be around 45-55W.
A 95W CPU is a bit high. The low power 65W Core 2 Quads still seem like a better option.
Q8400s in the 20", Q9550s in the 24". People are paying enough for these machines, they could at least put high value processors in them. If the Core 2 Duo desktop prices match up for Apple's machines, their 2.66GHz low end is under $200, maybe under $100 and that's in a $1200 computer.
For the high end, using a $320 processor in a $2200 machine isn't that unreasonable.
I guess Apple assume people who buy iMacs won't be doing much more than video and audio encoding, which doesn't get a huge boost unless you do multiple encodings at a time. I think by now a dual core in such an expensive machine is ridiculous. Either drop the prices so the entry point is under $1000 or use faster chips (speaking from the consumer perspective).
By the way, how many watts do the current iMacs use for comparison?
2008/2009 iMacs use 35 W, 45 W, and/or 55 W CPUs.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...5,2410-13.html
The reduced platform power consumption of the Core i5 and Core i7 CPUs is immediately apparent, even at idle. Both Lynnfield-based designs dip in around 20W underneath the Core 2 Quad Q9550S, which we?ve been using up until this point to replicate the performance of a standard Q9550. The ?S? model has a 65W TDP though, so the fact that Core i7-870 and Core i5-750 suck up less juice at idle is impressive. So too is the idle consumption of AMD?s Phenom II X4 965 BE, which also ducks in under the Core 2 Quad.
Fire up the Small FFT test in Prime95, add a FurMark Burn-In test, and the power usage jumps through the roof. Here?s where Intel?s low-power Q9550S shines, turning in the best results. But the two Lynnfields continue to impress with the second and third lowest power consumption figures. AMD?s Phenom II X4 965 comes in fourth, followed by the Core 2 Extreme, and trailed by the 130W Bloomfield-based Core i7-920.
It can be difficult to take thermal design power specs and give them real-world meaning. However, when you do the math, these load numbers make good sense. The TDP of Intel?s low-power Core 2 Quad is 30W below Lynnfield?s spec. Subtract out a power-hungry northbridge and you?re looking at the gap we see here in practice. Add 22W to the X58?s power budget and then take Bloomfield?s 130W ceiling into account; it?s no wonder Core i7-920 sits at the other end of the spectrum.
with a decent air cooler you can expect these results:
Stock cooler:
MUX-120 cooler:
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum...review-20.html
I just don't get why it's not possible (for apple) to use desktop cpu's in a system that's 24 inches wide (more with the border) compared to a 15 inch laptop.
Actually, both the "Early 2008" and the "Early 2009" iMac models use E-series dual-core Penryn desktop chips. The current ones are specifically the E8135 (2.66GHz), E8335 (2.93GHz), and E8435 (3.06GHz).
No. Those are mobile processors. They use the mobile package and mobile chipset.
I just don't get why it's not possible (for apple) to use desktop cpu's in a system that's 24 inches wide (more with the border) compared to a 15 inch laptop.
Because that system is 2 inches thick.
Core i5/
The chip that Intel have released is the Core i5- 750, this is a quad-core processor which runs at 2.66GHz, in total it has an 8MB cache and draws 95 watts. When purchased in volume the chip will set you back $196.
That chip also sucks to put it plainly. It burns as much power as the SMT alternatives, and is neutered in other ways. So I would not want to see it in a top of the line iMac. Maybe a mini replacement, but I can't ever see Apple going to that hungry of a processor in the Mini, so the Mini would likely get a laptop version.
Even if Apple wakes up and does an XMac I don't see the value of this processor in such a platform. Especially considering it lacks the more advanced virtualization features from what I understand. At best though, and in a laptop form, it would be a very good processor for the low end machines.
This chip is pretty revolutionary and very power efficient considering. I wonder how long it will take before we see them in an iMac? My only fear is that Apple will instead go with the core i3 which is even more power efficient but far less powerful.
Yes but in exactly the same power range you can get i7 class hardware. Yes it is a bit more expensive but it is also more feature full. Frankly i5 strikes me as a flunky processor, that Intel wants to sell to people that don't understand or need all the goodness in i7.
Dave
the pro are useing pystar and build there own as apple hardware costs are way not of line next to pc. pay about $1000 less then the mac pro to get x2 the ram, bigger HD and way better video card.
I may be letting myself get trolled here but...
I have my mac pro in part because it was *cheaper* than building my own machine with similar specs or buying from another vendor (and why yes, I do use 8 cores - for post process and thread testing work, and an 18000 core machine for my actual jobs :-p) Oh, and nothing psystar offers (offered?) comes close to the machine from a professional standpoint, from a consumer looking at a tower maybe.... But this is a professional workstation, compare its hardware to other machines of the same class.
(The MP is also nearly silent when I'm not pushing it and still quite quiet when I am, Since it sits in my bedroom and my fiance stays over quite often, that's an important consideration :-p)
Because that system is 2 inches thick.
Plus it's very sealed up. Perhaps they should perforate the sides for better airflow. They only have that small opening at the back and it has a dust cover over it.
Even if Apple wakes up and does an XMac I don't see the value of this processor in such a platform. Especially considering it lacks the more advanced virtualization features from what I understand.
I think it's just missing TxT, which is a security technology. That shouldn't affect virtualization performance. The chip does draw the same power as Core i7 though and you lose HT, which isn't a huge deal as it's already quad core but i5 seems like i7 with features cut out and $100 cheaper.
The Clarksfield chips coming late this month would be better options depending on price.
I didn't realise the overclocking in Turbo-boost was going to be as much. The 1.73GHz quad Clarksfield ramps up to 3.06GHz - that's probably just 1 core when 3 are idle but still a lot more than I thought. They all support HT/SMT so 4 cores but 8 threads, 45-55W TDP:
http://www.techpowerup.com/98607/Int..._Low_TDPs.html
These come out in time for the back to school refresh and the iMac is reaching the end of an average update cycle.
This update will sadly leave the Mini far behind - 8 thread vs 2 - until we get round to Arrandale but then it will still be 2 core, 4 thread at 2GHz clock up to 2.66GHz. The turbo boost will help in some cases and the SMT but it'll still be a good bit weaker. I guess that's how it should be though. Right now, the iMacs aren't very good value for money.
It doesn't mean anything. Apple's crowd is trendy teenagers now, not professional or semi professional desktop users.
I do pro work on a G5 iMac and a relatively new macbook. The iMac is starting to get slow. If I take the cost hit to refresh all of my software to Intel, it will be more than the iMac itself. I accept this fact, but the bottom line is that there aren't very many activities, pro or amateur that require a Mac Pro. In fact, I'm not exactly sure who on earth are using mac pros.
Nonetheless, I would like to buy a new iMac during a milestone event, such as adoption of a Nehalem-series CPU, rather than at just another lame upgrade.