Seriously! I was wondering whether or not the current line of MBPs would be replaced any time soon, so I thought to hold off. Now that I know that a new one is likely in the works, it'll be a crazy wait.
Yea, I'm thinking of replacing my first-gen Core Duo MacBook (summer '06) within a few months. I guess this will be good timing for me, since I'd like to wait for a few more paychecks! If it comes out in November, I don't think I'd be able to resist!
However, a release right before the shopping season will give the MBpros enough time to shine before the much anticipated Tablets will be announced in January 2010?!
They refreshed the MB three times in 9 months. They refreshed the Mini twice in 9 months.
Could be there are just stepping up their game a bit and keeping with Intel's faster pace of late.
Arguing about processor Wattage is pointless. First of all, TDP is a meaningless number for us, the end-users. Second, everyone who says Apple can't put a 45W processor in the Macbook Pro would have said 'Apple can't put a 95W processor in the iMac' a week ago, which makes them even less worth listening to now.
Only Apple's hardware engineers know what the restrictions of their chassis and cooling designs are.
Arguing about processor Wattage is pointless. First of all, TDP is a meaningless number for us, the end-users.
Wrong. Lower power means longer-lasting batteries and cooler running machines.
When the first plastic MacBooks came out, I had an original PowerBook G4 that was five years old and in need of replacement. I knew the Core Duo in the MacBook would mean poor battery and heat performance, but I couldn't take the slowness of my G4 anymore. You know what? I was right, the battery life sucked and the fan went full blast for anything above about 10% CPU usage. I waited for the MacBook Pro to have a 25 W CPU before upgrading, and I'm glad I did. With the dedicated graphics turned off, the fan never comes on and I get better battery life than the MacBook despite a similar Watt-hour rating of the battery, more CPU performance, much more GPU performance and a larger display.
Could a 45 W CPU go in the MacBook Pro? Probably. But that MacBook Pro would have worse battery life and get hotter than the current one, there's no way around that.
Arguing about processor Wattage is pointless. First of all, TDP is a meaningless number for us, the end-users. Second, everyone who says Apple can't put a 45W processor in the Macbook Pro would have said 'Apple can't put a 95W processor in the iMac' a week ago, which makes them even less worth listening to now.
Only Apple's hardware engineers know what the restrictions of their chassis and cooling designs are.
I think most of us would have implied a caveat that there would have to be some unique design change to allow for the better cooling. Like the use of that patent for better passive air flow or a thicker case.
I can?t prove it, but I?d wager a good part of the iMac?s ability to get more desktop-class components is the use a 16:9 display which increases the case x and y area, while also lengthening the horizontal plane and shrinking the vertical plane, even over the smaller 20? iMac. The 27? iMac looks to have been an easy work for their engineering with plenty of room to play with. I?m also told the aluminium backing over the plastic will help reduce heat, but I haven?t looked at how it sits relative to the components.
Wrong. Lower power means longer-lasting batteries and cooler running machines.
When the first plastic MacBooks came out, I had an original PowerBook G4 that was five years old and in need of replacement. I knew the Core Duo in the MacBook would mean poor battery and heat performance, but I couldn't take the slowness of my G4 anymore. You know what? I was right, the battery life sucked and the fan went full blast for anything above about 10% CPU usage. I waited for the MacBook Pro to have a 25 W CPU before upgrading, and I'm glad I did. With the dedicated graphics turned off, the fan never comes on and I get better battery life than the MacBook despite a similar Watt-hour rating of the battery, more CPU performance, much more GPU performance and a larger display.
Could a 45 W CPU go in the MacBook Pro? Probably. But that MacBook Pro would have worse battery life and get hotter than the current one, there's no way around that.
No.
You are all using TDP as if it is a definitive number: This processor uses X Watts. That is not true. TDP defines the top of a heat-output range that a processor is guaranteed not to exceed, and it only matters to engineers designing a cooling system for said processor. Heat output is related to power consumption, but you cannot use it that way.
"TDP is not the absolute worst case power of the processor."
TDP is actually "the expected maximum power generated while running realistic, worst case applications".
Quote:
Originally Posted by FuturePastNow
You are all using TDP as if it is a definitive number: This processor uses X Watts. That is not true.
Whilst you are correct that a CPU rated at "45 W TDP" will not use 45 W all the time, you equally cannot simply ignore the difference between 25 W and 45 W TDP. The 25 W part will run cooler and it will give you better battery life.
Using a 45 W part is highly likely to cause a laptop to run hotter overall, and to have to have the fan running a lot more often than a 25 W part in the same case.
expect a quad-core macbook pro with USB3, lightpeak, & a blu-ray burner.
USB 3.0: maybe, Blu-ray: I hope so but it looks like Steve really doesn't like it, lightpeak: no way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mello
So I'm gonna wait it out so I don't miss out on the new technology.
The thing is, if you wait so as to not "miss out on the new technology", you'll be waiting forever. There's always so bit of new technology around the corner. Probably by the time we've got lightpeak, it'll be 3D displays that are just around the corner.
"TDP is not the absolute worst case power of the processor."
TDP is actually "the expected maximum power generated while running realistic, worst case applications".
You got me there, I see that Intel uses TDP differently from other companies, presumably to make their chips look better.
Quote:
Whilst you are correct that a CPU rated at "45 W TDP" will not use 45 W all the time, you equally cannot simply ignore the difference between 25 W and 45 W TDP. The 25 W part will run cooler and it will give you better battery life.
Using a 45 W part is highly likely to cause a laptop to run hotter overall, and to have to have the fan running a lot more often than a 25 W part in the same case.
And a notebook with a 45W processor is not necessarily going to have shorter battery life than one with a 25W processor. You're greatly oversimplifying things. Most peoples' usage, especially on battery power, is not going to push their processor out of its low-power idle state.
All processors underclock themselves when idle, but these i7 mobile chips have the ability to underclock individual cores that are not being used. The power-saving features actually got quite an overhaul over Core 2. On top of that, the separate Northbridge chip is now gone, its 15 or so Watt TDP folded into the processor. And the i7 can underclock that, too.
Of course you probably run your notebook at 100% load all the time. I feel sorry for your lap.
It's simple. I'm saying if you take a laptop and put in a CPU with 80% higher TDP, I reckon it'll run hotter and/or have to run its fan a lot more often/at a higher RPM, and probably give you worse battery life. I'm not saying it's going to be 80% hotter or give 80% lower battery life, just that the difference between the two can't be dismissed as "negligible".
Quote:
Originally Posted by FuturePastNow
Most peoples' usage, especially on battery power, is not going to push their processor out of its low-power idle state.
You do know the CPU doesn't execute any instructions whilst in the idle states? The Core 2 Duo has four different low-power states numbered C1 to C4, each successive state takes longer to enter/exit, but the power savings are greater at each step. Presumably, state C4 is entered when a Mac goes to sleep, during normal operation, the CPU will be constantly switching between the C0 (normal), C1, C2 and C3 states. I don't know the intricate details of OS X's power management (e.g. the required conditions to enter each state), but if you do I'd be very interested to know about them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FuturePastNow
these i7 mobile chips have the ability to underclock individual cores that are not being used. The power-saving features actually got quite an overhaul over Core 2.
I've read this assertion in various places, but looking at the data sheets (Core 2 Duo, Core i7) I don't see any radical differences.
According to table 1 of the Core 2 Duo datasheet, if both cores are in the C3 state, this is referred to as "deep sleep", which according to table 22 results in a power consumption of 2.9 W.
For the Core i7 with both cores in the C3 state, the power consumption is 13 W (presumably, some of that is the memory controller; for comparison the X9100 Core 2 Duo which has a 44 W TDP has a deep sleep power consumption of 8.2 W and the "T" series Core 2 Duos have a deep sleep of 5.5 W).
Quote:
Originally Posted by FuturePastNow
On top of that, the separate Northbridge chip is now gone, its 15 or so Watt TDP folded into the processor.
Yes, the Northbridge is gone, but a Southbridge would be needed, as would a dedicated GPU. In the current MBP with the dedicated graphics chip turned off, it's essentially CPU+9400M, but with the system as proposed in the AI article, you're looking at CPU+Southbridge+dedicated ATI GPU.
Apparently the 9400M has a 14 W TDP, so the MBP would be going from 25 W + 14 W TDP = 39 W TDP to 45 + ~5 + ~25 = ~75 W TDP.
You're really telling me that we can just ignore an almost doubling of TDP?
Quote:
Originally Posted by FuturePastNow
Of course you probably run your notebook at 100% load all the time. I feel sorry for your lap.
Not at all. With the plastic MacBook (Core Duo), I just had to think about visiting a website with flash and the fans would go ballistic. Now I can watch HD video on iPlayer without my fans going crazy on my MBP with "P" Core 2 Duo and 9400M.
In your whole discussion you are missing one important question.
Getting a Clarksfield into the 17" MBP is not so much a question of feasibility as it is of reasonability.
If you look at the HP Envy I am pretty sure the 17" cooling system could if slightly tweaked cool a clarksfield. But it would definitely run hotter as due to the Turbo mode the 45 Watt are far more often reached and due to the overall increase in TDP. Thus it would probably not stay a very quiet Notebook.
Second and more important there is currently no onboad GPU for clarksfield in Intels Roadmap and Nvidia as canceld there whole chipset division. So without onboard GPUs the battery life will suffer considerably and if you look at current Capella offerings, the Battery runtimes are nowhere near those of montevina with P Series CPUs. Thus the 17" Battery life would go down significantly.
I think it might be possible that a clarksfield 17" Model appears but I wouldn't buy it. The smaller model will definitely be Arrendale only, because people want battery life.
And don't complain so much about the upcoming Intel G55. It will be twice as fast as the G45 according to intel (which is almost 9400M level), much more Power efficient(than both G45 or 9400M), can handle two h264 decodes simultaniously and has definitely enough Power for everything in 2D.
Before Arrendale nothing makes sense. Clarksfield only really makes sense in Desktop REplacements. I just hope Apple sticks to 16:10. I hate this 16:9 displays.
In your whole discussion you are missing one important question.
Getting a Clarksfield into the 17" MBP is not so much a question of feasibility as it is of reasonability.
If you look at the HP Envy I am pretty sure the 17" cooling system could if slightly tweaked cool a clarksfield. But it would definitely run hotter as due to the Turbo mode the 45 Watt are far more often reached and due to the overall increase in TDP. Thus it would probably not stay a very quiet Notebook.
Second and more important there is currently no onboad GPU for clarksfield in Intels Roadmap and Nvidia as canceld there whole chipset division. So without onboard GPUs the battery life will suffer considerably and if you look at current Capella offerings, the Battery runtimes are nowhere near those of montevina with P Series CPUs. Thus the 17" Battery life would go down significantly.
I think it might be possible that a clarksfield 17" Model appears but I wouldn't buy it. The smaller model will definitely be Arrendale only, because people want battery life.
And don't complain so much about the upcoming Intel G55. It will be twice as fast as the G45 according to intel (which is almost 9400M level), much more Power efficient(than both G45 or 9400M), can handle two h264 decodes simultaniously and has definitely enough Power for everything in 2D.
Before Arrendale nothing makes sense. Clarksfield only really makes sense in Desktop REplacements. I just hope Apple sticks to 16:10. I hate this 16:9 displays.
I think it'll pop-up sometime in November alongside the quad-core iMacs.
NO WAY! Your dreaming if you think Apple is going to do another update round before Christmas. Look for it first quarter next year after the mobile processor situation with Intel clears up.
Isn't that about the same time that Intel Lightpeak will be added as well.
That might be optimistic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mello
I'll probably hold out until next fall before upgrading my 1.67ghz powerbook 17".
You're maxed out at 2GB of ram, right? If I were you, I would buy when the Arrandale-based MBPs are released. The benefits of 4GB, Snow Leopard, 1920x1200, etc. are too good to wait yet another year.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mello
By then I hope it would be reasonable to expect a quad-core macbook pro with USB3, lightpeak, & a blu-ray burner.
Another possibility. Why Clarksfield when it is clearly not intended for slim laptop designs? Apple has done it before: scooped up the earliest batches in a new range of Intel processors. If I understand the news correctly, Arrandale has gone to production on Sept 14. And major product launch will be early 2010 prob January. So, it makes sense that Apple would be able to get early batches of Pro's out in November or December.
Apparently the 9400M has a 14 W TDP, so the MBP would be going from 25 W + 14 W TDP = 39 W TDP to 45 + ~5 + ~25 = ~75 W TDP.
You're really telling me that we can just ignore an almost doubling of TDP?
That could make some sense, if Clarksfields were to replace the 25W cpus that Apple uses in SOME notebooks. Given their costs, Clarksfield cpus will probably be used only for the high-end MBPs (replacing the 2.80/3.06GHz models) that have 35W cpus + 14W nvidia chipset + xxW dedicated graphics. Intel's PM55 chipset having a TDP of only 3.5W, the difference in "system" TDP is only a few watts. One could also suppose that newer dedicated gpus will have a lower TDP than the oldies Apple uses right now in the MBPs.
For the low-end MBPs, there will be Arrandale cpus that have a TDP of 25W (core i5) and 35W (core i7) along with the 3.5W PM55 chipset, they have a "system" TDP of 28.5/38.5W. Both versions could receive a low TDP dedicated gpu and still have a total TDP lower than the current MBPs.
The future line-up could look like that, at similar price points:
Core i5-520M DC 2.40GHz 13" MBP + low-end dedicated gpu
Core i5-540M DC 2.53GHz 13" MBP + low-end dedicated gpu
Core i5-540M DC 2.53GHz 15" MBP + low-end dedicated gpu
Core i7-620M DC 2.66GHz 15" MBP + midrange dedicated gpu (that's the only version that would have a higher total TDP than the model it replaces)
Since Clarksfields and the PM55 chipset are already available, the "evidence" leaked is probably about the 2x2 high-end models that may be already ready (at least as prototypes).
-----
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenRoethig
\t
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drow_Swordsman
A much needed update - though I'd be surprised if the i5 or i7's get in the MBP's, I'm thinking it'll be the Xeon's.
There are no notebook xeon and I don't think Apple is going to pack on an extra half to three quarters of an inch and cut battery time to nothing to use them.
While there are no xeons specifically designed for notebooks, there are notebooks using xeon cpus (just google: notebook workstation xeon). There are a lot of xeon models (in fact there are as many xeon SKUs as notebook+desktop SKUs combined). Some xeons have similar thermal designs as notebook cpus. When Intel originally released the core duo (yonah), they also relased xeons models with a TDP of 15/31W and dual-processing capabilities (sossaman).
Today, the best example would be the low-voltage quad-core Xeon L3426: 45W (like low-end Clarksfields), 1.86GHz (faster than low-end Clarksfields) and only $284 (cheaper than any Clarksfield). Early next year Intel will start releasing Jasper Forest, a new family of Xeon cpus (from 1 core to 4 cores, 23W to 85W), DMI based (3420 chipset), but with dual-processing capabilities (1 QPI link). A lot of different devices could use this (lower cost/lower TDP) architecture, including mobile ones.
Xeon doesn't just mean huge/power hogs/expensive cpus anymore.
Comments
Seriously! I was wondering whether or not the current line of MBPs would be replaced any time soon, so I thought to hold off. Now that I know that a new one is likely in the works, it'll be a crazy wait.
Yea, I'm thinking of replacing my first-gen Core Duo MacBook (summer '06) within a few months. I guess this will be good timing for me, since I'd like to wait for a few more paychecks! If it comes out in November, I don't think I'd be able to resist!
Yes, it seems to be too early for a refresh.
However, a release right before the shopping season will give the MBpros enough time to shine before the much anticipated Tablets will be announced in January 2010?!
They refreshed the MB three times in 9 months. They refreshed the Mini twice in 9 months.
Could be there are just stepping up their game a bit and keeping with Intel's faster pace of late.
Only Apple's hardware engineers know what the restrictions of their chassis and cooling designs are.
Arguing about processor Wattage is pointless. First of all, TDP is a meaningless number for us, the end-users.
Wrong. Lower power means longer-lasting batteries and cooler running machines.
When the first plastic MacBooks came out, I had an original PowerBook G4 that was five years old and in need of replacement. I knew the Core Duo in the MacBook would mean poor battery and heat performance, but I couldn't take the slowness of my G4 anymore. You know what? I was right, the battery life sucked and the fan went full blast for anything above about 10% CPU usage. I waited for the MacBook Pro to have a 25 W CPU before upgrading, and I'm glad I did. With the dedicated graphics turned off, the fan never comes on and I get better battery life than the MacBook despite a similar Watt-hour rating of the battery, more CPU performance, much more GPU performance and a larger display.
Could a 45 W CPU go in the MacBook Pro? Probably. But that MacBook Pro would have worse battery life and get hotter than the current one, there's no way around that.
Arguing about processor Wattage is pointless. First of all, TDP is a meaningless number for us, the end-users. Second, everyone who says Apple can't put a 45W processor in the Macbook Pro would have said 'Apple can't put a 95W processor in the iMac' a week ago, which makes them even less worth listening to now.
Only Apple's hardware engineers know what the restrictions of their chassis and cooling designs are.
I think most of us would have implied a caveat that there would have to be some unique design change to allow for the better cooling. Like the use of that patent for better passive air flow or a thicker case.
I can?t prove it, but I?d wager a good part of the iMac?s ability to get more desktop-class components is the use a 16:9 display which increases the case x and y area, while also lengthening the horizontal plane and shrinking the vertical plane, even over the smaller 20? iMac. The 27? iMac looks to have been an easy work for their engineering with plenty of room to play with. I?m also told the aluminium backing over the plastic will help reduce heat, but I haven?t looked at how it sits relative to the components.
Wrong. Lower power means longer-lasting batteries and cooler running machines.
When the first plastic MacBooks came out, I had an original PowerBook G4 that was five years old and in need of replacement. I knew the Core Duo in the MacBook would mean poor battery and heat performance, but I couldn't take the slowness of my G4 anymore. You know what? I was right, the battery life sucked and the fan went full blast for anything above about 10% CPU usage. I waited for the MacBook Pro to have a 25 W CPU before upgrading, and I'm glad I did. With the dedicated graphics turned off, the fan never comes on and I get better battery life than the MacBook despite a similar Watt-hour rating of the battery, more CPU performance, much more GPU performance and a larger display.
Could a 45 W CPU go in the MacBook Pro? Probably. But that MacBook Pro would have worse battery life and get hotter than the current one, there's no way around that.
No.
You are all using TDP as if it is a definitive number: This processor uses X Watts. That is not true. TDP defines the top of a heat-output range that a processor is guaranteed not to exceed, and it only matters to engineers designing a cooling system for said processor. Heat output is related to power consumption, but you cannot use it that way.
TDP defines the top of a heat-output range that a processor is guaranteed not to exceed
Wrong. From the i7 data sheet, page 50:
"TDP is not the absolute worst case power of the processor."
TDP is actually "the expected maximum power generated while running realistic, worst case applications".
You are all using TDP as if it is a definitive number: This processor uses X Watts. That is not true.
Whilst you are correct that a CPU rated at "45 W TDP" will not use 45 W all the time, you equally cannot simply ignore the difference between 25 W and 45 W TDP. The 25 W part will run cooler and it will give you better battery life.
Using a 45 W part is highly likely to cause a laptop to run hotter overall, and to have to have the fan running a lot more often than a 25 W part in the same case.
Someday we'll see quad-core MBPs, but not until Intel ship quad-core notebook CPUs built on a 32nm process at the end of 2010.
Isn't that about the same time that Intel Lightpeak will be added as well. I'll probably hold out until
next fall before upgrading my 1.67ghz powerbook 17". By then I hope it would be reasonable to
expect a quad-core macbook pro with USB3, lightpeak, & a blu-ray burner. I missed out on the
Intel Macbook Pro by a couple of months (I'm still kicking myself about that). So I'm gonna wait it
out so I don't miss out on the new technology.
By then I hope it would be reasonable to
expect a quad-core macbook pro with USB3, lightpeak, & a blu-ray burner.
USB 3.0: maybe, Blu-ray: I hope so but it looks like Steve really doesn't like it, lightpeak: no way.
So I'm gonna wait it out so I don't miss out on the new technology.
The thing is, if you wait so as to not "miss out on the new technology", you'll be waiting forever. There's always so bit of new technology around the corner. Probably by the time we've got lightpeak, it'll be 3D displays that are just around the corner.
Wrong. From the i7 data sheet, page 50:
"TDP is not the absolute worst case power of the processor."
TDP is actually "the expected maximum power generated while running realistic, worst case applications".
You got me there, I see that Intel uses TDP differently from other companies, presumably to make their chips look better.
Whilst you are correct that a CPU rated at "45 W TDP" will not use 45 W all the time, you equally cannot simply ignore the difference between 25 W and 45 W TDP. The 25 W part will run cooler and it will give you better battery life.
Using a 45 W part is highly likely to cause a laptop to run hotter overall, and to have to have the fan running a lot more often than a 25 W part in the same case.
And a notebook with a 45W processor is not necessarily going to have shorter battery life than one with a 25W processor. You're greatly oversimplifying things. Most peoples' usage, especially on battery power, is not going to push their processor out of its low-power idle state.
All processors underclock themselves when idle, but these i7 mobile chips have the ability to underclock individual cores that are not being used. The power-saving features actually got quite an overhaul over Core 2. On top of that, the separate Northbridge chip is now gone, its 15 or so Watt TDP folded into the processor. And the i7 can underclock that, too.
Of course you probably run your notebook at 100% load all the time. I feel sorry for your lap.
You're greatly oversimplifying things.
And you're not?
It's simple. I'm saying if you take a laptop and put in a CPU with 80% higher TDP, I reckon it'll run hotter and/or have to run its fan a lot more often/at a higher RPM, and probably give you worse battery life. I'm not saying it's going to be 80% hotter or give 80% lower battery life, just that the difference between the two can't be dismissed as "negligible".
Most peoples' usage, especially on battery power, is not going to push their processor out of its low-power idle state.
You do know the CPU doesn't execute any instructions whilst in the idle states? The Core 2 Duo has four different low-power states numbered C1 to C4, each successive state takes longer to enter/exit, but the power savings are greater at each step. Presumably, state C4 is entered when a Mac goes to sleep, during normal operation, the CPU will be constantly switching between the C0 (normal), C1, C2 and C3 states. I don't know the intricate details of OS X's power management (e.g. the required conditions to enter each state), but if you do I'd be very interested to know about them.
these i7 mobile chips have the ability to underclock individual cores that are not being used. The power-saving features actually got quite an overhaul over Core 2.
I've read this assertion in various places, but looking at the data sheets (Core 2 Duo, Core i7) I don't see any radical differences.
According to table 1 of the Core 2 Duo datasheet, if both cores are in the C3 state, this is referred to as "deep sleep", which according to table 22 results in a power consumption of 2.9 W.
For the Core i7 with both cores in the C3 state, the power consumption is 13 W (presumably, some of that is the memory controller; for comparison the X9100 Core 2 Duo which has a 44 W TDP has a deep sleep power consumption of 8.2 W and the "T" series Core 2 Duos have a deep sleep of 5.5 W).
On top of that, the separate Northbridge chip is now gone, its 15 or so Watt TDP folded into the processor.
Yes, the Northbridge is gone, but a Southbridge would be needed, as would a dedicated GPU. In the current MBP with the dedicated graphics chip turned off, it's essentially CPU+9400M, but with the system as proposed in the AI article, you're looking at CPU+Southbridge+dedicated ATI GPU.
Apparently the 9400M has a 14 W TDP, so the MBP would be going from 25 W + 14 W TDP = 39 W TDP to 45 + ~5 + ~25 = ~75 W TDP.
You're really telling me that we can just ignore an almost doubling of TDP?
Of course you probably run your notebook at 100% load all the time. I feel sorry for your lap.
Not at all. With the plastic MacBook (Core Duo), I just had to think about visiting a website with flash and the fans would go ballistic. Now I can watch HD video on iPlayer without my fans going crazy on my MBP with "P" Core 2 Duo and 9400M.
Getting a Clarksfield into the 17" MBP is not so much a question of feasibility as it is of reasonability.
If you look at the HP Envy I am pretty sure the 17" cooling system could if slightly tweaked cool a clarksfield. But it would definitely run hotter as due to the Turbo mode the 45 Watt are far more often reached and due to the overall increase in TDP. Thus it would probably not stay a very quiet Notebook.
Second and more important there is currently no onboad GPU for clarksfield in Intels Roadmap and Nvidia as canceld there whole chipset division. So without onboard GPUs the battery life will suffer considerably and if you look at current Capella offerings, the Battery runtimes are nowhere near those of montevina with P Series CPUs. Thus the 17" Battery life would go down significantly.
I think it might be possible that a clarksfield 17" Model appears but I wouldn't buy it. The smaller model will definitely be Arrendale only, because people want battery life.
And don't complain so much about the upcoming Intel G55. It will be twice as fast as the G45 according to intel (which is almost 9400M level), much more Power efficient(than both G45 or 9400M), can handle two h264 decodes simultaniously and has definitely enough Power for everything in 2D.
Before Arrendale nothing makes sense. Clarksfield only really makes sense in Desktop REplacements. I just hope Apple sticks to 16:10. I hate this 16:9 displays.
In your whole discussion you are missing one important question.
Getting a Clarksfield into the 17" MBP is not so much a question of feasibility as it is of reasonability.
If you look at the HP Envy I am pretty sure the 17" cooling system could if slightly tweaked cool a clarksfield. But it would definitely run hotter as due to the Turbo mode the 45 Watt are far more often reached and due to the overall increase in TDP. Thus it would probably not stay a very quiet Notebook.
Second and more important there is currently no onboad GPU for clarksfield in Intels Roadmap and Nvidia as canceld there whole chipset division. So without onboard GPUs the battery life will suffer considerably and if you look at current Capella offerings, the Battery runtimes are nowhere near those of montevina with P Series CPUs. Thus the 17" Battery life would go down significantly.
I think it might be possible that a clarksfield 17" Model appears but I wouldn't buy it. The smaller model will definitely be Arrendale only, because people want battery life.
And don't complain so much about the upcoming Intel G55. It will be twice as fast as the G45 according to intel (which is almost 9400M level), much more Power efficient(than both G45 or 9400M), can handle two h264 decodes simultaniously and has definitely enough Power for everything in 2D.
Before Arrendale nothing makes sense. Clarksfield only really makes sense in Desktop REplacements. I just hope Apple sticks to 16:10. I hate this 16:9 displays.
Well said.
I think it'll pop-up sometime in November alongside the quad-core iMacs.
NO WAY! Your dreaming if you think Apple is going to do another update round before Christmas. Look for it first quarter next year after the mobile processor situation with Intel clears up.
Isn't that about the same time that Intel Lightpeak will be added as well.
That might be optimistic.
I'll probably hold out until next fall before upgrading my 1.67ghz powerbook 17".
You're maxed out at 2GB of ram, right? If I were you, I would buy when the Arrandale-based MBPs are released. The benefits of 4GB, Snow Leopard, 1920x1200, etc. are too good to wait yet another year.
By then I hope it would be reasonable to expect a quad-core macbook pro with USB3, lightpeak, & a blu-ray burner.
You are optimistic! :-)
Marc
Dear Apple Education Customer,
Thank you for your recent order.
Purchase Order#:
Sales Order#:
Ship-to Zip Code:
Due to an unexpected delay, we are unable to ship the following item(s)
by the date that you were originally quoted:
Z0GL, MBP 13.3/2.53/ CTO
will now ship on or before
Nov 03, 2009
TR632LL/A, INCASE NEOPRENE SLEEVE 13"-BLK/FUR-USA
will now ship on or before
Nov 03, 2009
Please note that product availability can change rapidly, and it is
possible that your order may ship much sooner than we anticipate. You
may even receive a shipment confirmation between the time we send this
email and the time that you read it.
You will receive an email notification once your order has been shipped.
We encourage you to visit: <http://www.apple.com/orderstatus>.
We appreciate your business and apologize for any inconvenience this
delay may have caused you.
The Apple Store For Education
Apparently the 9400M has a 14 W TDP, so the MBP would be going from 25 W + 14 W TDP = 39 W TDP to 45 + ~5 + ~25 = ~75 W TDP.
You're really telling me that we can just ignore an almost doubling of TDP?
That could make some sense, if Clarksfields were to replace the 25W cpus that Apple uses in SOME notebooks. Given their costs, Clarksfield cpus will probably be used only for the high-end MBPs (replacing the 2.80/3.06GHz models) that have 35W cpus + 14W nvidia chipset + xxW dedicated graphics. Intel's PM55 chipset having a TDP of only 3.5W, the difference in "system" TDP is only a few watts. One could also suppose that newer dedicated gpus will have a lower TDP than the oldies Apple uses right now in the MBPs.
For the low-end MBPs, there will be Arrandale cpus that have a TDP of 25W (core i5) and 35W (core i7) along with the 3.5W PM55 chipset, they have a "system" TDP of 28.5/38.5W. Both versions could receive a low TDP dedicated gpu and still have a total TDP lower than the current MBPs.
The future line-up could look like that, at similar price points:
Core i5-520M DC 2.40GHz 13" MBP + low-end dedicated gpu
Core i5-540M DC 2.53GHz 13" MBP + low-end dedicated gpu
Core i5-540M DC 2.53GHz 15" MBP + low-end dedicated gpu
Core i7-620M DC 2.66GHz 15" MBP + midrange dedicated gpu (that's the only version that would have a higher total TDP than the model it replaces)
Core i7-720QM QC 1.60GHz 15" MBP + high-end dedicated gpu
Core i7-720QM QC 1.60GHz 17" MBP + high-end dedicated gpu
Core i7-820QM QC 1.73GHz 15" MBP (BTO)
Core i7-820QM QC 1.73GHz 17" MBP (BTO)
Since Clarksfields and the PM55 chipset are already available, the "evidence" leaked is probably about the 2x2 high-end models that may be already ready (at least as prototypes).
-----
\t
A much needed update - though I'd be surprised if the i5 or i7's get in the MBP's, I'm thinking it'll be the Xeon's.
There are no notebook xeon and I don't think Apple is going to pack on an extra half to three quarters of an inch and cut battery time to nothing to use them.
While there are no xeons specifically designed for notebooks, there are notebooks using xeon cpus (just google: notebook workstation xeon). There are a lot of xeon models (in fact there are as many xeon SKUs as notebook+desktop SKUs combined). Some xeons have similar thermal designs as notebook cpus. When Intel originally released the core duo (yonah), they also relased xeons models with a TDP of 15/31W and dual-processing capabilities (sossaman).
Today, the best example would be the low-voltage quad-core Xeon L3426: 45W (like low-end Clarksfields), 1.86GHz (faster than low-end Clarksfields) and only $284 (cheaper than any Clarksfield). Early next year Intel will start releasing Jasper Forest, a new family of Xeon cpus (from 1 core to 4 cores, 23W to 85W), DMI based (3420 chipset), but with dual-processing capabilities (1 QPI link). A lot of different devices could use this (lower cost/lower TDP) architecture, including mobile ones.
Xeon doesn't just mean huge/power hogs/expensive cpus anymore.
http://gizmodo.com/5390583/phil-schi...yline=true&s=x