Arrandale cpus with dedicated graphics on the MBP line.
MacBooks and the mini keep Core 2 cpus with a speed bump and the 9400m.
If the iMac gets the Clarksdale cpu for the 21" model and entry 27' then it'll get dedicate graphics.
That's been my guess as well. MB and Mini stay C2D with the 9400M and there additional reason to upgrade to the 13" MBP and the iMac. That temporary window where the mini was a better bang for the buck than the iMac completely closes with arrandale/clarksdale.
Dunno why nvidia2008 is having such heartache given that the IGP is so wimpy that it's really only good enough for powersaver mode that a dedicated GPU becomes so much more likely.
Dunno why nvidia2008 is having such heartache given that the IGP is so wimpy that it's really only good enough for powersaver mode that a dedicated GPU becomes so much more likely.
Well i think that some believe or worry that by bundling the crappy IG with the Arrandale cpu that perhaps that would dissuade Apple from using these cpus. That's the fear that some of the rumor sites are spreading.
I think this is very unlikely. Arrandale cpus will likely be faster and use less power. I wouldn't doubt that Apple would prefer to use Arrandale cpus with NVIDIA'a 9400m IG but I doubt they'll avoid using them just over this. That would be stupid.
Dunno why nvidia2008 is having such heartache given that the IGP is so wimpy that it's really only good enough for powersaver mode that a dedicated GPU becomes so much more likely.
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac
Well i think that some believe or worry that by bundling the crappy IG with the Arrandale cpu that perhaps that would dissuade Apple from using these cpus. That's the fear that some of the rumor sites are spreading...
That's certainly one fear I have, that this would delay Arrandale (not Clarksdale) adoption by Apple.
My bigger fear is that Apple will try and get away with the Intel GPU on the Macbook, Mac mini and entry-level or maybe all the 13" MacBook Pros, and even the lowest-end 15" MacBook Pro. It is something Apple is audacious enough to do. Who knows, maybe my fears are unfounded and I'm emotionally involved in what I agree with the FTC -- that Intel is going to monopolise the GPU market with inferior (GPU) products.
Now, all that said, Vinea, maybe you're right in the sense that the Intel GPU is just way too wimpy to even worry about Apple bothering to use it at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac
...I think this is very unlikely. Arrandale cpus will likely be faster and use less power. I wouldn't doubt that Apple would prefer to use Arrandale cpus with NVIDIA'a 9400m IG but I doubt they'll avoid using them just over this. That would be stupid.
The benefit of Arrandale is too big to ignore. The most reasonable prediction right now is that Apple will go Arrandale with a low-power discrete GPU for the MacBook Pros and Clarkdale with discrete GPUs *across* the iMac line. This would happen within the next 4 months, I predict.
Mac Mini and MacBook would stay 9400M and Core 2 Duo as Vinea mentions... However would transition to Arrandale in the 2nd half of 2010... By which time Intel may totally phase out and no longer manufacture Core 2 Duo chips.
Apparently the FTC trial only goes to court in September 2010, assuming no delays... By which time Intel will be speeding towards Sandy Bridge where the GPU is on-die so that pretty much would mean the death of AMD-ATI or Nvidia integrated GPUs. During 2010, Intel probably won't open up licensing of the DMI (Southbridge) chipset since the FTC lawsuit is so far away, even if even Intel gave a damn about the lawsuit.
In 2010 with Arrandale and Clarkdale Intel looks to deliver solid CPUs. The GPU is "good enough" for most of the PC market. Nvidia is relegated to the smaller discrete GPU market and is gambling big on high-performance computing. ATI is also relegated to the smaller discrete GPU market but being paired with AMD and with AMD combining the CPU and GPU in 2011, AMD-ATI remains a smaller but still significant player.
Intel gains, increases it's monopoly, AMD survives, Nvidia's fate is up in the air. Maybe I am now coming to terms with this. Apple's fine, it will do what it has always done and continue to sell Macs.
This "news" is the most reasonable argument for updated MBPs in the next 1.5-3 months. Which makes my upgrading choice a lot harder.
It sounds like the new chipset will force apple to use a dedicated GPU but the CPUs are a huge step forward - faster memory controllers, on the fly overclocking, better power management, etc.
I'm trying to hold off until the middle of next year, maybe getting a MacBook Pro 15" antiglare then. For now, I'll wait until the dust settles and eagerly look forward to the CPU and GPU benchmarks on all Arrandale and Clarkdale chips.
Of course, a big factor for me would be to see what discrete GPU goes into the MacBook Pro 15".
Now, if I can resist the temptation though, and a reasonably fast 250GB SSD comes out at the USD $300 price point within the 1st half of 2010, I'll pop that into my MacBook and enjoy the rest of 2010 without having to get another laptop. If... I can resist... the... temptation... Of course, if an Apple tablet comes out next year, it could be hard to ignore that.
Well i think that some believe or worry that by bundling the crappy IG with the Arrandale cpu that perhaps that would dissuade Apple from using these cpus. That's the fear that some of the rumor sites are spreading.
It maybe that the rumors are simply picking up on other rumors about Arradales without the GPU. This actually would be real easy for Intel to do because Arrandale is a multi chip module with the GPU as a separate chip. It is a good rumor from the technical standpoint thus I'd suspect that more customers than Apple have rejected Arrandale on that point
The reality is customers can stand up to Intel if they want. It is also a reality that many customers don't care and simply want to build the cheapest laptops possible. So we aren't going to see Arrandale with GPU go away either.
Quote:
I think this is very unlikely. Arrandale cpus will likely be faster and use less power. I wouldn't doubt that Apple would prefer to use Arrandale cpus with NVIDIA'a 9400m IG but I doubt they'll avoid using them just over this. That would be stupid.
Plus they have the option of very viable ATI GPUs right now. Well now in the sense that they would be ready for launch in 2010. Frankly NVidia is slipping grossly right now with nothing really fresh and new for mobile. The biggest problem with the support of external graphics is the amount of PCI Express lanes available on Arrandale.
It maybe that the rumors are simply picking up on other rumors about Arradales without the GPU. This actually would be real easy for Intel to do because Arrandale is a multi chip module with the GPU as a separate chip. It is a good rumor from the technical standpoint thus I'd suspect that more customers than Apple have rejected Arrandale on that point
The reality is customers can stand up to Intel if they want. It is also a reality that many customers don't care and simply want to build the cheapest laptops possible. So we aren't going to see Arrandale with GPU go away either.
Plus they have the option of very viable ATI GPUs right now. Well now in the sense that they would be ready for launch in 2010. Frankly NVidia is slipping grossly right now with nothing really fresh and new for mobile. The biggest problem with the support of external graphics is the amount of PCI Express lanes available on Arrandale.
Dave
I think I'd like to have the IG enabled and a dedicated gpu. It won't be as nice as the 9400m/9600gt solution on the current MBPs but I'd like to have the option of using the Intel IG if it results in better battery life, which it almost certainly will.
Since NVIDIA can't make nehalem chipsets there isn't a possibility for an NVDIA integrated graphics a la 9400m, which was pretty nice for IG by most accounts. So you might as well pinch your nose and take the Intel IG. It still may come in handy even if it sucks compared to the 9400m.
....Who knows, maybe my fears are unfounded and I'm emotionally involved in what I agree with the FTC -- that Intel is going to monopolise the GPU market with inferior (GPU) products. ...
Intel gains, increases it's monopoly, AMD survives, Nvidia's fate is up in the air. Maybe I am now coming to terms with this. Apple's fine, it will do what it has always done and continue to sell Macs.
With the 8000 series bump gate fiasco, it is hard to be sympathetic to NVIDIA. But at the end of the day you're right, its better to have them around rather than see them disappear.
The cards seem stacked against them but with Larrabee on the shelf and if Fermi is a smash hit, ...who knows NVDIA's fortunes could totally reverse. Lets hope so.
It maybe that the rumors are simply picking up on other rumors about Arradales without the GPU. This actually would be real easy for Intel to do because Arrandale is a multi chip module with the GPU as a separate chip.
Not possible. The memory controller is on the 45nm die with the GPU.
It's easy enough to add a discrete graphics chip. Apple doesn't need special processors.
I expect the 13 and 15 to be arrandale and the 17 to be clarkdale.
I think that would only be for a BTO configuration, like the extreme model since it uses a 45W CPU instead of the 35W max of the Arrandale, which the current MBPs use.
They aren?t even using an ?Extreme" BTO option right now. The 3.06GHz T9900 ?Penryn? is still only 35W. The 45W ?Clarkdale? is considerably cheaper than the 3.06GHz ?Penryn? and uses the same chipset as ?Arrandale? so I don?t think it?s too far fetched to expect that as an option. Especially since we?ve gone from 3 CPUs options in the MBP to only 2 and the extra power will surely assist some users.
Do you think we?ll see this as a BTO option in the 15? MBP? Did it ever have a 45W option?
PS: I hope that the MBA goes from using the current low-voltage C2D to using the ultra-low-voltage Core-i7. My reasoning is that they current LV C2Ds are 17W (not including the Northbridge) whilst the LV Core-i7s are 25W and the ULV Core-i7s are 18W (both including the Northbridge).
The ULV Core-i7s are also marginally faster than the current MBA processors in Turbo Mode while having some other features. This power savings from the integrated Northbridge may allow for a little better battery and hopefully a way to get 2x1.8? drives into the machine. If both of things can happen then the MBA may be a viable option for me as power is not the problem, but battery life and storage capacity are.
Regardless, going with the LV to LV CPU means that the battery would likely get worse, which is not good for the Mac with the worst battery life.
Not possible. The memory controller is on the 45nm die with the GPU.
Which is exactly what you would want if you wanted discreet graphics over integrated. The only thing that limits the ability to implement this would be the number of PCI Express lanes coming out of the chip.
Quote:
It's easy enough to add a discrete graphics chip. Apple doesn't need special processors.
Sure they do. for one the intel GPU;s are dead weight and may only be of advantage in drawing low power. With ATI's newest even that id debatable since the performance of the Intel hardware is crap. Beyond that Apple really can't effectively leverage them for OpenCL so again more dead weight.
As to adding a discreet chip sure that can be done but the as mentioned above it all depends upon Apples use of the the existing PCI Express lanes. It would be a stretch to wish for more lanes with a GPUless Arrandale but it would be nice.
The way I see it right now Apple has tremendous leverage with Intel. All they really need to do is glance AMD's way for a knee jerk reaction from intel. Loosing even parts of Apples account would be very bad for Intels image right now. Frankly AMD/ ATI is the only organization going right now that has a really excellent CPU / GPU synergy. Since Intel can't do GPU's to save its life they have to accommodate organizations like Apple with the chips they want.
Anyone here going to be upset if the next MBPs get 32nm dual-core ?Arrandale? Core-i7s instead of 45nm quad-core ?Clarkdale? Core i7s?
If we are talking the 13" machine, where battery lifetime is the reason for its existence then not a dual core Hyper-threaded CPU is OK. As you move up the line up that becomes less the case. On the 17" model I'd expect Quad core with Hyper-threading.
You do have an interesting question and I guess it depends upon how Pro you expect the Pros to be relative to the MB. In other words I'd really like to see the 13 MBP perform fairly better than the MB. In fact on the Mac Book I'd rather see Apple lower the price even if that means Intel integrated GPU's. None of the Pros though need to suffer from that.
Like it or not I see the Mac Book as being priced to high for the market it is trying to engage. Arrandale ought to allow for a lower cost mac Book once the price comes down a little. If the chips are even that high priced as the integration ought to Save Apple some assembly costs.
I think I'd like to have the IG enabled and a dedicated gpu. It won't be as nice as the 9400m/9600gt solution on the current MBPs but I'd like to have the option of using the Intel IG if it results in better battery life, which it almost certainly will.
That may be a valid argument, especially for Mac Book. However some of the latest discreet GPU's form ATI look to be very promising with respect to power usage and far out class the Intel part. for a pro like machine it would likely be better to simply ignore the thought of an Intel GPU as the power savings probably isn't worth it.
Quote:
Since NVIDIA can't make nehalem chipsets there isn't a possibility for an NVDIA integrated graphics a la 9400m, which was pretty nice for IG by most accounts. So you might as well pinch your nose and take the Intel IG. It still may come in handy even if it sucks compared to the 9400m.
The last thing you would want with Arrandale is an integrated solution. The memory controller and PCI Express controller are already integrated on the die. This means Arrandale is the ideal solution for discreet graphics at reasonably low costs. Of course this is Apple so the discreet GPU's will be last years offerings, so you can dismiss some of the statements above!
Even that attitude is old news though as Apple has really been bleeding edge with new tech on its laptops lately. The 9400M was a good example so they may very well offer up something pleasing with ATI hardware in it. What I'm trying to do here is remain positive until Apple debuts the new machines. Apple has been paying attention to its laptop line up lately.
Which is exactly what you would want if you wanted discreet graphics over integrated. The only thing that limits the ability to implement this would be the number of PCI Express lanes coming out of the chip.
I'm not sure if you understood... Intel cannot build Arrandale processors without the IGP. The northbridge die contains both the IGP and the memory controller, without which the processor does not function, and Intel is not going to design a second northbridge die with just the MC for Apple's low-volume purchases. That would cost tens of millions of dollars that Apple isn't going to pay.
Apple might get Intel to disable the IGP in microcode, but it'll be the same chip. No different hardware. Or Apple could disable the IGP at the EFI level. However, I think they'll keep it for the power-saving benefits of switchable graphics.
Like it or not I see the Mac Book as being priced to high for the market it is trying to engage.
The last sales data had the 13? MBP being the best selling Mac. Perhaps Apple?s primary goal is the up sell. Apple has already lowered the price of the MB by $100 this year. I don?t expect another drop until Apple finds that 13? MB market has been well saturated, which shoudl take longer with each price drop.
Quote:
Arrandale ought to allow for a lower cost mac Book once the price comes down a little. If the chips are even that high priced as the integration ought to Save Apple some assembly costs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FuturePastNow
I'm not sure if you understood... Intel cannot build Arrandale processors without the IGP. The northbridge die contains both the IGP and the memory controller, without which the processor does not function, and Intel is not going to design a second northbridge die with just the MC for Apple's low-volume purchases. That would cost tens of millions of dollars that Apple isn't going to pay.
Apple might get Intel to disable the IGP in microcode, but it'll be the same chip. No different hardware. Or Apple could disable the IGP at the EFI level. However, I think they'll keep it for the power-saving benefits of switchable graphics.
It?s possible that Apple will just milk the plastic MB machine with the 9400M for as long as possible. I see no reason why it has to be essentially the same as the 13? MBP and as Apple grows having the same parts does seem to be more of a logistical issue. Personally, I?d like to see a 15? unibody MB added to the line with the cheaper components and possibly even one CPU configuration/ Make it about $200-$300 more than the 13? MB. The cheapest 15? MBP is $1,700 so making it $1,200 or $1,300 should attract buyers who just want a larger display Mac without all that extra performance.
Anyone here going to be upset if the next MBPs get 32nm dual-core “Arrandale” Core-i7s instead of 45nm quad-core “Clarkdale’ Core i7s?
You mean 45nm quad-core "Clarksfield", I think.
Okay, here's the weird thing I just realised.
On Wikipedia, all of Intel's 32nm offerings, Arrandale and Clarkdale, are listed as only having two cores. Of course, the upper-range Arrandale and Clarkdales will have 4 threads, but still two cores.
So, here's where I'm confused. Does this mean Intel will provide new information on their CES Jan 7 2010 announcement about 4-core Arrandale and Clarkdale?
Or, does this mean for at least half a year Intel will continue with the 45nm non-GPU Penryn, and Lynnfield (desktop) and Clarksfield (mobile) for 4 cores...? (In addition to continuing with Bloomfield)?
I was under the impression that this "Westmere" 32nm process would involve transitioning their whole line within the first few months of 2010.
Instead, could be the first few months would see Arrandale and Clarkdale dual-cores only with the 45nm stuff still being produced until a later transition.
...
As I understand, Clarksfield battery life (a different thing from TDP alone) is horrible so Apple's Macbook Pro 17" will probably not use that. So the next refresh to the MacBook Pro processors would *all* be dualcores (4 threads on the higher-end) but *NO QUAD-CORE* ... at least until 32nm mobile quad-core processors come*
*Which may be announced by Intel next month, or which may come later in the year (middle of the year?)
...
Does anyone know for how long in 2010 will Intel be producing 45nm chips in bulk? I wonder if it is going to be until Sandy Bridge in 2011. Looks like 2010, the first half anyway, will have Intel continuing to produce 45nm Penryn, Clarksfield, Bloomfield, Lynnfield as well as 32nm Arrandale, Clarkdale, Gainstown.
Sandy Bridge would then be the 32nm mobile and desktop chips with on-die GPU and also 4 cores by default.
In other words, unlike what I was assuming, in 2010 there may be no 32nm quad-core mobile CPU.
Comments
My guess:
Arrandale cpus with dedicated graphics on the MBP line.
MacBooks and the mini keep Core 2 cpus with a speed bump and the 9400m.
If the iMac gets the Clarksdale cpu for the 21" model and entry 27' then it'll get dedicate graphics.
That's been my guess as well. MB and Mini stay C2D with the 9400M and there additional reason to upgrade to the 13" MBP and the iMac. That temporary window where the mini was a better bang for the buck than the iMac completely closes with arrandale/clarksdale.
Dunno why nvidia2008 is having such heartache given that the IGP is so wimpy that it's really only good enough for powersaver mode that a dedicated GPU becomes so much more likely.
Dunno why nvidia2008 is having such heartache given that the IGP is so wimpy that it's really only good enough for powersaver mode that a dedicated GPU becomes so much more likely.
Well i think that some believe or worry that by bundling the crappy IG with the Arrandale cpu that perhaps that would dissuade Apple from using these cpus. That's the fear that some of the rumor sites are spreading.
I think this is very unlikely. Arrandale cpus will likely be faster and use less power. I wouldn't doubt that Apple would prefer to use Arrandale cpus with NVIDIA'a 9400m IG but I doubt they'll avoid using them just over this. That would be stupid.
Dunno why nvidia2008 is having such heartache given that the IGP is so wimpy that it's really only good enough for powersaver mode that a dedicated GPU becomes so much more likely.
Well i think that some believe or worry that by bundling the crappy IG with the Arrandale cpu that perhaps that would dissuade Apple from using these cpus. That's the fear that some of the rumor sites are spreading...
That's certainly one fear I have, that this would delay Arrandale (not Clarksdale) adoption by Apple.
My bigger fear is that Apple will try and get away with the Intel GPU on the Macbook, Mac mini and entry-level or maybe all the 13" MacBook Pros, and even the lowest-end 15" MacBook Pro. It is something Apple is audacious enough to do. Who knows, maybe my fears are unfounded and I'm emotionally involved in what I agree with the FTC -- that Intel is going to monopolise the GPU market with inferior (GPU) products.
Now, all that said, Vinea, maybe you're right in the sense that the Intel GPU is just way too wimpy to even worry about Apple bothering to use it at all.
...I think this is very unlikely. Arrandale cpus will likely be faster and use less power. I wouldn't doubt that Apple would prefer to use Arrandale cpus with NVIDIA'a 9400m IG but I doubt they'll avoid using them just over this. That would be stupid.
The benefit of Arrandale is too big to ignore. The most reasonable prediction right now is that Apple will go Arrandale with a low-power discrete GPU for the MacBook Pros and Clarkdale with discrete GPUs *across* the iMac line. This would happen within the next 4 months, I predict.
Mac Mini and MacBook would stay 9400M and Core 2 Duo as Vinea mentions... However would transition to Arrandale in the 2nd half of 2010... By which time Intel may totally phase out and no longer manufacture Core 2 Duo chips.
Apparently the FTC trial only goes to court in September 2010, assuming no delays... By which time Intel will be speeding towards Sandy Bridge where the GPU is on-die so that pretty much would mean the death of AMD-ATI or Nvidia integrated GPUs. During 2010, Intel probably won't open up licensing of the DMI (Southbridge) chipset since the FTC lawsuit is so far away, even if even Intel gave a damn about the lawsuit.
In 2010 with Arrandale and Clarkdale Intel looks to deliver solid CPUs. The GPU is "good enough" for most of the PC market. Nvidia is relegated to the smaller discrete GPU market and is gambling big on high-performance computing. ATI is also relegated to the smaller discrete GPU market but being paired with AMD and with AMD combining the CPU and GPU in 2011, AMD-ATI remains a smaller but still significant player.
Intel gains, increases it's monopoly, AMD survives, Nvidia's fate is up in the air. Maybe I am now coming to terms with this. Apple's fine, it will do what it has always done and continue to sell Macs.
Crap!
This "news" is the most reasonable argument for updated MBPs in the next 1.5-3 months. Which makes my upgrading choice a lot harder.
It sounds like the new chipset will force apple to use a dedicated GPU but the CPUs are a huge step forward - faster memory controllers, on the fly overclocking, better power management, etc.
I'm trying to hold off until the middle of next year, maybe getting a MacBook Pro 15" antiglare then. For now, I'll wait until the dust settles and eagerly look forward to the CPU and GPU benchmarks on all Arrandale and Clarkdale chips.
Of course, a big factor for me would be to see what discrete GPU goes into the MacBook Pro 15".
Now, if I can resist the temptation though, and a reasonably fast 250GB SSD comes out at the USD $300 price point within the 1st half of 2010, I'll pop that into my MacBook and enjoy the rest of 2010 without having to get another laptop. If... I can resist... the... temptation... Of course, if an Apple tablet comes out next year, it could be hard to ignore that.
Well i think that some believe or worry that by bundling the crappy IG with the Arrandale cpu that perhaps that would dissuade Apple from using these cpus. That's the fear that some of the rumor sites are spreading.
It maybe that the rumors are simply picking up on other rumors about Arradales without the GPU. This actually would be real easy for Intel to do because Arrandale is a multi chip module with the GPU as a separate chip. It is a good rumor from the technical standpoint thus I'd suspect that more customers than Apple have rejected Arrandale on that point
The reality is customers can stand up to Intel if they want. It is also a reality that many customers don't care and simply want to build the cheapest laptops possible. So we aren't going to see Arrandale with GPU go away either.
I think this is very unlikely. Arrandale cpus will likely be faster and use less power. I wouldn't doubt that Apple would prefer to use Arrandale cpus with NVIDIA'a 9400m IG but I doubt they'll avoid using them just over this. That would be stupid.
Plus they have the option of very viable ATI GPUs right now. Well now in the sense that they would be ready for launch in 2010. Frankly NVidia is slipping grossly right now with nothing really fresh and new for mobile. The biggest problem with the support of external graphics is the amount of PCI Express lanes available on Arrandale.
Dave
It maybe that the rumors are simply picking up on other rumors about Arradales without the GPU. This actually would be real easy for Intel to do because Arrandale is a multi chip module with the GPU as a separate chip. It is a good rumor from the technical standpoint thus I'd suspect that more customers than Apple have rejected Arrandale on that point
The reality is customers can stand up to Intel if they want. It is also a reality that many customers don't care and simply want to build the cheapest laptops possible. So we aren't going to see Arrandale with GPU go away either.
Plus they have the option of very viable ATI GPUs right now. Well now in the sense that they would be ready for launch in 2010. Frankly NVidia is slipping grossly right now with nothing really fresh and new for mobile. The biggest problem with the support of external graphics is the amount of PCI Express lanes available on Arrandale.
Dave
I think I'd like to have the IG enabled and a dedicated gpu. It won't be as nice as the 9400m/9600gt solution on the current MBPs but I'd like to have the option of using the Intel IG if it results in better battery life, which it almost certainly will.
Since NVIDIA can't make nehalem chipsets there isn't a possibility for an NVDIA integrated graphics a la 9400m, which was pretty nice for IG by most accounts. So you might as well pinch your nose and take the Intel IG. It still may come in handy even if it sucks compared to the 9400m.
....Who knows, maybe my fears are unfounded and I'm emotionally involved in what I agree with the FTC -- that Intel is going to monopolise the GPU market with inferior (GPU) products. ...
Intel gains, increases it's monopoly, AMD survives, Nvidia's fate is up in the air. Maybe I am now coming to terms with this. Apple's fine, it will do what it has always done and continue to sell Macs.
With the 8000 series bump gate fiasco, it is hard to be sympathetic to NVIDIA. But at the end of the day you're right, its better to have them around rather than see them disappear.
The cards seem stacked against them but with Larrabee on the shelf and if Fermi is a smash hit, ...who knows NVDIA's fortunes could totally reverse. Lets hope so.
It maybe that the rumors are simply picking up on other rumors about Arradales without the GPU. This actually would be real easy for Intel to do because Arrandale is a multi chip module with the GPU as a separate chip.
Not possible. The memory controller is on the 45nm die with the GPU.
It's easy enough to add a discrete graphics chip. Apple doesn't need special processors.
Anyone here going to be upset if the next MBPs get 32nm dual-core ?Arrandale? Core-i7s instead of 45nm quad-core ?Clarkdale? Core i7s?
For me, the Hyperthreaded-ness of it will satisfy my reasons to upgrade at work.
Anyone here going to be upset if the next MBPs get 32nm dual-core “Arrandale” Core-i7s instead of 45nm quad-core “Clarkdale’ Core i7s?
I expect the 13 and 15 to be arrandale and the 17 to be clarkdale.
I expect the 13 and 15 to be arrandale and the 17 to be clarkdale.
I think that would only be for a BTO configuration, like the extreme model since it uses a 45W CPU instead of the 35W max of the Arrandale, which the current MBPs use.
They aren?t even using an ?Extreme" BTO option right now. The 3.06GHz T9900 ?Penryn? is still only 35W. The 45W ?Clarkdale? is considerably cheaper than the 3.06GHz ?Penryn? and uses the same chipset as ?Arrandale? so I don?t think it?s too far fetched to expect that as an option. Especially since we?ve gone from 3 CPUs options in the MBP to only 2 and the extra power will surely assist some users.
Do you think we?ll see this as a BTO option in the 15? MBP? Did it ever have a 45W option?
PS: I hope that the MBA goes from using the current low-voltage C2D to using the ultra-low-voltage Core-i7. My reasoning is that they current LV C2Ds are 17W (not including the Northbridge) whilst the LV Core-i7s are 25W and the ULV Core-i7s are 18W (both including the Northbridge).
The ULV Core-i7s are also marginally faster than the current MBA processors in Turbo Mode while having some other features. This power savings from the integrated Northbridge may allow for a little better battery and hopefully a way to get 2x1.8? drives into the machine. If both of things can happen then the MBA may be a viable option for me as power is not the problem, but battery life and storage capacity are.
Regardless, going with the LV to LV CPU means that the battery would likely get worse, which is not good for the Mac with the worst battery life.
Not possible. The memory controller is on the 45nm die with the GPU.
Which is exactly what you would want if you wanted discreet graphics over integrated. The only thing that limits the ability to implement this would be the number of PCI Express lanes coming out of the chip.
It's easy enough to add a discrete graphics chip. Apple doesn't need special processors.
Sure they do. for one the intel GPU;s are dead weight and may only be of advantage in drawing low power. With ATI's newest even that id debatable since the performance of the Intel hardware is crap. Beyond that Apple really can't effectively leverage them for OpenCL so again more dead weight.
As to adding a discreet chip sure that can be done but the as mentioned above it all depends upon Apples use of the the existing PCI Express lanes. It would be a stretch to wish for more lanes with a GPUless Arrandale but it would be nice.
The way I see it right now Apple has tremendous leverage with Intel. All they really need to do is glance AMD's way for a knee jerk reaction from intel. Loosing even parts of Apples account would be very bad for Intels image right now. Frankly AMD/ ATI is the only organization going right now that has a really excellent CPU / GPU synergy. Since Intel can't do GPU's to save its life they have to accommodate organizations like Apple with the chips they want.
Dave
Anyone here going to be upset if the next MBPs get 32nm dual-core ?Arrandale? Core-i7s instead of 45nm quad-core ?Clarkdale? Core i7s?
If we are talking the 13" machine, where battery lifetime is the reason for its existence then not a dual core Hyper-threaded CPU is OK. As you move up the line up that becomes less the case. On the 17" model I'd expect Quad core with Hyper-threading.
You do have an interesting question and I guess it depends upon how Pro you expect the Pros to be relative to the MB. In other words I'd really like to see the 13 MBP perform fairly better than the MB. In fact on the Mac Book I'd rather see Apple lower the price even if that means Intel integrated GPU's. None of the Pros though need to suffer from that.
Like it or not I see the Mac Book as being priced to high for the market it is trying to engage. Arrandale ought to allow for a lower cost mac Book once the price comes down a little. If the chips are even that high priced as the integration ought to Save Apple some assembly costs.
Dave
I think I'd like to have the IG enabled and a dedicated gpu. It won't be as nice as the 9400m/9600gt solution on the current MBPs but I'd like to have the option of using the Intel IG if it results in better battery life, which it almost certainly will.
That may be a valid argument, especially for Mac Book. However some of the latest discreet GPU's form ATI look to be very promising with respect to power usage and far out class the Intel part. for a pro like machine it would likely be better to simply ignore the thought of an Intel GPU as the power savings probably isn't worth it.
Since NVIDIA can't make nehalem chipsets there isn't a possibility for an NVDIA integrated graphics a la 9400m, which was pretty nice for IG by most accounts. So you might as well pinch your nose and take the Intel IG. It still may come in handy even if it sucks compared to the 9400m.
The last thing you would want with Arrandale is an integrated solution. The memory controller and PCI Express controller are already integrated on the die. This means Arrandale is the ideal solution for discreet graphics at reasonably low costs. Of course this is Apple so the discreet GPU's will be last years offerings, so you can dismiss some of the statements above!
Even that attitude is old news though as Apple has really been bleeding edge with new tech on its laptops lately. The 9400M was a good example so they may very well offer up something pleasing with ATI hardware in it. What I'm trying to do here is remain positive until Apple debuts the new machines. Apple has been paying attention to its laptop line up lately.
Dave
Which is exactly what you would want if you wanted discreet graphics over integrated. The only thing that limits the ability to implement this would be the number of PCI Express lanes coming out of the chip.
I'm not sure if you understood... Intel cannot build Arrandale processors without the IGP. The northbridge die contains both the IGP and the memory controller, without which the processor does not function, and Intel is not going to design a second northbridge die with just the MC for Apple's low-volume purchases. That would cost tens of millions of dollars that Apple isn't going to pay.
Apple might get Intel to disable the IGP in microcode, but it'll be the same chip. No different hardware. Or Apple could disable the IGP at the EFI level. However, I think they'll keep it for the power-saving benefits of switchable graphics.
Like it or not I see the Mac Book as being priced to high for the market it is trying to engage.
The last sales data had the 13? MBP being the best selling Mac. Perhaps Apple?s primary goal is the up sell. Apple has already lowered the price of the MB by $100 this year. I don?t expect another drop until Apple finds that 13? MB market has been well saturated, which shoudl take longer with each price drop.
Arrandale ought to allow for a lower cost mac Book once the price comes down a little. If the chips are even that high priced as the integration ought to Save Apple some assembly costs.
I'm not sure if you understood... Intel cannot build Arrandale processors without the IGP. The northbridge die contains both the IGP and the memory controller, without which the processor does not function, and Intel is not going to design a second northbridge die with just the MC for Apple's low-volume purchases. That would cost tens of millions of dollars that Apple isn't going to pay.
Apple might get Intel to disable the IGP in microcode, but it'll be the same chip. No different hardware. Or Apple could disable the IGP at the EFI level. However, I think they'll keep it for the power-saving benefits of switchable graphics.
It?s possible that Apple will just milk the plastic MB machine with the 9400M for as long as possible. I see no reason why it has to be essentially the same as the 13? MBP and as Apple grows having the same parts does seem to be more of a logistical issue. Personally, I?d like to see a 15? unibody MB added to the line with the cheaper components and possibly even one CPU configuration/ Make it about $200-$300 more than the 13? MB. The cheapest 15? MBP is $1,700 so making it $1,200 or $1,300 should attract buyers who just want a larger display Mac without all that extra performance.
Anyone here going to be upset if the next MBPs get 32nm dual-core “Arrandale” Core-i7s instead of 45nm quad-core “Clarkdale’ Core i7s?
You mean 45nm quad-core "Clarksfield", I think.
Okay, here's the weird thing I just realised.
On Wikipedia, all of Intel's 32nm offerings, Arrandale and Clarkdale, are listed as only having two cores. Of course, the upper-range Arrandale and Clarkdales will have 4 threads, but still two cores.
So, here's where I'm confused. Does this mean Intel will provide new information on their CES Jan 7 2010 announcement about 4-core Arrandale and Clarkdale?
Or, does this mean for at least half a year Intel will continue with the 45nm non-GPU Penryn, and Lynnfield (desktop) and Clarksfield (mobile) for 4 cores...? (In addition to continuing with Bloomfield)?
I was under the impression that this "Westmere" 32nm process would involve transitioning their whole line within the first few months of 2010.
Instead, could be the first few months would see Arrandale and Clarkdale dual-cores only with the 45nm stuff still being produced until a later transition.
...
As I understand, Clarksfield battery life (a different thing from TDP alone) is horrible so Apple's Macbook Pro 17" will probably not use that. So the next refresh to the MacBook Pro processors would *all* be dualcores (4 threads on the higher-end) but *NO QUAD-CORE* ... at least until 32nm mobile quad-core processors come*
*Which may be announced by Intel next month, or which may come later in the year (middle of the year?)
...
Does anyone know for how long in 2010 will Intel be producing 45nm chips in bulk? I wonder if it is going to be until Sandy Bridge in 2011. Looks like 2010, the first half anyway, will have Intel continuing to produce 45nm Penryn, Clarksfield, Bloomfield, Lynnfield as well as 32nm Arrandale, Clarkdale, Gainstown.
Sandy Bridge would then be the 32nm mobile and desktop chips with on-die GPU and also 4 cores by default.
In other words, unlike what I was assuming, in 2010 there may be no 32nm quad-core mobile CPU.
You mean 45nm quad-core "Clarksfield", I think.
Yes, thanks. Have I mentioned how much I despise Intel’s code names?
Yes, thanks. Have I mentioned how much I despise Intel?s code names?
They aren't confusing at all.