Next-gen Intel notebook chips to exceed 3.0GHz

124

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 90
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by teckstud View Post


    That would defeat the whole purpose of the Air. Have you ever added a larger battery to a cell phone or video camera? It's bulkier and heavier and just ruins the form of it. Can't you just plug it in on flight as you can on a train? It's too bad this Air just wasn't meant to be in the air if you can't carry on a spare battery.



    It doesn't defeat my purpose as it would, presumably, give 12 hours of battery life built inside while still being only 80% the weight of a MB and considerably thinner, too.



    As for the form, my desire is to have a new aluminum bottom plate and longer screws to accommodate this large capacity battery.
  • Reply 62 of 90
    ksecksec Posts: 1,551member
    Would be nice if they release iMac with Quad Core and better Gfx from ATI or Nvidia.
  • Reply 63 of 90
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wk127001 View Post


    The reason no one is past roughly 3GHz is because it's physically not possible without better, much more expensive conductors. Usually a college level electric circuits class covers this.



    Is that why 14 year olds routinely have Core 2 Duos doing over 3.8 Ghz and Intel's skull trail platform was previewed most recently at 5.0ghz with phase cooling?

    Also IBM's Power6 chips run natively at 4.7Ghz with no water cooling and prototypes have reached 6Ghz.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post


    The second most ludicrous answer I've ever heard.



    Perhaps a perusal through the Harvard Business School Working Knowledge will help direct you on the right path. Intel's, and a matter of fact, Apple's reference lectures are not there because of ridiculous business practices as you and some others so offer.



    Do yourself a favor. Explore Intel's commitment to research, and the absolute and relative millions they like Apple, and AMD, spend to finance it.



    If Barcelona was kicking Intel's ass clock for clock and running at 3.1Ghz, you think the Penryn release table would look the same? I mean seriously, do you really think that?
  • Reply 64 of 90
    double post. sorry. mod please delete
  • Reply 65 of 90
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tuneman07 View Post


    Well as usual I wonder what real world differences are going to be here. Anyone have any guesses? Is a 3.0ghz 45nm chip going to save a ton of battery and be noticeably faster? I like to know before I get too excited and I am no computer processor guy lol





    I myself am waiting for Nehalem (chips after Penryn - new architecture replaces "Core"). Penryn looks like a farily good upgrade and all, but if you only upgrade every 3 years or so, and are planning on buying an expensive high-end machine, I think it'll definitely be worth the wait for Nehalem. These chips should be out in Q4 2008 for desktop, and Q1 2009 for laptop.



    Here's a preliminary list of benefits of Nehalem over Penryn/Core 2. Of course some of these may change before release, but a lot more info has become available in the last few months:



    - 45nm node like Penryn

    - Will use DDR3 RAM

    - Uses new Intel QuickPath point-to-point connection with on-chip memory controller, replacing the old front side bus technology. Similar to AMD's HyperTransport.

    - Processors will have 2 'virtual' threads per core, similar to Hyperthreading from the Pentium 4 days.

    - Multi-core chips will all be 'native' multi-core, meaning all cores will be on the SAME die, not different dies packaged together.

    - Laptops will now have mainstream versions of (native) quad-core processors as well as desktops/servers.

    - 2P server/workstation chips (Mac Pro) will now use standard DDR3 instead of high priced fully-buffered memory (FB-DIMMs)

    - The high-end MP (4+ socket) server chips will be native eight-core "octo-core" processors, capable of 16 threads.

    - 10-25% increase in single threaded performance compared to Penryn.

    - 20%-100% increase in multi-threaded performance compared to Penryn.

    - 30% less power usage than Penryn.



    Also, some sources have reported at least some Nehalem chips will have a "turbo" mode which will allow the chip to raise it's clock speed (and go over its rated TDP). Anyone remember the

    386/486 "turbo" mode button on old PCs ?? Oh, the nastalgia...
  • Reply 66 of 90
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    I

    How many times have we heard the complaint that Apple is obsoleting their machine too quickly?



    I would hope Apple could give a rat's ass about those people. Talk about holding back advancement. "But but.. I am just fine with my 5lb Motorola DynaTAC... why on earth would I want such a small phone that can go on the Internet, play music, etc..."





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by thebeat View Post


    will they update the Macbook Pros (Motevina) in June then? Or does the iMac get it first, then we have to wait 2009 or Sept for the Macbook Pros to get Motevina?



    cause I am not sure weather to wait for the Penryn or just wait till June when they announce Motevina.



    Well I hope its not that long, since Nehlaem chips should be out Q4 and mobile variants will probably be out Q1 2009
  • Reply 67 of 90
    seek3rseek3r Posts: 179member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    It's not a problem. It's just that when the various companies re=tooled their lines for multiple cores, the power draw and heatsinking became so much more difficult, that they traded off some speed for the extra cores. as new process technology comes out, those speeds have continues to rise.



    But remember that they are talking about mobile chips, which have always been slower than desktop chips because of those very same power and heat problems. Desktop chips have been over 3.0 GHz for some time now.



    That's part of it, and IBM in particular has been focusing (at least on the retail side) on massively expandable clustering (like BG, which is based on *lots* of fairly slow, POWER4 based chips), rather than pushing individually faster cores as their main product. A lot of slower, cheaper, less power hungry cores is very often preferable to less faster, hotter, more expensive (remember, both in cost and cooling) chips.



    It's more than that too though, there's also how many operations can be done per clock cycle. A single core, core 2 based chip at 1.6ghz is going to be faster than a single core P4 at 2.4. Part of that is faster bus and more cache, but a large portion of that is that the core 2 is a *much* more efficient chip, and does more work per cycle, so the the fact that the clock speed is slower isn't a problem.
  • Reply 68 of 90
    browser problems, sorry. mod please delete.
  • Reply 69 of 90
    tbagginstbaggins Posts: 2,306member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    If they could get the MBA down to $1,599, that would sell a lot more machines.





    Funny you should mention that... when I first looked at the MBA, that's exactly what I thought it was worth. I was very surprised that Apple "restrained" themselves and only overpriced by $200 or so.





    .
  • Reply 70 of 90
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,491member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cameronj View Post


    It sounds like you actually believe this. Very quaint.



    Since about 1999, performance HAS NOT CHANGED for 99% of what people use computers for. Yeah, gamers keep buying new computers, but a 800 Mhz P3 with 1 GB of RAM runs the internet, email, and itunes just as fast as a brand new Vista PC.



    Sure Intel competes with itself. But really, 90% of sales these days give Intel a sale so that the user can get a bigger hard drive, a nicer screen or some other thing unrelated to "speed".



    Plus, Intel competing with itself is a whole lot easier than competing with an actual company. When Intel competes with itself, both parties want to maximize Intel's profits. When Intel competes with AMD, the situation is slightly different.



    I believe the truth of how industry works.



    You don't understand it, and that's fine too.



    Would things slow down? Sure as I said, by a very small amount. Even in the days when AMD was no competitor, which was all of their existence except for a period of about 2.5 years, Intel advanced pretty quickly.



    There is no reason to believe things would be any different.
  • Reply 71 of 90
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,491member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by teckstud View Post


    No- you think?



    You know, it isn't that much lower, but there is a psychological thing about numbers. $1799 sounds much more than $1599. I read a study on marketing once that discussed the power of the 4, 5 and 9. Very interesting.
  • Reply 72 of 90
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,491member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by winterspan View Post


    I would hope Apple could give a rat's ass about those people. Talk about holding back advancement. "But but.. I am just fine with my 5lb Motorola DynaTAC... why on earth would I want such a small phone that can go on the Internet, play music, etc..."



    I don't agree with them either, but they are talking about months, not years. Even they would get pissed off if Apple waited years.
  • Reply 73 of 90
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,491member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by seek3r View Post


    It's more than that too though, there's also how many operations can be done per clock cycle. A single core, core 2 based chip at 1.6ghz is going to be faster than a single core P4 at 2.4. Part of that is faster bus and more cache, but a large portion of that is that the core 2 is a *much* more efficient chip, and does more work per cycle, so the the fact that the clock speed is slower isn't a problem.



    That's part of it as well.
  • Reply 74 of 90
    doh123doh123 Posts: 323member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    I believe the truth of how industry works.



    You don't understand it, and that's fine too.



    Would things slow down? Sure as I said, by a very small amount. Even in the days when AMD was no competitor, which was all of their existence except for a period of about 2.5 years, Intel advanced pretty quickly.



    There is no reason to believe things would be any different.



    You can believe that if you'd like. market competition isn't driving Intels research much, but it does drive what they make available. You are living in a fantasy world to think a few months would be the most. Intel makes big jumps when its good for it to do so, otherwise it maximizes profit by doing slow steady releases, just barely better than the previous.



    You also must not have studied the market close if you think AMD has only had something competitive for around 2.5 years.



    The bottom line is, the market itself drives heavily what is sold on the market. Processors are not complete products by themselves in most all cases, which gives minimal competition with ones self. Also having wide ranged of processors (performance wise) and plenty of ways to cause customer confusion, there is very little to any self competition compared to what they are even getting from AMD right now.
  • Reply 75 of 90
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,491member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by doh123 View Post


    You can believe that if you'd like. market competition isn't driving Intels research much, but it does drive what they make available. You are living in a fantasy world to think a few months would be the most. Intel makes big jumps when its good for it to do so, otherwise it maximizes profit by doing slow steady releases, just barely better than the previous.



    You also must not have studied the market close if you think AMD has only had something competitive for around 2.5 years.



    The bottom line is, the market itself drives heavily what is sold on the market. Processors are not complete products by themselves in most all cases, which gives minimal competition with ones self. Also having wide ranged of processors (performance wise) and plenty of ways to cause customer confusion, there is very little to any self competition compared to what they are even getting from AMD right now.



    I've been studying the market since the mid sixties, when I was in my teens. I know it pretty well.
  • Reply 76 of 90
    xyz001xyz001 Posts: 117member
    Why is this not called CORE 3?



    The intel naming scheme is ridiculous. Centriuno 2?, what about the CORE number, will there never be a CORE 3? And why on earth was Penryn not called CORE 3.



    Its confusing. So we are gonna have Intel Centrino2 Core2 Duo 2.6 Ghz processors. Thats alot of two's.
  • Reply 77 of 90
    eckingecking Posts: 1,588member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by brianus View Post


    Hmm. I wonder what this does to Apple's release schedule. With the MBP they've averaged about 9 months between upgrades thus far. If they release a Penryn MBP soon and a Montevina in, say, July, there'd be gaps of just 7 and then 5 months, respectively. 5 months! One wonders if they'll just skip the current updates altogether and just wait till June...



    I don't think so I think we'll see the new ones before the month is out and then the upgrades at the top of august. Apple couldn't sit without any changes that long even if they want to.
  • Reply 78 of 90
    I understand the reasoning behind posts claiming that the real overhaul to the Macbook Pro will not come until Montevina, I have to ask a couple of questions. If they are not doing a new case design for the Macbook Pro, then why have they not announced the update?

    I understand that, with the exception of the iPhone, Apple does not like to announce new products too far before their ship date. However, Dell, HP, and many other PC notebook manufacturers announced their Penryn based notebooks weeks ago, if not a month ago.

    My second question is, if Montevina and Penryn are both 45Nm chips, what difference would it make for them to do the case redesign now and include Penryn, and then update it to the Montevina later? The size of the mother board could not be that much different, I wouldn't think, but perhaps I'm wrong.

    I just don't see why the case redesign can't happen now, or why it would be taking anywhere near this long if they weren't going to update the enclosure....
  • Reply 79 of 90
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by opnsource View Post


    I understand the reasoning behind posts claiming that the real overhaul to the Macbook Pro will not come until Montevina, I have to ask a couple of questions. If they are not doing a new case design for the Macbook Pro, then why have they not announced the update?

    I understand that, with the exception of the iPhone, Apple does not like to announce new products too far before their ship date. However, Dell, HP, and many other PC notebook manufacturers announced their Penryn based notebooks weeks ago, if not a month ago.

    My second question is, if Montevina and Penryn are both 45Nm chips, what difference would it make for them to do the case redesign now and include Penryn, and then update it to the Montevina later? The size of the mother board could not be that much different, I wouldn't think, but perhaps I'm wrong.

    I just don't see why the case redesign can't happen now, or why it would be taking anywhere near this long if they weren't going to update the enclosure....



    It's no the nm size to tink about. There is always the chip size, which will be going form 35mm/sq to 22mm/sq and the amount of heat being released which will make smaller the heat sinks and lower the fan size.



    Except for including an intelligent, multi-touch trackpad (which I'm convinced will happen this time around) I don't see any need to change the case design.
  • Reply 80 of 90
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,491member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by xyz001 View Post


    Why is this not called CORE 3?



    The intel naming scheme is ridiculous. Centriuno 2?, what about the CORE number, will there never be a CORE 3? And why on earth was Penryn not called CORE 3.



    Its confusing. So we are gonna have Intel Centrino2 Core2 Duo 2.6 Ghz processors. Thats alot of two's.



    Really, does this affect you?



    The average consumer doesn't know, so Intel is changing the name after several major generational changes. It's not really big deal. It's just a name.
Sign In or Register to comment.