Intel to launch first quad-core notebook chip by Fall

24

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 68
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,586member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    The MBPs have been using the fastest non-Extreme Intel processors.







    I thought the 2.6 was also an extreme chip, but upon a closer look, it doesn't appear to be.



    The 2.8 is.
  • Reply 22 of 68
    aiolosaiolos Posts: 228member
    I agree with the fact that these processors are unlikely to make it into the MBP or MB lines because of power usage and thermal output. However, for Apple not to offer this as a BTO option on the iMac would be stupid as the iMac is not hindered very much by thermal output, and certainty not by power usage.



    Also, if Apple puts this processor in the Mini, that could allow for a major increase in Mini purchases and make it from a joke to a very nice Mac. there is of course the problem of pricing, mainly that these chips cost more than the price of an entire Mini now. Apple would therefore probably need to make it a separate line like the headless xMac that people have been asking for Jobs to offer for years. On the other hand, a Mini Pro with this processor would be a great product IMHO.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Kolchak View Post


    I normally don't participate in the "headless midrange Mac" wishful thinking threads, but if they put this in a slightly larger than Mini case with a couple of 3.5" HD bays and maybe a replaceable PCIe graphics card, I'd buy it.



    If those were the specs of this Mini Pro, I think Apple could make some SERIOUS dinero.



    I also don't think that this would hinder iMac sales very much, because those who would want an AIO with very little cables will get an iMac. Those who want a cheaper Mac Pro that is still customizable and has a fair amount of power and the freedom for any type of display would get what they want as well.



    If I didn't care so much for the mobility of a notebook, I would totally buy it if Apple offered it. However, there's still the chance I could get my Dad to get one
  • Reply 23 of 68
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    I thought the 2.6 was also an extreme chip, but upon a closer look, it doesn't appear to be.



    The 2.8 is.



    If Apple sticks with the same $851 chip (which is most likely) they will use the X9100. It is only 2cores but it's 3.06GHz.Most consumers still look at clock speed.



    I don't think many are going to pay an extra $700 for a chip that lists a slightly slower clock speed. Plus, I don't think that it will help the average iMac user. In other words, it's not a good marketing move to use the QX9300 over the X9100.
  • Reply 24 of 68
    Absolutely!



    I could certainly live with shorted battery life to get a quad-core into a MacBook Pro.



    I rarely use the battery for more than an hour or two.
  • Reply 25 of 68
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,586member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    If Apple sticks with the same $851 chip (which is most likely) they will use the X9100. It is only 2cores but it's 3.06GHz.Most consumers still look at clock speed.



    I don't think many are going to pay an extra $700 for a chip that lists a slightly slower clock speed. Plus, I don't think that it will help the average iMac user. In other words, it's not a good marketing move to use the QX9300 over the X9100.



    I was thinking about the MBP. I would hope that Apple offers the fastest chips for the iMac they can.



    In fact, I'm wondering what has happened to the Penyrn iMacs. They should have been out by now.
  • Reply 26 of 68
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,586member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jeffharris View Post


    Absolutely!



    I could certainly live with shorted battery life to get a quad-core into a MacBook Pro.



    I rarely use the battery for more than an hour or two.



    Heh! Well, if they go to the quad 45 watt chips, one or two hours is all anyone would get.
  • Reply 27 of 68
    aplnubaplnub Posts: 2,605member
    I think it is pretty clear that Apple would use this chip in the iMac and not in the notebook lines. Let's face it. Apply has been moving toward better battery life per that special SJ unit of measure.



    This would finally separate the iMac from the MBP totally as far as processor power goes and you would see some definite separation and if the top end iMac was the only one to receive this, you can bet this would up sell a large amount of iMac customers, regardless.



    So let's all get back down to earth and wait on that quad core that comes in under 35 watts or Apple isn't going to touch it regarding the MB (I like my 6 hour battery life) or MBP (battery life on my CD 2 Ghz kinda sucks).



    The only way I would see Apple shoving one of those quad cores in a MBP would be to have processor-on-demand to save battery. To be honest, should be that way now where the OS is smart enough to power the CPU's for optimum battery life or performance by throttling clock rate, core's being shut totally off. The use of stackable CPU's that cut the distance between gates by such a significant factor would be like dropping down to the next nm process.



    Of course, I am sure they are working on this crap and we won't see it for some time.
  • Reply 28 of 68
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,586member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by aplnub View Post


    I think it is pretty clear that Apple would use this chip in the iMac and not in the notebook lines. Let's face it. Apply has been moving toward better battery life per that special SJ unit of measure.



    This would finally separate the iMac from the MBP totally as far as processor power goes and you would see some definite separation and if the top end iMac was the only one to receive this, you can bet this would up sell a large amount of iMac customers, regardless.



    So let's all get back down to earth and wait on that quad core that comes in under 35 watts or Apple isn't going to touch it regarding the MB (I like my 6 hour battery life) or MBP (battery life on my CD 2 Ghz kinda sucks).



    The only way I would see Apple shoving one of those quad cores in a MBP would be to have processor-on-demand to save battery. To be honest, should be that way now where the OS is smart enough to power the CPU's for optimum battery life or performance by throttling clock rate, core's being shut totally off. The use of stackable CPU's that cut the distance between gates by such a significant factor would be like dropping down to the next nm process.



    Of course, I am sure they are working on this crap and we won't see it for some time.



    Core throttling is a part of the chips microcode. It does it on its own. The OS is responsible for other power saving measures, and Apple seems to have that down pretty well. There's only so much that can be done.
  • Reply 29 of 68
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    AnandTech has a new article on Intel's roadmap.
  • Reply 30 of 68
    minderbinderminderbinder Posts: 1,703member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Kolchak View Post


    I normally don't participate in the "headless midrange Mac" wishful thinking threads, but if they put this in a slightly larger than Mini case with a couple of 3.5" HD bays and maybe a replaceable PCIe graphics card, I'd buy it.



    This is really the absolute worst chip for that application. Intel already makes a Core Quad chip, why put a laptop chip into a minitower when there's a (I assume cheaper) desktop version available already.



    That's apple's biggest issue with their desktop, using laptop parts which raises the price (and sometimes limits performance) for little benefit.
  • Reply 31 of 68
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,586member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    AnandTech has a new article on Intel's roadmap.



    This is showing up in a bunch of places.



    http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquir...sh-future-chip



    http://www.extremetech.com/article2/...2276789,00.asp



    The only thing that's upsetting right now is the memory specs.



    It says that it will be compatible with DDR3 800, 1066, and 1,333.



    DDR3 1,333 is considered to be the minmun required to surpass DDR2 800, because of latency.



    As DDR3 is already surpassing 2,000 speeds, I would hope that those specs are upgraded by the time the chips arrive later this year, or we will see memory at 2,500. Well above the spec, except for the performance market which buys special mobo's capable of resetting the cpu voltage, speeds, and bus speeds.



    What's the bet Apple will move outside the specs?
  • Reply 32 of 68
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    I thought the 2.6 was also an extreme chip, but upon a closer look, it doesn't appear to be.



    The 2.8 is.



    There was a 2.6GHz extreme chip. That little chart is for the current Penryn processors.



    The Merom-core line included the 2.8GHz X7900 and the 2.6GHz X7800. I doubt Intel sold very many of either.
  • Reply 33 of 68
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,586member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by FuturePastNow View Post


    There was a 2.6GHz extreme chip. That little chart is for the current Penryn processors.



    The Merom-core line included the 2.8GHz X7900 and the 2.6GHz X7800. I doubt Intel sold very many of either.



    Yeah. That's what I was thinking of. It doesn't show on my search.
  • Reply 34 of 68
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by FuturePastNow View Post


    There was a 2.6GHz extreme chip. That little chart is for the current Penryn processors.



    The Merom-core line included the 2.8GHz X7900 and the 2.6GHz X7800. I doubt Intel sold very many of either.



    According to MacTracker, the current 2.8GHz iMac is the first iMac to sport the Extreme processor. The previous 24" iMac build from late 2006 offered a 2.16 (T7400) or 2.33GHz (T7600) C2D Merom.
  • Reply 35 of 68
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


    I am pretty sure that is part outdated and part incorrect. All the Penryn based quad core chips are like that now, four cores on a single die.

    I think the iMac is really the only place it can go when it's first launched, maybe what's currently the 2.8GHz model. It's not suitable for the MBPro unless they manage to make a binning that's rated at 35 Watts at a clock that's as quick as the fastest dual core.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by FuturePastNow View Post


    I haven't heard anything about a native-quad core Penryn processor. This is almost certainly going to be based on a MCM.



    FuturePastNow is right, there are CURRENTLY NO NATIVE QUAD CORE PROCESSORS FROM INTEL. This mobile quad core is a multi-chip module based on two dual cores placed together.



    True, native quad-core chips will come with Nehalem's release, in addition to native octo-core (8) for high-end 4P servers. Note that however, there has been material released noting a possible native 6-core PENRYN processor for high end servers.



    But regarding the quad core mobile chip, extreme series chips are always very expensive and run hot. For Penryn, there are two mobile extreme series announced so far, both with 45W TDP ratings:

    1) Core 2 Extreme X9100, 3.06Ghz Dual Core

    2) Core 2 Extreme QX9300, 2.53Ghz Quad core.



    However, With the release of the Nehalem architecture in Q1 2009 (mobile variant), you'll see similar processors in the regular laptop lineup, NOT extreme, which will be much cheaper and most likely use less power. Hopefully we'll see a Quad core mobile at a 34 watt TDP.



    Nehalem also introduces the first NATIVE quad core (4 cores on one die) chips for mobile, desktop, server in addition to native 8-core chips for 4+ socket servers. Either way, Nehalem is a totally new architecture than Core, including on-board memory controller and Quickpath front-side-bus replacement (similar to AMD HyperTransport). according to Wiki, Nehalem will, compared to Penryn, have up to1.25x the single-threaded performance, and up to 2x the multithreaded performance and 30% lower power usage for the same performance. Also, there will be big increases in floating point performance which has always lagged integer performance in Intels processors vs AMD. This will allow Xeons to scale much better in multi processor systems versus Opterons, which is why AMD has had a big lead in 4P+ HPC and scientific computing.
  • Reply 36 of 68
    ruel24ruel24 Posts: 432member
    Apple really needs to do something with the Mini because there are lots of people that want a Mac that don't want the iMac, and the Mac Pro is both too much and too expensive. A nice non-extreme quad core and at least the ATi 2600HD graphics in something like the Mac Mini, even if it costs a bit more, would be a boon for Apple. $1000 would be a nice price point.
  • Reply 37 of 68
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,953member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ruel24 View Post


    Apple really needs to do something with the Mini because there are lots of people that want a Mac that don't want the iMac, and the Mac Pro is both too much and too expensive. A nice non-extreme quad core and at least the ATi 2600HD graphics in something like the Mac Mini, even if it costs a bit more, would be a boon for Apple. $1000 would be a nice price point.



    This is not going to happen, for several reasons. I'll give one: it looks like this quad core CPU will cost $850 or more.
  • Reply 38 of 68
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ruel24 View Post


    Apple really needs to do something with the Mini because there are lots of people that want a Mac that don't want the iMac, and the Mac Pro is both too much and too expensive. A nice non-extreme quad core and at least the ATi 2600HD graphics in something like the Mac Mini, even if it costs a bit more, would be a boon for Apple. $1000 would be a nice price point.



    The processor alone costs more than your $1000 price point. The Mini needs an update but along its current price line.



    edit: You said non-extreme; I missed that. Refer to JeffDM's post.
  • Reply 39 of 68
    ruel24ruel24 Posts: 432member
    Yes, I did say non-extreme. I am assuming that they'll produce reasonably priced non-extreme quad cores in the near future (1st Q '09?). Like I said, there is definitely a market out there for a Mac that uses a separate monitor that's not a Mac Pro level computer. A reasonably fast and reasonably affordable one would be a home run. Of course, it has to be much cheaper than an equally fast iMac, but it has to have enough performance that would-be buyers don't overlook it like they currently do the Mini. Just a thought since someone mentioned the Mini...
  • Reply 40 of 68
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,586member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


    This is not going to happen, for several reasons. I'll give one: it looks like this quad core CPU will cost $850 or more.



    That's bin pricing (1,000 chips). If Apple orders them in lots of 10 bin multiples, as many manufacturers do, the price will be lower.
Sign In or Register to comment.