Apple waiting on quad-core desktop chips from Intel
Apple is among a handful of PC manufacturers who're waiting on a new family of quad-core chips from Intel that are designed for small form-factor PCs like the Mac mini and all-in-one systems like the iMac.
Taiwanese rumors mill DigiTimes is citing sources who say the chip maker plans to launch the 65W low-power chips in the middle of January and that "Apple, Acer, Hewlett-Packard and Dell have already decided to launch products based on these CPUs."
There will be a total of three new chips, according to the report, including the Core 2 Quad Q8200 (2.33GHz/4MB L2), Core 2 Quad Q9400 (2.66GHz/6MB L2) and Core 2 Quad Q9550 (2.83GHz/12MB L2), which will cost $245, $320 and $369, respectively, in lots of 1000.
The new chips reportedly share the same specifications and model number as Core 2 Quad processors that were launched in March and August of this year, but will see their TDP drop from 95W to 65W.
Taiwanese rumors mill DigiTimes is citing sources who say the chip maker plans to launch the 65W low-power chips in the middle of January and that "Apple, Acer, Hewlett-Packard and Dell have already decided to launch products based on these CPUs."
There will be a total of three new chips, according to the report, including the Core 2 Quad Q8200 (2.33GHz/4MB L2), Core 2 Quad Q9400 (2.66GHz/6MB L2) and Core 2 Quad Q9550 (2.83GHz/12MB L2), which will cost $245, $320 and $369, respectively, in lots of 1000.
The new chips reportedly share the same specifications and model number as Core 2 Quad processors that were launched in March and August of this year, but will see their TDP drop from 95W to 65W.
Comments
PS: does anyone have the info on the iMac and Mac mini's current CPU TDPs and the cost per/1000 for the current iMac CPUs?
What are the current TDP for the chips used on Mac mini and iMac?
What are the current TDP for the chips used on any past and present Mac?
Thanks.
What are the current TDP for the chips used on Mac mini and iMac?
Mini: 35w
iMac 55w.
These could fit in the iMac, put putting a 65w chip in the Minis current enclosure would be near impossible. There's not enough room for cooling, it would have to grow in size.
Mini: 35w
iMac 55w.
I believe this is correct.
K
The (ALU rev.
That was a bizarre chip that I recall, old core, bigger than standard cache and odd TDP rating.
Still, I don't think they used anything near 65watt rating, but I wasn't aware they used 55W chips. That sounds like it might be higher wattage than the G5s they used in the bigger white enclosures.
I can't imagine a mini being built with a $245 processor. That's almost half the cost of the entire system.
The mini has basically always been a MacBook in a box, so I don't see it using these chips. The mini will get the 2,0GHz and 2,4GHz chips the MacBook has now.
These are MAX power displacement - like setting your CPU to Highest, or running some CPU intensive apps. Automatic would lower average etc.
Quad are ~95 or extreme ~130w
but at IDF intel had an experimental quad at 48w 2.66GHz
Mac mini has a maximum 110Watt power supply
only chips meeting the specs are:
T5600\t1.83 GHz\t34 W\t2MB (FSB 667) (65nm Merom)
T5750\t2.0 GHz\t35 W\t2MB (FSB 667)
20" iMac has 200W power supply
24" iMac has 280 watt PS
these chips are desktop
E7200\t2.53 GHz\t65 W\t3MB (FSB 1066) (Wolfdale-3M)
Macbook Pro 15" has 85w power supply
T9400\t2.53 GHz\t35 W \t6MB (FSB 1066)
E = Desktop (~65W); X6... = Desktop (~75W); X = Mobile (extreme) (~44W); T - Mobile (standard voltage) (~35W); P - Mobile (medium-voltage) (~25W); L - Mobile (low voltage) (~17W); U - Mobile (ultra-low voltage) (~10W)
If Apple did want to make a mini-tower, the so-called xMac in a tower the size of the old Power Mac/Performa 6400, then a single 65W quad core could be used there. I'm sure it could sell better than the Mac mini.
The top of the line dual 3.06 is 45W, so a 65W model would mean a new enclosure, which is unlikely. The core 2 quad at 2GHz is 45W TDP so that may be an option on the next gen iMac and maybe even a 17" MacBook Pro. Should ship just before the new year and thus introduced at MacWorld but not shipping for 4 weeks or so afterwards. It typically takes 6 weeks from shipping from Intel before we see it in a shipping Mac.
That TDP is certainly too high. Now, is it remotely possibly that Apple could underclick the chips while still offering more performance at a cheaper price per CPU?
The top of the line dual 3.06 is 45W, so a 65W model would mean a new enclosure, which is unlikely. The core 2 quad at 2GHz is 45W TDP so that may be an option on the next gen iMac and maybe even a 17" MacBook Pro. Should ship just before the new year and thus introduced at MacWorld but not shipping for 4 weeks or so afterwards. It typically takes 6 weeks from shipping from Intel before we see it in a shipping Mac.
If Apple did want to make a mini-tower, the so-called xMac in a tower the size of the old Power Mac/Performa 6400, then a single 65W quad core could be used there. I'm sure it could sell better than the Mac mini.
Apple isn't using the mobile 3.06ghz CPU. They're using what basically amounts to a slightly more efficient version of the desktop core 2 duo in a socket P package. Its a hybrid, and possibly a prototype for the Small form factor desktop chips coming out in the not too distant future.
That TDP is certainly too high. Now, is it remotely possibly that Apple could underclick the chips while still offering more performance at a cheaper price per CPU?
Apple under-clocks the CPU in the iPhone, so it's remotely possible but more likely they would use the lower clocked chips that are cheaper. The Q9000 series seems most affordable in a quad core chip and the timing is about right. at 2.5GHz trim the Q9300 is 95W, which is close to the 130W of the MacPro class models. The 2GHz is 35W The 2.26GHz Q9100 is 45W and has a 12MB cache so sound like the sweet spot Apple has used in the past. It's a $851 chip, so it won't come standard.
That TDP is certainly too high. Now, is it remotely possibly that Apple could underclick the chips while still offering more performance at a cheaper price per CPU?
Id say its quite possible
_________________