Call me crazy, but I think the iMac would get a quad-core chip first. It needs them more to stack up against quad-core PC towers, and it is a lot thicker and has the thermal budget to support them. In the past (and the present), the iMac has always had the edge in CPU over the MBP.
Call me crazy, but I think the iMac would get a quad-core chip first. It needs them more to stack up against quad-core PC towers, and it is a lot thicker and has the thermal budget to support them. In the past (and the present), the iMac has always had the edge in CPU over the MBP.
Quite true. We'll see a quad-core in the iMac first or, at best, at the same time that we see one in the Macbook Pro.
The only thing I'd like to see this revision is for the base white Macbook to be removed from the lineup and the aluminium one dropped to that price and then drop the same amount off the MBP.
The current machines are pretty fast, they run cool and they have great build quality, they are just really expensive. You can play GTA 4 on a Macbook so there's no urgency for minor performance bumps that increase heat/decrease battery life.
I agree with mjteix, I don't see Nehalem notebooks anytime soon. The roadmap is here:
Havendale dual desktop < not happening, 32nm Clarkdale instead
Clarksfield quad mobile < 45nm 2nd half 2009
Auburndale dual mobile < not happening, 32nm Arrandale instead
So the only possibility for a quad is a Q3 MBP with Clarksfield but if it has a 45-55W TDP, it won't happen. If, on the other hand, it has a 35W TDP as some sites mention:
then it's a possibility for a quad MBP and certainly the iMac.
If the TDP is too high, the only option is Clarkdale and Arrandale but that pushes right to the end of 2009 and early 2010. Plus, Intel are cramming what is equivalent to their X4500 chips inside them.
Currently those integrated graphics solutions are between 1/3 and 1/2 the performance of the 9400M. The new architecture is supposed to improve performance but Intel only said it would increase performance by as much as a typical die-shrink and possibly a clock speed bump.
This will basically be a downgrade of the 9400M GPUs we have now and Apple have no choice but to use them. However, it means there should be more room for a dedicated GPU on top. I'd like to see all Macs get 2 GPUs and a mechanism for running the interface on the integrated GPU while the dedicated one can handle GPU-based computation at the same time.
I think this will be a necessity for GPU computation because if you run a program with GPU computing and try to switch to another app, your interface is all jittery.
But all this is late 2009/2010. Given that Q3 is the earliest possible CPU improvement and dependent on the Clarksfield TDP, I expect either no change until Q3 or a price drop now. This is also iphone time remember.
Good run down. I don't think Apple will reduce prices though, except to account for currency fluctuation if and when the US dollar depreciates from its highs.
Apple is going to bank big time on the new iPhone 3G in June/July+subsequent rollout around the world.
This will keep their Mac strategy on the high-profit-margin angle.
I think the Mac Touch/ Macbook Mini will be the dark horse that may come towards the holiday season, maybe October...
I've been impressed with my MacBook Alu... Got a refurbished one and managed to sell my old first-gen white MacBook, so the value there is pretty good, build quality and speed is something that can last into early 2010, when I will have to decide if I get the AppleCare for another 2 years or sell it and get something new... Hmm
</rambling>
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
The only thing I'd like to see this revision is for the base white Macbook to be removed from the lineup and the aluminium one dropped to that price and then drop the same amount off the MBP.
The current machines are pretty fast, they run cool and they have great build quality, they are just really expensive. You can play GTA 4 on a Macbook so there's no urgency for minor performance bumps that increase heat/decrease battery life.
I agree with mjteix, I don't see Nehalem notebooks anytime soon. The roadmap is here:
Havendale dual desktop < not happening, 32nm Clarkdale instead
Clarksfield quad mobile < 45nm 2nd half 2009
Auburndale dual mobile < not happening, 32nm Arrandale instead
So the only possibility for a quad is a Q3 MBP with Clarksfield but if it has a 45-55W TDP, it won't happen. If, on the other hand, it has a 35W TDP as some sites mention:
then it's a possibility for a quad MBP and certainly the iMac.
If the TDP is too high, the only option is Clarkdale and Arrandale but that pushes right to the end of 2009 and early 2010. Plus, Intel are cramming what is equivalent to their X4500 chips inside them.
Currently those integrated graphics solutions are between 1/3 and 1/2 the performance of the 9400M. The new architecture is supposed to improve performance but Intel only said it would increase performance by as much as a typical die-shrink and possibly a clock speed bump.
This will basically be a downgrade of the 9400M GPUs we have now and Apple have no choice but to use them. However, it means there should be more room for a dedicated GPU on top. I'd like to see all Macs get 2 GPUs and a mechanism for running the interface on the integrated GPU while the dedicated one can handle GPU-based computation at the same time.
I think this will be a necessity for GPU computation because if you run a program with GPU computing and try to switch to another app, your interface is all jittery.
But all this is late 2009/2010. Given that Q3 is the earliest possible CPU improvement and dependent on the Clarksfield TDP, I expect either no change until Q3 or a price drop now. This is also iphone time remember.
Comments
The 'Nehalem' Quad core chips will most likely be introduced to the MBP line in Sept or Oct....in actuality, we should have already had them by now.
It wouldn't surprise me if they stuck some quad core chips in the MBPs, it would a good way to differentiate it from the 'consumer' Macbook model.
Call me crazy, but I think the iMac would get a quad-core chip first. It needs them more to stack up against quad-core PC towers, and it is a lot thicker and has the thermal budget to support them. In the past (and the present), the iMac has always had the edge in CPU over the MBP.
Quite true. We'll see a quad-core in the iMac first or, at best, at the same time that we see one in the Macbook Pro.
The current machines are pretty fast, they run cool and they have great build quality, they are just really expensive. You can play GTA 4 on a Macbook so there's no urgency for minor performance bumps that increase heat/decrease battery life.
I agree with mjteix, I don't see Nehalem notebooks anytime soon. The roadmap is here:
http://arstechnica.com/hardware/news...peed-ahead.ars
"Intel was planning to launch a series of 45nm mainstream desktop and mobile processors in the second half of 2009"
Lynnfield quad desktop < 45nm coming 2nd half 2009
Havendale dual desktop < not happening, 32nm Clarkdale instead
Clarksfield quad mobile < 45nm 2nd half 2009
Auburndale dual mobile < not happening, 32nm Arrandale instead
So the only possibility for a quad is a Q3 MBP with Clarksfield but if it has a 45-55W TDP, it won't happen. If, on the other hand, it has a 35W TDP as some sites mention:
http://forums.anandtech.com/messagev...readid=2295516
then it's a possibility for a quad MBP and certainly the iMac.
If the TDP is too high, the only option is Clarkdale and Arrandale but that pushes right to the end of 2009 and early 2010. Plus, Intel are cramming what is equivalent to their X4500 chips inside them.
Currently those integrated graphics solutions are between 1/3 and 1/2 the performance of the 9400M. The new architecture is supposed to improve performance but Intel only said it would increase performance by as much as a typical die-shrink and possibly a clock speed bump.
This will basically be a downgrade of the 9400M GPUs we have now and Apple have no choice but to use them. However, it means there should be more room for a dedicated GPU on top. I'd like to see all Macs get 2 GPUs and a mechanism for running the interface on the integrated GPU while the dedicated one can handle GPU-based computation at the same time.
I think this will be a necessity for GPU computation because if you run a program with GPU computing and try to switch to another app, your interface is all jittery.
But all this is late 2009/2010. Given that Q3 is the earliest possible CPU improvement and dependent on the Clarksfield TDP, I expect either no change until Q3 or a price drop now. This is also iphone time remember.
Apple is going to bank big time on the new iPhone 3G in June/July+subsequent rollout around the world.
This will keep their Mac strategy on the high-profit-margin angle.
I think the Mac Touch/ Macbook Mini will be the dark horse that may come towards the holiday season, maybe October...
I've been impressed with my MacBook Alu... Got a refurbished one and managed to sell my old first-gen white MacBook, so the value there is pretty good, build quality and speed is something that can last into early 2010, when I will have to decide if I get the AppleCare for another 2 years or sell it and get something new... Hmm
</rambling>
The only thing I'd like to see this revision is for the base white Macbook to be removed from the lineup and the aluminium one dropped to that price and then drop the same amount off the MBP.
The current machines are pretty fast, they run cool and they have great build quality, they are just really expensive. You can play GTA 4 on a Macbook so there's no urgency for minor performance bumps that increase heat/decrease battery life.
I agree with mjteix, I don't see Nehalem notebooks anytime soon. The roadmap is here:
http://arstechnica.com/hardware/news...peed-ahead.ars
"Intel was planning to launch a series of 45nm mainstream desktop and mobile processors in the second half of 2009"
Lynnfield quad desktop < 45nm coming 2nd half 2009
Havendale dual desktop < not happening, 32nm Clarkdale instead
Clarksfield quad mobile < 45nm 2nd half 2009
Auburndale dual mobile < not happening, 32nm Arrandale instead
So the only possibility for a quad is a Q3 MBP with Clarksfield but if it has a 45-55W TDP, it won't happen. If, on the other hand, it has a 35W TDP as some sites mention:
http://forums.anandtech.com/messagev...readid=2295516
then it's a possibility for a quad MBP and certainly the iMac.
If the TDP is too high, the only option is Clarkdale and Arrandale but that pushes right to the end of 2009 and early 2010. Plus, Intel are cramming what is equivalent to their X4500 chips inside them.
Currently those integrated graphics solutions are between 1/3 and 1/2 the performance of the 9400M. The new architecture is supposed to improve performance but Intel only said it would increase performance by as much as a typical die-shrink and possibly a clock speed bump.
This will basically be a downgrade of the 9400M GPUs we have now and Apple have no choice but to use them. However, it means there should be more room for a dedicated GPU on top. I'd like to see all Macs get 2 GPUs and a mechanism for running the interface on the integrated GPU while the dedicated one can handle GPU-based computation at the same time.
I think this will be a necessity for GPU computation because if you run a program with GPU computing and try to switch to another app, your interface is all jittery.
But all this is late 2009/2010. Given that Q3 is the earliest possible CPU improvement and dependent on the Clarksfield TDP, I expect either no change until Q3 or a price drop now. This is also iphone time remember.