Intel Core 2 Quad on MBP and iMac.
All right so I asked yesterday whether I should get a MBP or an iMac. Though something else is holding me back... Are Intel Core 2 Quad Processors being added anytime soon to iMacs and the MBP does anyone think? I don't know why though I almost feel somewhat that IC2D is a bit dated.
Comments
Maybe early next year. Intel will have all-new mobile processors then.
Intel has some mobile Core 2 Quads that would work in the iMac or MBP, but I doubt Apple will use them. They would have done so already.
The Core 2 Quads out now are desktop chips so that's probably why Apple haven't used any so far. Clarksfield that is coming in Q3 is a mobile chip so I could see that being used. I don't know if they will only go into the highest end models though i.e top-end 24" iMac and 17" MBP.
Apple have a habit of making the larger screen machines more appealing spec-wise. They are just profiteering really because they could easily put the higher end components into the lower end machines but they'd rather force you to buy a 24" IPS display along with it.
I could see the Mini, MB and MBP with 9400M and lowest 2 iMacs on IGP stuck with dual core and the rest moving up to quad. They might have to because I don't know if the new mobile processors support the Nvidia chipset. If that's the case, it would make sense to only upgrade the machines with dedicated graphics chips and avoid the lower end having to suffer Intel's IGPs again.
All right so I asked yesterday whether I should get a MBP or an iMac. Though something else is holding me back... Are Intel Core 2 Quad Processors being added anytime soon to iMacs and the MBP does anyone think? I don't know why though I almost feel somewhat that IC2D is a bit dated.
At least on the iMacs it should be a no brainer. The chips are available though you do have to pay a price for them. That extra though would make more sense than the modest GHz spread we now see on the iMacs. The quads might require a slightly slower core but I still see a big advantage for newly purchased hardware, especially with the coming of SL.
The Mac Book Pros are another issue. You would certainly end up with a bit more heat, with a bigger engineering effort required to remove that heat. It is not impossible though, but I think Apple has made the decision to skip this generation of quad core mobile hardware.
In either case it is really sad that Apple isn't even offering an option to people to purchase hardware with a processor that can be really leveraged under Snow Leopard. In the case of the iMac they might be waiting for SL release so that they can co-market the new machines and operating system. Still sad though because Apple is selling to many machines to close to the update that don't even offer the option at purchase time to be ready for the coming hardware. It is sort of like the XMac, Apple could sell a ton of those to people that know better, likewise for people that understand what SL is.
Personally if you can I'd hold off for a quad in the platform of your choice. For a desk top C2D is really dated so I agree with you. On the laptop the alternatives are less so while I don't see it as completely dated it certainly isn't a smart buy for an investment that is expected to last.
Dave
The Core 2 Quads out now are desktop chips so that's probably why Apple haven't used any so far. Clarksfield that is coming in Q3 is a mobile chip so I could see that being used. I don't know if they will only go into the highest end models though i.e top-end 24" iMac and 17" MBP.
Apple have a habit of making the larger screen machines more appealing spec-wise. They are just profiteering really because they could easily put the higher end components into the lower end machines but they'd rather force you to buy a 24" IPS display along with it.
I could see the Mini, MB and MBP with 9400M and lowest 2 iMacs on IGP stuck with dual core and the rest moving up to quad. They might have to because I don't know if the new mobile processors support the Nvidia chipset. If that's the case, it would make sense to only upgrade the machines with dedicated graphics chips and avoid the lower end having to suffer Intel's IGPs again.
There are several mobile Core 2 Quads. They could go in the iMac with no modification.
With the Nehalem procs and X55 motherboard you have the PCI Express integration in the CPU which is perfect for the iMac since it doesn't have PCI Express slots.
Apple probably thought about Mobile Q2Q but IMO it makes more sense to wait and deliver Clarksfield CPU if they can't get Lynnfield in an iMac.
I'm not sure that makes sense or not. Basically the machines Apple sells now will be outdated for many users the minute Snow Leopard (SL) comes out. Certainly not all users but if you have a tasks that load an iMac heavily your only other choice is a Mac Pro. Considering the tech is available it seems silly to not offer it at least as an option on one iMac.
Note that I fully understand that the current C2Q leave a lot to be desired as far as bandwidth to memory goes, but that doesn't make them useless. For some iMac users it would be the right choice to have available at this time. Time of course with electronics means that future products will be improved, in the case markedly so, but that is the future.
With the Nehalem procs and X55 motherboard you have the PCI Express integration in the CPU which is perfect for the iMac since it doesn't have PCI Express slots.
IMac still uses PCI Express to drive the GPU. It will be interesting to see if Apple uses the coming chips with built in GPUs from Intel. I fear it will be another step backwards but who knows.
Dave
There are several mobile Core 2 Quads. They could go in the iMac with no modification.
True, I wonder why they haven't used them. I'd rather have a 2GHz Core 2 Quad than dual 3.06GHz. Plus the 2GHz Quad is $348 vs the $851 of the 3.06GHz high end iMac. The other Core 2 Quad is $851.
I wonder if Apple keeps buying Intel's expensive chips to keep on good terms with them or something. Intel have much better value chips but they probably won't make so much profit on.
Some people can fit a Core i7 into a 'laptop' so Apple only managing Core 2 Duo in something as big as an iMac is either due to poor engineering skills or just trying to avoid killing their future growth by giving people too much value for money:
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Cor...ocom,7188.html
Maybe they felt the software had to be sorted first with Grand Central before pushing consumers to quads. If that was the reason, it's more telling of their obsession with categorizing consumers into neat little boxes. A lot of software is very capable of using 4 cores - the software that doesn't, generally doesn't need to anyway.
As always, everyone just has to wait on Apple crawling up to the plate after PC manufacturers have had the tech on offer for months/years. I would be a little shocked if Apple didn't have any quad core mobile solutions available when they start marketing Snow Leopard.
True, I wonder why they haven't used them. I'd rather have a 2GHz Core 2 Quad than dual 3.06GHz. Plus the 2GHz Quad is $348 vs the $851 of the 3.06GHz high end iMac. The other Core 2 Quad is $851.
I don't think Apple thinks its customers are smart enough to see a 2.x GHz quad as an upgrade from a 3 GHz dual (not that there isn't an argument for a faster dual-core).
Some people can fit a Core i7 into a 'laptop' so Apple only managing Core 2 Duo in something as big as an iMac is either due to poor engineering skills or just trying to avoid killing their future growth by giving people too much value for money:
I7 us a bit much for any Apple laptop, but an iMac is a different story. Right now I see that big gulf in Apples line up ( the lack of a midrange desktop ), as the biggest black spot on their corporate image. I don't know if it is arrogance or the lack of engineering skills but it is an obvious problem.
Even something like the Mini would be better prepared for the future with C2Q. An i7 won't go in there but a core two quad should be a snap.
Maybe they felt the software had to be sorted first with Grand Central before pushing consumers to quads. If that was the reason, it's more telling of their obsession with categorizing consumers into neat little boxes. A lot of software is very capable of using 4 cores - the software that doesn't, generally doesn't need to anyway.
This is what I find so well stated. There is enough software out there today to justify quad core in Apples line up. That doesn't mean every machine, but at least offer the option to people that are in the know.
Yes I know that SL will make better use of that hardware and that the newer i7 derived processors are even better SMP machines, but why force your customers to wait for it? For the people who can make use of quads today Apple can be very irritating.
As always, everyone just has to wait on Apple crawling up to the plate after PC manufacturers have had the tech on offer for months/years. I would be a little shocked if Apple didn't have any quad core mobile solutions available when they start marketing Snow Leopard.
I suspect they will pitch desktops enhanced this way. If they put quads in the portables in four months that will just piss people off. The only way I could see that justified is if Intel had a new low power C2Q coming we don't know about. I just can't see Apple engineering yet another portables motherboard for i7 derived hardware that soon. It would be less than 4 months on the current one. Maybe they will target the 17" machine for October / November for intel new chips.
It does make you wonder where Apples mind is!
Dave
I don't think Apple thinks its customers are smart enough to see a 2.x GHz quad as an upgrade from a 3 GHz dual (not that there isn't an argument for a faster dual-core).
The problem is what is right depends on what the customer is doing to an extent. Plus you have to take into account SL much better SMP behaviour. In a Mini it would be a very good upgrade for just about anybody. In a iMac it really is up to the customer and his usage. A developer may find quad cores more useful even with a one GHz spread in performance.
Dave
Apparently from the way I'm understanding it (was reading around), if Quad core chips were made for the MBP, they would start at far slower speeds such as 1.6 or 1.7 GHz. Not sure if this is the case though.
It is my understanding that one variant tops out at 2GHz. I'm not sure where notebook quads overall hit the GHz cieling. The thing is a 2GHz quad would be a nice improvement for a number of Apples current machines. It would be nice in the Mini, and some of the lower end laptops for many users.
For the iMacs I'm not sure why they haven't gone to intels small form factor line up. Maybe Apples to focused on being green. In any event the lack of quad core here is pathetic. It is enough for me to reccomend not even buying a iMac. There is just no acceptable explanation for apples dragging it's ass on this issue.
Dave
Apple wouldn't be able to pimp 7 and 8 hour battery life with quad cores. I honestly expect to see something early next year, some multicore core i7 deal. That would be for a desktop revamp tho, would probably be about this time of year for i7 laptops. I do have to agree with wizard tho that the giant gap of a monitor less mid-range desktop solution is terrible. The iMacs are pretty great, but I've always been leery of an all in one. The gap between 600 and 2500 is insane. The iMac even satrts at 1200, so you more than double that price to get to the next desktop option
Core i7 is in reference to Bloomfield Nehalem parts. You won't see this CPU in anything but an enthusiast computer.
For laptops if few want Nehalem Quad Core we're looking at Clarksfield or bust.
The proce though for the iMac is the Lynnfield. It's perfect for the iMac provided we can get a 65 watt TDP version which sadly isn't going to be available until Q1 2010. The launch Lynnfield systems in September will be 95 watt TDP procs. Too hot for the current iMac.
I'd love a headless Mac as well because we wouldn't have to toy with mobile processors but I don't think that's happening anytime soon.
Some people can fit a Core i7 into a 'laptop' so Apple only managing Core 2 Duo in something as big as an iMac is either due to poor engineering skills or just trying to avoid killing their future growth by giving people too much value for money:
I7 us a bit much for any Apple laptop, but an iMac is a different story. Right now I see that big gulf in Apples line up ( the lack of a midrange desktop ), as the biggest black spot on their corporate image. I don't know if it is arrogance or the lack of engineering skills but it is an obvious problem.
I liked Dave's comment about Apple dragging their ass on quad core. They just dropped the 'airbook' out there...when I'm not sure how needed it was.
Contrast that with the desktop line? Their is a clear need for a 'mid tower' and it's laughable that a consumer quadcore processor like the i7 isn't in an Apple desktop. Especially when the entry i7 is a clear value equation.
There's good Apple stuff going on. But the design cul-de-sac that stops you putting a quad core in your desktop line up when the rest of the industry was there over a year ago. And now? In desktops that are dirt cheap. Where is Apple's quad core. Don't get Dave started on the Mac Pro entry model with it's cheap and affordable 'workstation' price.
I bought an iMac. But I had to buy last years top end model in a sale this year. I can't fault it. Except when it comes to 3D rendering. My friends i7 desktop (not a 'workstation', eh?) buries it. 4 cpus recognised as 8 virtual threads...boom. At least twice as fast as my iMac.
The iMac is no slouch. But it's last years tech' in 2009. And I'll be trading this in as and when Apple go 'Nehalem' or equivalent, hopefully with virtual threads.
It maybe 2009 late or more likely early 2010. Maybe we'll get a new iMac along with Snow Leopard which may trigger a new round of hardware updates.
Interesting that Apple offered new Macbook Pros at cheaper entry prices. I guess lower sales due to the hardware pricing hike and hardware feature misteps like firewire...prove that in this economy...Apple will have to make 'insane' profits with more humility and consideration for customers who don't have 30 billion in the bank.
Lemon Bon Bon.
For the iMacs I'm not sure why they haven't gone to intels small form factor line up. Maybe Apples to focused on being green. In any event the lack of quad core here is pathetic. It is enough for me to reccomend not even buying a iMac. There is just no acceptable explanation for apples dragging it's ass on this issue.
Tssssssssssss. Hot quote. Ouch.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Core i7 is in reference to Bloomfield Nehalem parts. You won't see this CPU in anything but an enthusiast computer.
For laptops if few want Nehalem Quad Core we're looking at Clarksfield or bust.
Yeah I couldn't remember exactly which division of the Intel chips was which. I was just referring to i7 there as the successor of the core2duo.
The empty hole and ridiculous pace of advancement of the desktop line makes it apparent that Apple is likely leaving things as they are to drive more notebook sales. Yes a headless mid-range desktop would cut into some iMac sales most likely, but that is mostly for people who already have good computer monitors at home. iMacs are great as a single unit, plug it in and it runs, kind of solution. Most PC users who would be switching and consider themselves to fall in the "enthusiast" or "power user" category likely would not buy an iMac tho. Mac Pro possibly, MBP certainly, esp the 17".
The people who are looking for a headless mid-range unit are different than the people who want the all in one solution 9 times out of 10. You aren't cannibalizing much in the way of sales, b/c I think a lot of the time the sales just plain don't happen. Or they go w/the far cheaper Mac Mini as something to mess around with and try out. I know I've pondered the Mini several times, esp if I could use a kvm switch and not have to use a separate keyboard and mouse.