Intel Core 2 Quad on MBP and iMac.

124

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 85
    futurepastnowfuturepastnow Posts: 1,772member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


    On the other machines Intel needs to license the DMI bus in my estimation. This would allow for next generation graphics processors.



    Why? That's what PCI Express is for.
  • Reply 62 of 85
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by FuturePastNow View Post


    Why? That's what PCI Express is for.



    Because I believe you could offer much higher performance in a slightly integrated GPU. PCI Express would already be there for many a PCs needs so very little would have to be integrated onto the DMI based integrated GPU. This would keep the costs of the iGPU down while preserving much of the DMI bandwidth for graphics.



    Obviously this is not a solution for all systems but for things like the low end of Apples desktop line up and most of the portables it would be fine. More that fine it should be very economical and at the same time high performance.



    I have to wonder if Intels fight with Nvidia doesn't revolve around using DMI in this way. The difference in performance could be enough to screw up Intels marketing and positioning of it's new processors. In otherwords Intel is being bad again.



    What do you think?



    Dave
  • Reply 63 of 85
    futurepastnowfuturepastnow Posts: 1,772member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


    Because I believe you could offer much higher performance in a slightly integrated GPU. PCI Express would already be there for many a PCs needs so very little would have to be integrated onto the DMI based integrated GPU. This would keep the costs of the iGPU down while preserving much of the DMI bandwidth for graphics.



    Obviously this is not a solution for all systems but for things like the low end of Apples desktop line up and most of the portables it would be fine. More that fine it should be very economical and at the same time high performance.



    I have to wonder if Intels fight with Nvidia doesn't revolve around using DMI in this way. The difference in performance could be enough to screw up Intels marketing and positioning of it's new processors. In otherwords Intel is being bad again.



    What do you think?



    Dave



    I did a little research and it seems clear that Nvidia does intend to release a chipset for Intel's Lynnfield/Clarksfield type processors (the ones people are calling Core i5):



    Quote:

    Petersen was adamant that Nvidia?s cross-licensing agreement with Intel includes a Quick Path Interface licence, enabling the company to develop chipsets for Intel?s latest processors.



    ?We chose to focus our engineering resources on developing DMI chipsets [for mainstream Lynnfield and Havendale processors] at this time,? explained Petersen. He then added that just because Nvidia isn?t releasing a QPI-based chipset initially, it doesn?t mean there won?t be QPI-based chipsets in the future.



    Unlike Bloomfield, both Lynnfield and Havendale use the DMI chipset interconnect instead of the faster QPI; however, with both the memory controller and PCI-Express now on the CPU it?s questionable what Nvidia can bring to the table. Of course, it can enable things like SLI Memory through the BIOS, but then so can any other BIOS developer - what we hope to see is boards that support both SLI Memory and XMP (Intel's version of the technology).



    http://www.bit-tech.net/news/hardwar...-qpi-license/1



    Then again, Intel is suing them over that. Intel has a history of suing other companies for making chipsets for its processors.
  • Reply 64 of 85
    mcarlingmcarling Posts: 1,106member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


    actually it is highly debatable if it is wise to put that GPU on die with everything else. I can make a very good argument that the GPU would be the last thing you would want on die. For one thing demands for increased GPU performance continues to move forward, locking the GPU into a high integration chip means slowing down that growth in performance. Second, it greatly reduces options where the customer needs them the most.



    It's true that development cycles for GPUs are about twice as fast as for CPUs. However, Intel might (I'm not sure they will) update the on-die GPUs twice in each tick or tock cycle. I'm also skeptical that choices and market segmentation would be limited. Intel have demonstrated an ability to offer a very wide range of processors and can be expected to continue to do so.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


    While an on die GPU might make technical sense in some cases today, I do not believe this move on intels part has anything at all to do with technical merits. Instead it is a calculated move to damage nvidia.



    On-die integration of the GPU is driven by both technical reasons and anti-competitive ambitions.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


    In this day and age a dual core CPU is low end!



    I think that's an over-the-top statement. Dual-core CPUs still dominate the desktop market. I can see 45nm Clarksfield processors making serious four-core inroads into the desktop market, but the laptop market will wait for 32nm.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


    I would hope that the choose the better performing option. Frankly if it wasn't for Intel's history with GPUs we might not be having this discussion. The point is we don't want to see a regression in performance simply to save power. Given the right mix of tech we ought to be able to save power and increase performance over todays systems.



    There are many metrics of performance. I would be happy to sacrifice an iota of speed for a windfall in battery life.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


    talk about wasted power. In any event this highlights my point that now is not really a good time to be integrating a GPU onto the CPU die. In many cases it will end up being a waste. This mainly due to the wide ranging performance needs of the end user.



    That's what I think of putting four 45nm cores in a laptop.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post


    Apple has the best battery tech in the laptop biz right now. It's absurd that they would forgo on Quad Core for battery life when they have a distinct advantage.



    Why would Apple sacrifice their battery life advantage by putting four 45nm cores in a laptop?



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post


    No one has answered my question.



    "how does Apple market a Pro laptop using the same chip that's in a $700 home notebook?"



    The overwhelming majority of Apple customers have no idea which CPU they're buying. All they look at is the clock speed, if they compare CPUs at all.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post


    According to Wikipedia Arrandale is est at 18/25/35 Watts TDP. The low end Clarksfield is est at 35 Watt TDP. Other than the potentially slower GPU I don't know where you all think Arrandale is going to make a significant impact. Only the lowest end Arrandale is under 20 watts.



    So, you think it's better to use a low-end Clarksfield rather than a high-end Arrandale?



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


    My point is that Apple needs the option of quad cores on it's laptops and iMacs.



    Why? The masses of consumers don't know what a core is, so they won't be making purchasing decisions based on the number of cores. In most applications, a 3GHz Arrandale will outperform a 1.6GHz Clarksfield, so why do Apple need four 45nm cores in a laptop?



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


    If you want battery life the solution is easy, buy a low end machine.



    I don't want a low-end machine. I reject the notion that discreet GPUs and number of cores are the be-all and end-all of performance.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


    SL really needs more than two cores.



    I very much doubt that. Some applications e.g. large transactional databases benefit a lot from additional cores. Most do not.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


    Will the transition to quad cores be as noticeable as the move to dual was?



    Certainly not. There are far more possibilities to take good advantage of a second core than a third and fourth.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


    If any of the leaks about SL and Apples pro software are true, quads might be seen as mandatory right off the bat.



    Seen by whom? Not by typical consumers.
  • Reply 65 of 85
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mcarling View Post


    It's true that development cycles for GPUs are about twice as fast as for CPUs. However, Intel might (I'm not sure they will) update the on-die GPUs twice in each tick or tock cycle. I'm also skeptical that choices and market segmentation would be limited. Intel have demonstrated an ability to offer a very wide range of processors and can be expected to continue to do so.





    On-die integration of the GPU is driven by both technical reasons and anti-competitive ambitions.



    In this case I'd have to say the primary reason is anti competitive behavior. Mostly because The choice to integrate the GPU first doesn't make a lot of sense from the standpoint of the user or Systems Integrator. Frankly it ought to be close to last to go on the die.

    Quote:



    I think that's an over-the-top statement. Dual-core CPUs still dominate the desktop market. I can see 45nm Clarksfield processors making serious four-core inroads into the desktop market, but the laptop market will wait for 32nm.



    it's not over the top at all. Right now we are in the same mind set as when the dual cores started to come on line. People thought we would never need that, but it didn't take long for the OS and apps to catch up. People quickly realized that dual cores make for a far better experience. SL will have the same impact.

    Quote:





    There are many metrics of performance. I would be happy to sacrifice an iota of speed for a windfall in battery life.



    Again that is what the low end machines are for. I don't have a problem with Apple offering low end hardware, the problem is at the other end.

    Quote:





    That's what I think of putting four 45nm cores in a laptop.



    That is fine for you, not everybody so limits themselves. Besides I thought intel was skipping 45nm to go to 32nm. It is only a waste if you can't leverage the hardware.

    Quote:



    Why would Apple sacrifice their battery life advantage by putting four 45nm cores in a laptop?



    For the simply reason that there is demand for it. Besides Apples battery life advantage is only part of the equation and it doesn't mean we impact the bottom end of the line up at all. Solving one need doesn't mean that you give up servicing others.

    Quote:





    The overwhelming majority of Apple customers have no idea which CPU they're buying. All they look at is the clock speed, if they compare CPUs at all.



    I don't buy that at all. Especially considering Apples professional clients. The GPU & CPU can have a huge impact on their ability to compete.

    Quote:



    So, you think it's better to use a low-end Clarksfield rather than a high-end Arrandale?



    Are you sure you got that right?

    Quote:



    Why? The masses of consumers don't know what a core is, so they won't be making purchasing decisions based on the number of cores. In most applications, a 3GHz Arrandale will outperform a 1.6GHz Clarksfield, so why do Apple need four 45nm cores in a laptop?



    Let's just say you are making a generalization based on old solutions. In any event to put it simply more cores allows your system to better service threads and processes. In part the answer reflect what one thinks about SL and how successful Apple will be with the exploitation of parallel hardware.

    Quote:





    I don't want a low-end machine. I reject the notion that discreet GPUs and number of cores are the be-all and end-all of performance.



    That isn't what you said above. You said you would give up performance for battery life. In any event when it comes to laptops which do you think will give you a longer battery lifetime, two fast cores or four running at half the clock rate or so? This given that the systems are balanced for maxiumum power.

    Quote:





    I very much doubt that. Some applications e.g. large transactional databases benefit a lot from additional cores. Most do not.



    Again I think you are either living in the past or are uninformed. There are many apps that already leverage more than two cores. This without the advantage of SL and the new tech there.

    Quote:



    Certainly not. There are far more possibilities to take good advantage of a second core than a third and fourth.



    That is simply garbage. All a user needs to do is to have two active processes running and he is likely to have multiple threads going for each process. This without even trying.



    You can't just look at a single app and say quad cores aren't worth it because the app isn't highly threaded. A modern PC has a lot more going on at any one time than a single simple process.

    Quote:



    Seen by whom? Not by typical consumers.



    You don't get it, there is no such thing as a typical consumer.



    Dave
  • Reply 66 of 85
    maratusmaratus Posts: 38member
    wizard69

    Let's think real. Apple probably won't use hot and expensive 45nm quads in notebooks because their low clocks and negative impact on battery life make them hard to advertise as a breakthrough. Not because of uselessness.



    However, Arrandale's iGP isn't something to rave about. I doubt it'll support OpenCL (it probably won't) and it's HD decoding capabilities remain to be seen as well. Overall, I'm not impressed with perspective of not having a fully functional (Open CL, HD, light 3D) GPU with relatively low power consumption (that's what 9400M exactly is)
  • Reply 67 of 85
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by maratus View Post


    wizard69

    Let's think real. Apple probably won't use hot and expensive 45nm quads in notebooks because their low clocks and negative impact on battery life make them hard to advertise as a breakthrough. Not because of uselessness.



    Well extremely hot no. I'm not even going to assume that they will implement 45nm parts as they may simply wait for Intel to deliver 32nm parts.



    In any event this association with short battery life and quad cores just isn't a given. The fact is they can and most likely will be ran at a slower clock rate. This can result in better performance at a lower power point. It was one of the arguments for going to dual core in laptops so early in the game, dual core simply delivered better performance for the watt expended.

    Quote:



    However, Arrandale's iGP isn't something to rave about. I doubt it'll support OpenCL (it probably won't) and it's HD decoding capabilities remain to be seen as well.



    I don't know the specifics of Arrandales iGP but its Intel and their track record sucks. If it doesn't support OpenCL then I would think the whole chip would be dead upon arrival at Apple.

    Quote:

    Overall, I'm not impressed with perspective of not having a fully functional (Open CL, HD, light 3D) GPU with relatively low power consumption (that's what 9400M exactly is)



    Exactly! Why give up on the progress that Apple has made in partnership with Nvidia? The last thing Apple needs to do is to regress just because Intel has a processor some adore.





    Dave
  • Reply 68 of 85
    mcarlingmcarling Posts: 1,106member
    We'll probably know by the end of the year who is right. Some, including myself, expect the first quad-core Apple laptop will wait for availability of 32nm processors. Some others expect Apple to use 45nm quad-core processors in laptops. Time will tell.



    I do expect to see 45nm quad-core CPUs in the iMac, but not in the Mac Mini.
  • Reply 69 of 85
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,354member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by maratus View Post


    wizard69

    Let's think real. Apple probably won't use hot and expensive 45nm quads in notebooks because their low clocks and negative impact on battery life make them hard to advertise as a breakthrough. Not because of uselessness.



    However, Arrandale's iGP isn't something to rave about. I doubt it'll support OpenCL (it probably won't) and it's HD decoding capabilities remain to be seen as well. Overall, I'm not impressed with perspective of not having a fully functional (Open CL, HD, light 3D) GPU with relatively low power consumption (that's what 9400M exactly is)



    .

    Apple's current 3.06 Ghz C2D option utilizes a 35 watt TDP proc (T9900) the entry level Clarksfield 1.66Ghz is estimated to have this same 35 watt TDP. So how does a 1.66Ghz Clarksfied use more battery power than a 35 watt C2D? I think logical progression would have Apple utilizing hardware that supports their latest OS. Offering Snow Leopard with Grand Central Dispatch and OpenCL and then standardizing your notebooks (which are Apple's best seller numerically) on Dual Core would be absurd.



    We cannot talk about expense because we don't know what Arrandale costs and we've only got estimates for Clarksfield. You know that Clarksfield will likely have Turbo Boost mode and I believe you're just being disengenous here.



    My thoughts are Apple will use Clarksfield on the high end and Arrandale (early 2010) on the lower end Macbook Pro models. They will definitely use Clarksfield at some level and people doing audio or video production who need laptops for the portability will buy these because many are hooked to AC %75 of the time. Battery life is important to most but where it ranks on the scale depends on if you're talking about a road warrior or someone that occasionally need to travel.
  • Reply 70 of 85
    mjteixmjteix Posts: 563member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post


    .

    Apple's current 3.06 Ghz C2D option utilizes a 35 watt TDP proc (T9900) the entry level Clarksfield 1.66Ghz is estimated to have this same 35 watt TDP. So how does a 1.66Ghz Clarksfied use more battery power than a 35 watt C2D? I think logical progression would have Apple utilizing hardware that supports their latest OS. Offering Snow Leopard with Grand Central Dispatch and OpenCL and then standardizing your notebooks (which are Apple's best seller numerically) on Dual Core would be absurd.



    We cannot talk about expense because we don't know what Arrandale costs and we've only got estimates for Clarksfield. You know that Clarksfield will likely have Turbo Boost mode and I believe you're just being disengenous here.



    My thoughts are Apple will use Clarksfield on the high end and Arrandale (early 2010) on the lower end Macbook Pro models. They will definitely use Clarksfield at some level and people doing audio or video production who need laptops for the portability will buy these because many are hooked to AC %75 of the time. Battery life is important to most but where it ranks on the scale depends on if you're talking about a road warrior or someone that occasionally need to travel.



    The problem with Clarksfield, at least the upcoming version, is that:



    1- it is very expensive: $350 1.66GHz, $560 1.73GHz, $1,050 2.00GHz, for similar prices, you can get a P9700 (2.80GHz, 25W, $348) and a T9900 (3.06GHz, 35W, $530). Offering the quad 2.00GHz will be a +$500 option over the most expensive MBPs today.



    Just in terms of prices, Clarksfield cannot be used on all models of the current MB(P)s:

    $1199/1499 13" MBP ($209 cpus) -? no Clarksfield to fill this need

    $1699/1999 15" MBP ($209-241 cpus) -? no Clarksfield to fill this need

    $2299 15"/$2499 17" MBP C2D 2.80 ($316 cpu) could be replace with the quad 1.66GHz

    $2599 15"/$2799 17" MBP C2D 3.06 ($530 cpu) could be replace with the quad 1.73GHz

    If Apple uses the quad 2.00 model, prices will be at least $3099 and $3299 (and probably $3299/3499).



    2- While SL is supposed to take advantage of multiple cores, gpu, etc., those are not a requirement, SL doesn't need quad-core cpus or multiple gpus to run.



    3- Arrandale will have 2 cores + Hyperthreading, that means 4 threads at once, it's better than the C2D we have today. Clocks and prices are supposed to be similar to those of the current C2D. Of course, Arrandale IGP won't be better than the 9400M, but that's where the 16x PCI Express lanes are useful. Since the 13" is now a MBP, I can see Apple using the newly announced 200M series of nvidia GPUs on all MBPs early next year (210M on the 13/15", 230M on the 15/17", 250M as a BTO option)



    Depending on the outcome of the Intel/nvidia feud on chipsets, it is possible that nvidia could come up with a version of the 9400M (or whatever) that connects thru DMI, but has a 9400M iGP (or whatever) on the chipset.



    While it would be great to have some quad-core notebooks, I don't think Apple will cut the prices again (like they have done recently) to be able to offer a full-line of quad-core notebooks. And if they offer them only on the 15"/17" models, the move of the 13" to MBP status would have been useless.



    Quote:

    According to Wikipedia Arrandale is est at 18/25/35 Watts TDP...



    Of course, they are: Arrandale will replace the current SL, P, and T series of the penryn C2D:

    - 18W Arrandale could be used for the MBA

    - 25W Arrandale could be used for the Mac mini, 13/15" MBP

    - 35W Arrandale could be used for the 15/17" MBP

    And later Arrandale will replace the other series (SU, U, etc.)



    I am not that worry about the notebooks regarding the quad-core adoption, they can wait for the 32nm versions or later to move to quad-core, I wonder more about the fate of the iMac, because Apple didn't move to quad-core yet. Lynnfield will be 95W, Clarksfield is too expensive for the iMac, that still uses inexpensive custom-hybrid 55W cpus, 65W Lynnfield will be released early 2010, but yet is 65W too high a TDP for Apple's liking?



    All we know is that they didn't use the 65W desktop quads that have been available for +6 months along with nvidia 9300/9400 desktop chipsets. It is possible that Apple would use custom cpus again for the next version of the iMac (propably 2.00/2.13/2.26/2.40GHz models, with a TDP lower than 55W) this fall.



    Now, don't get me wrong, I'd love for Apple to offer nehalem quads on most Macs, but I think it is unlikely for the next updates (especially the MBP) for reason of prices and/or TDP of Intel cpus.
  • Reply 71 of 85
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,354member
    I don't think Apple has the luxury of waiting.



    People running Final Cut Pro on MBP 17 or Logic Studio on MBP 15 aren't as price sensitive as the parents sending little Freshman Johnny to college.



    Arrandale is fine for low end uses but for clients that bill by the hour a dual core laptop is a buzzkill. Every PC vendor will have quad core laptops available.



    The people stating "Apple doesn't need Quad Core" aren't the people doing video encodes that take hours or running plugins across 50 tracks.



    When you run your business off your computers processing power, spending hundreds of dollars more for an increase in productivity is a value add. Apple may not utilize quad core but with the lack of Blu-ray options and the silence with udates to their Pro apps I'm already seeing Pros preparing to move. It's their business..their not going to sit and wait for Apple.
  • Reply 72 of 85
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mjteix View Post


    The problem with Clarksfield, at least the upcoming version, is that:



    1- it is very expensive: $350 1.66GHz, $560 1.73GHz, $1,050 2.00GHz, for similar prices, you can get a P9700 (2.80GHz, 25W, $348) and a T9900 (3.06GHz, 35W, $530). Offering the quad 2.00GHz will be a +$500 option over the most expensive MBPs today.



    For Pro usage a high price is not always a killer. Even then Apple seldom implements top end hardware on thier base systems. So the top end could simply be a build to order option.

    Quote:



    Just in terms of prices, Clarksfield cannot be used on all models of the current MB(P)s:

    $1199/1499 13" MBP ($209 cpus) -? no Clarksfield to fill this need

    $1699/1999 15" MBP ($209-241 cpus) -? no Clarksfield to fill this need

    $2299 15"/$2499 17" MBP C2D 2.80 ($316 cpu) could be replace with the quad 1.66GHz

    $2599 15"/$2799 17" MBP C2D 3.06 ($530 cpu) could be replace with the quad 1.73GHz

    If Apple uses the quad 2.00 model, prices will be at least $3099 and $3299 (and probably $3299/3499).



    You are making an assumption here that the prices are final at Intel and that Apple will pay these sorts of prices. Obviously Apple gets a significant discount and even has enough pull for custom versions.



    On top of all this we need to remember that the coming chips through a monkey wrench into the power disapation issue. Remember that at least part of the power that the new chips expell is what would have been seen in other chips in previous generations. So even though a Clarksfield or what ever, might have high power relative to old platforms it does not mean that total system power is higher. It is not inconcievable to see a solid drop in overall power draw.

    Quote:



    2- While SL is supposed to take advantage of multiple cores, gpu, etc., those are not a requirement, SL doesn't need quad-core cpus or multiple gpus to run.



    That is a poor arguement as we can easily say Leopard doesn't need a dual core chip. The problem is the community has pretty much come to the conclusion that dual core is a requirement. SL doesn't need quad cores either, in one sense but I think the market will come to the same conclusion in that SL can really rock on four cores.

    Quote:



    3- Arrandale will have 2 cores + Hyperthreading, that means 4 threads at once, it's better than the C2D we have today. Clocks and prices are supposed to be similar to those of the current C2D. Of course, Arrandale IGP won't be better than the 9400M, but that's where the 16x PCI Express lanes are useful.



    The usefullness of hyperthreading varies widely with the software on older implementations. Plus we don't really know how successful Intel has been with this new version of Hyperthreading. So while I don't doubt it helps in the majority of cases it is not the same thing as adding more cores. As to Arrandales if the iGP isn't usefull for video or OpenCL then the extra logic is just a waste.

    Quote:

    Since the 13" is now a MBP, I can see Apple using the newly announced 200M series of nvidia GPUs on all MBPs early next year (210M on the 13/15", 230M on the 15/17", 250M as a BTO option)



    well hopefully we will see something like that. The problem is the smart place to connect the chips is over DMI. Hopefully Nvidia and Intel can resold their issues here.

    Quote:

    Depending on the outcome of the Intel/nvidia feud on chipsets, it is possible that nvidia could come up with a version of the 9400M (or whatever) that connects thru DMI, but has a 9400M iGP (or whatever) on the chipset.



    I can't believe that Apple isn't actively involved in trying to resolve this dispute. The ability to use DMI for graphics is key to building low cost high performance machines.

    Quote:



    While it would be great to have some quad-core notebooks, I don't think Apple will cut the prices again (like they have done recently) to be able to offer a full-line of quad-core notebooks. And if they offer them only on the 15"/17" models, the move of the 13" to MBP status would have been useless.



    Honestly I don't understand your reasoning. There is no need for Apple give up on dual core for the low end. It is more important that we have the option to fit the processor to our usage.

    Quote:







    Of course, they are: Arrandale will replace the current SL, P, and T series of the penryn C2D:

    - 18W Arrandale could be used for the MBA

    - 25W Arrandale could be used for the Mac mini, 13/15" MBP

    - 35W Arrandale could be used for the 15/17" MBP

    And later Arrandale will replace the other series (SU, U, etc.)



    I am not that worry about the notebooks regarding the quad-core adoption, they can wait for the 32nm versions or later to move to quad-core, I wonder more about the fate of the iMac, because Apple didn't move to quad-core yet.



    If Apple doesn't have a quad core iMac by the time SL hits people will be up in arms.

    Quote:

    Lynnfield will be 95W, Clarksfield is too expensive for the iMac, that still uses inexpensive custom-hybrid 55W cpus, 65W Lynnfield will be released early 2010, but yet is 65W too high a TDP for Apple's liking?



    All we know is that they didn't use the 65W desktop quads that have been available for +6 months along with nvidia 9300/9400 desktop chipsets. It is possible that Apple would use custom cpus again for the next version of the iMac (propably 2.00/2.13/2.26/2.40GHz models, with a TDP lower than 55W) this fall.



    Now, don't get me wrong, I'd love for Apple to offer nehalem quads on most Macs, but I think it is unlikely for the next updates (especially the MBP) for reason of prices and/or TDP of Intel cpus.



    Well atleast one model Mac! On iMac though i suspect that they will stay with mobile chipsets. Not that I want to see that mind you, just that it helps Apple look green.





    Dave
  • Reply 73 of 85
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 14,834moderator
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post


    Arrandale is fine for low end uses but for clients that bill by the hour a dual core laptop is a buzzkill. Every PC vendor will have quad core laptops available.



    The people stating "Apple doesn't need Quad Core" aren't the people doing video encodes that take hours or running plugins across 50 tracks.



    Sure but will a more expensive quad 1.6GHz be much better value than a dual 2.8GHz? On the desktop end we have a quad 2.66 vs 2.8 and it's much more clean cut.



    If you do time sensitive long encoding, why would you even buy a laptop? Plus, you don't really charge clients for encoding time as it's not down-time - you can leave it overnight. If you did charge for it, a quad 1.6GHz vs dual 2.8GHz saves you about 15% of your encoding time assuming the software works at its best.



    I believe that PC manufacturers will have quad laptops but not all of them. They will have Celerons too. The people who buy quad core laptops will probably be the typical Alienware buyers who think they need a laptop with the highest spec and then use it to post benchmark scores online.



    Gamers probably won't buy it because low-clock quads will perform worse than high-clock dual cores.



    To be honest, I'm not sure why anyone would buy a laptop with Clarksfield.



    The best application I actually see would be in the Mini for running as a server. An 8-thread CPU in something the size of a Mini with 4GB Ram would make a very nice little dedicated server and a quad 1.6GHz would be a marked improvement over the dual 2GHz.
  • Reply 74 of 85
    mjteixmjteix Posts: 563member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hmurchison


    I don't think Apple has the luxury of waiting.



    People running Final Cut Pro on MBP 17 or Logic Studio on MBP 15 aren't as price sensitive as the parents sending little Freshman Johnny to college.



    Arrandale is fine for low end uses but for clients that bill by the hour a dual core laptop is a buzzkill. Every PC vendor will have quad core laptops available.



    The people stating "Apple doesn't need Quad Core" aren't the people doing video encodes that take hours or running plugins across 50 tracks.



    When you run your business off your computers processing power, spending hundreds of dollars more for an increase in productivity is a value add. Apple may not utilize quad core but with the lack of Blu-ray options and the silence with udates to their Pro apps I'm already seeing Pros preparing to move. It's their business..their not going to sit and wait for Apple.



    "People running Final Cut Pro on MBP 17 or Logic Studio on MBP 15" are using dual-core cpu right now, until those apps and others like Pro Tools, AVID, etc. are rewritten to make "better" use of multiple cores/gpus, most users will probably choose faster cpus vs more cores with that kind of gap between the respective clocks, for similar prices.



    I'm not a FCP user, but I've been using Pro Tools for 10 years, and I can tell you that faster (clock) is still better than slower (more) cores - Quad 2.93 vs Dual-quad 2.26 Mac Pro, 6GB RAM, Leopard, latest (8.0.x) versions of PT LE/HD. A hundred tracks and about 3 plug-ins per track.



    And if you didn't know, almost every PC vendor already offers quad-core notebooks, that doesn't mean they are successful (as models).



    Again, I'm not the one saying "Apple doesn't need Quad Core", I just think that Clarksfield is not the answer (for Apple) for the MBP or the iMac. I've been "asking" for a quad-core iMac (or a small headless desktop) since the 65W quads from Intel's S series have been planned (almost 2 years ago)!!! And you know that.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


    You are making an assumption here that the prices are final at Intel and that Apple will pay these sorts of prices. Obviously Apple gets a significant discount and even has enough pull for custom versions.



    No I am not. I never said that Apple was paying those prices. Apple is currently using cpus on the MBP that retail for $209-$530, Clarksfield cpus will retail for $350-$1,050, there's a huge difference.



    in the $350-550 retail segment, you can choose:

    - either a 1.66 quad at +35W or a 2.80 dual-core at 25W

    - either a 1.73 quad at x5W or a 3.06 dual-core at 35W



    The 2.00 quad at x5W has no equivalent in price/tdp...



    I have no problem with Apple offering quads as an option on any Mac, I just don't want to prices to go up just because they are using quads instead of dual-cores.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


    It is not inconcievable to see a solid drop in overall power draw.



    That is a poor arguement as we can easily say Leopard doesn't need a dual core chip. The problem is the community has pretty much come to the conclusion that dual core is a requirement. SL doesn't need quad cores either, in one sense but I think the market will come to the same conclusion in that SL can really rock on four cores.



    Now, you're the one making assumptions. Who is the market?



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


    The usefullness of hyperthreading varies widely with the software on older implementations. Plus we don't really know how successful Intel has been with this new version of Hyperthreading. So while I don't doubt it helps in the majority of cases it is not the same thing as adding more cores.



    This "new version of Hyperthreading" was launched with Core i7 cpus, 9 months ago, the Xeons on the Mac Pro/XServe have it, if it was useless we'd know it by now.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


    Honestly I don't understand your reasoning. There is no need for Apple give up on dual core for the low end. It is more important that we have the option to fit the processor to our usage.



    What I've been saying is that Clarksfield is too expensive, I have no problem with it as an option but the increase of power (if any) is yet unknown if you compare cpus at the same price: DC 2.80 vs QC 1.66, DC 3.06 vs QC 1.73 (with or without SL).



    And if Apple was to release some models with quads this fall, they would need a brand new motherboard (55 series chipset or a new chipset from nvidia), that would increase cost of producing both dual-core and quad-core models. All I'm telling you is that, if Apple was to release a quad-core 15" MBP it will cost you at least $2299 (1.66GHz), $2599 (1.73GHz) or $3x99 (2.00GHz) - add $200 for the 17" version.



    IMO, they can probably update the MBPs to Arrandale early next year with similar clock speeds + HT, and offer some quad models mid-2010 when quads will be made on a 32nm process (speedbump and lower power requierements) and both use the same chipset (Intel or nvidia).



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


    If Apple doesn't have a quad core iMac by the time SL hits people will be up in arms.



    Only in some forums and in your dreams

    Most people don't care what's inside, they just want the latest.

    Most of the customers don't even know that Intel will release Clarksfield cpus this fall.



    Like I said, I wonder what Apple will use on the next iMacs, but it won't be 95W Lynnfield cpus, nor $350-$1,050 Clarkfield cpus. 65W Lynnfield cpus will be available early 2010, only.



    *** Good post Marvin
  • Reply 75 of 85
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,354member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


    Sure but will a more expensive quad 1.6GHz be much better value than a dual 2.8GHz? On the desktop end we have a quad 2.66 vs 2.8 and it's much more clean cut.



    If you do time sensitive long encoding, why would you even buy a laptop? Plus, you don't really charge clients for encoding time as it's not down-time - you can leave it overnight. If you did charge for it, a quad 1.6GHz vs dual 2.8GHz saves you about 15% of your encoding time assuming the software works at its best.



    I believe that PC manufacturers will have quad laptops but not all of them. They will have Celerons too. The people who buy quad core laptops will probably be the typical Alienware buyers who think they need a laptop with the highest spec and then use it to post benchmark scores online.



    Gamers probably won't buy it because low-clock quads will perform worse than high-clock dual cores.



    To be honest, I'm not sure why anyone would buy a laptop with Clarksfield.



    The best application I actually see would be in the Mini for running as a server. An 8-thread CPU in something the size of a Mini with 4GB Ram would make a very nice little dedicated server and a quad 1.6GHz would be a marked improvement over the dual 2GHz.



    Yes I believe so because of the potential flexiblity of Turbo Boost. If I need the system to stay cool and handle a lot of i/o from applications then it hums along balancing these across the 4 cores. If I need a lot of processing power for one or two apps then Turbo Boost will shut off some cores and boost the clock of the active cores. This gives me the best of both worlds. High megahertz for single threaded apps and lower megahertz but more breadth for multi threaded apps or heavier multitasking.



    I know a lot of musicians and video pros that need to have a computer at the location so the Macbook Pro is the choice here. They may have a Mac Pro as well but they still need decent power on the road.



    Quad vs Octo core



    http://www.barefeats.com/octopro1.html



    I await the tests comparing Dual core vs Quad core when the Dual has a higher megahertz. I think the slower Quads are going to do nicely on Snow Leopard. In the end there's no substitute for having more pipeline stages cranking out more IPC (instructions per clock).
  • Reply 76 of 85
    maratusmaratus Posts: 38member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


    Exactly! Why give up on the progress that Apple has made in partnership with Nvidia? The last thing Apple needs to do is to regress just because Intel has a processor some adore.



    Dave



    Well, looks like nVidia lowered idle (2D) power consumption within it's 200M series. So, GT240 (GTS250) while being middle-end solution may be as cool (temperature wise) as entry-level 9400M when not doing lots of computation (3D, OpenCL action etc.)



    That's why battery life difference between GT 240M (GTS 250M) and G210M in 2D mode may be less than what we have now with 9600M GT and 9400M combination.



    Reduced necessity in G210M to complement it's stronger brother will justify going to Arrandale iGP + performance GPU only combination in higher-end notebooks.



    Lower end machines (13" and 1700$ 15"), however, should have G210M instead of GT240 because Arrandale's iGP is only good for power saving.
  • Reply 77 of 85
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,354member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by maratus View Post


    Lower end machines (13" and 1700$ 15"), however, should have G210M instead of GT240 because Arrandale's iGP is only good for power saving.



    Definitely plausible though I wonder if it's a bit "Hacky" from a drivers standpoint.
  • Reply 78 of 85
    maratusmaratus Posts: 38member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post


    Definitely plausible though I wonder if it's a bit "Hacky" from a drivers standpoint.



    What do you mean?



    Both 210M in 13" and 240M in 15/17" will be discrete GPUs with GDDR3 connected via PCIe x16.
  • Reply 79 of 85
    mcarlingmcarling Posts: 1,106member
    What some people here seem to overlook is that a 32nm Nehalem processor with any number of cores will necessarily and dramatically outperform a 45nm Nehalem processor with any number of cores if the clock rates are set such that the TDP is the same.
  • Reply 80 of 85
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,354member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mcarling View Post


    What some people here seem to overlook is that a 32nm Nehalem processor with any number of cores will necessarily and dramatically outperform a 45nm Nehalem processor with any number of cores if the clock rates are set such that the TDP is the same.



    So are you saying that a Microprocessor from the same family running at the same frequency will yield a performance increase strictly from a processes shrink?



    I've never a benchmark that supports this.
Sign In or Register to comment.