There's only one 3 GHz+ 45nm mobile processor and I reckon that will go in the iMac.
If Apple supported desktop processors, this would be easy and a lot cheaper. You can even get a quad 3 GHz desktop processor for $530 vs $851 for the dual 3.06 GHz mobile.
The equivalent dual core desktop to the mobile one, the E8500 3.16 GHz is just $183.
The mobile chips QX9300 and Q9100 are quad core. If Apple's strategy this time is price, they might not use any of these. The 17" MBP could have had one but I'm not sure they will keep the 17" going. I personally hope they don't as I've never considered a 17" laptop to be very useful.
I do think they will go with the 1066 MHz fsb models, which means:
T9600 2.80 GHz $530
P9500 2.53 GHz $348
T9400 2.53 GHz $316
P8600 2.40 GHz $241
P8400 2.26 GHz $209
SP9400 2.40 GHz $316
SP9300 2.26 GHz $284
The current MBP tops out at 2.5 GHz using the T9300. The 2.8 GHz is 35 W so again more likely for the iMac. I would say the P9500 at most for the laptops. I'm not sure what the old processor lineup prices were but these look a good deal cheaper so this could have a significant effect on the pricing.
Current low end is 2.1 GHz and the lowest in that list is 2.26 GHz.
I don't think Apple should differentiate between pro and non-pro any more and instead just have 3 models:
All with 2 GB Ram standard, all with 7200 rpm and SSD options, all backlit keyboards, all DVD burners, all LED backlit, all with Nvidia chips but the highest one gets the 9600 GT.
We should also remember that Apple has gotten unlisted processors from Intel in the past. If they do, the most likely candidates would be 2.13GHz and 2.66GHz, both of which are possible with 8x and 10x multipliers, respectively.
Comments
http://www.intc.com/priceList.cfm
There's only one 3 GHz+ 45nm mobile processor and I reckon that will go in the iMac.
If Apple supported desktop processors, this would be easy and a lot cheaper. You can even get a quad 3 GHz desktop processor for $530 vs $851 for the dual 3.06 GHz mobile.
The equivalent dual core desktop to the mobile one, the E8500 3.16 GHz is just $183.
The mobile chips QX9300 and Q9100 are quad core. If Apple's strategy this time is price, they might not use any of these. The 17" MBP could have had one but I'm not sure they will keep the 17" going. I personally hope they don't as I've never considered a 17" laptop to be very useful.
I do think they will go with the 1066 MHz fsb models, which means:
T9600 2.80 GHz $530
P9500 2.53 GHz $348
T9400 2.53 GHz $316
P8600 2.40 GHz $241
P8400 2.26 GHz $209
SP9400 2.40 GHz $316
SP9300 2.26 GHz $284
The current MBP tops out at 2.5 GHz using the T9300. The 2.8 GHz is 35 W so again more likely for the iMac. I would say the P9500 at most for the laptops. I'm not sure what the old processor lineup prices were but these look a good deal cheaper so this could have a significant effect on the pricing.
Current low end is 2.1 GHz and the lowest in that list is 2.26 GHz.
I don't think Apple should differentiate between pro and non-pro any more and instead just have 3 models:
13" model, P8400 - 2.26 GHz - integrated Nvidia - $899
15" model, P8600 - 2.40 GHz - integrated Nvidia - $1299
15" model, P9500 - 2.53 GHz - dedicated Nvidia - $1899
All with 2 GB Ram standard, all with 7200 rpm and SSD options, all backlit keyboards, all DVD burners, all LED backlit, all with Nvidia chips but the highest one gets the 9600 GT.
T9600 2.80 GHz $530
P9500 2.53 GHz $348
T9400 2.53 GHz $316
P8600 2.40 GHz $241
P8400 2.26 GHz $209
SP9400 2.40 GHz $316
SP9300 2.26 GHz $284
We should also remember that Apple has gotten unlisted processors from Intel in the past. If they do, the most likely candidates would be 2.13GHz and 2.66GHz, both of which are possible with 8x and 10x multipliers, respectively.