Having expensive chips customized for tighter specs (35-45W vs 55W) will be even more expensive.
The current C2D used in the MBP tops at $530 (list price), the "regular" quads start at $350 (2.0) them jump to $850/1,050 (2.26/2.53GHz).
Customizing those or the Clarksfield that will replace them, will probably increase the price even more, unless they REMOVE some specs from the cpus (which is easier given the nehalem modular architecture): less cache, HT disabled,... but will this be enough to reduce the TDP to a level appropriate for the MBP? Not so sure.
The current crop of MBPs are way overpriced. No doubt they've left room to cut prices with the revisions. I suspect Apple builds a lot of the cost of R&D of a product into the first editions then reduces it over the life of the product.
I won't buy a MBP til the next revisions with hopefully reduced pricing. The 15" needs to get the same battery technology as the 17" (Apple always debuts new technology in their most premium products). Also, I think it's time that the 15" move to 1680x1050 resolution now that the 17" has gone permanently up to HD. 1440x960 makes it really hard to work with professional apps that need a lot of space. It is supposed to be a Pro model after all. In fact, if I had my way I'd like a 16" MBP with 1680x1050 res.
The current crop of MBPs are way overpriced. No doubt they've left room to cut prices with the revisions. I suspect Apple builds a lot of the cost of R&D of a product into the first editions then reduces it over the life of the product.
I won't buy a MBP til the next revisions with hopefully reduced pricing. The 15" needs to get the same battery technology as the 17" (Apple always debuts new technology in their most premium products). Also, I think it's time that the 15" move to 1680x1050 resolution now that the 17" has gone permanently up to HD. 1440x960 makes it really hard to work with professional apps that need a lot of space. It is supposed to be a Pro model after all. In fact, if I had my way I'd like a 16" MBP with 1680x1050 res.
It's 1440x900.
And hell yes, give me 1680x1050 in the 15". It would help justify the price gap between the 13" and the 15" models.
Sorry for the double post, but I was thinking that in the next MBP revision, which should be around/shortly after SL, Apple might bump the graphics card to be on par with/slightly better than the iMac. If they do this, it'd probably be the Nvidia GeForce GT 130M or GTS 150M, both of which are superior cards to the 9600M GT, though the former only slightly. I think the biggest advantage these cards would give is the ability to offer up to 1 GB GDD3 VRAM. It would probably work out so that the low-end 15" would be stuck with 512 MB VRAM, and the High end 15" and 17" models would be fitted with the full 1 gig.
The standard processor speeds might be bumped, though they also might not. In any case, if the lower-end 15" MBP came standard with 2.66 Ghz C2D, 4 GB RAM, GeForce GTS 150M w/ 512 MB GDDR3 VRAM, and a 1680x1050 display would really make it a more desirable machine for the money.
1 question though, about the GT 130M and GTS 150M, how much would those increase power consumption and heat output?
1 question though, about the GT 130M and GTS 150M, how much would those increase power consumption and heat output?
GT 130M consumes 23W (same as 9600M GT) while GTS 150M runs hotter (almost 60W) being approximately 50% faster. Looks like GT 130M still delivers significantly better performance / power ratio.
Built-in battery in new MBP 15" is more interesting guess. According to my calculations, 15" may get up to 85Wh battery (70% more capacity compared to today's 50Wh)
since they performs on par with T-series but consume 10W less.
2. 1680x1050 15" with anti-glare option (or at least 1440x900 anti-glare)
3. 85Wh built-in battery (needs completely new enclosure)
4. 3 USB ports (why not?)
5. IGP (9400M is more than enough) for maximum battery life
6. GT 130M (not 150/160M)
So we may see some real improvements in battery life/power savings.
I think that enclosure with built-in battery is easier to manufacture and large capacity/1000 cycles battery are worth for many users to switch from current unibody MBPs. Even without anti-glare option...
Apple can do whatever they want. My only problem with Clarksfield is that it will be expensive (just like the current mobile quads at $350-850-1,050). In the iMac that could lead to a $500 price increase in the mid/high-end models vs the current custom C2D. Given what Apple has done with the new Mac Pro, it wouldn't surprise me if they release a couple of 24" iMac "Pro" in the fall at $2199/2499.
Moving to 65W desktop quads (s series at $245-320-369) would have been a more customer-friendly solution. nvidia has a single chip desktop chipset that supports those cpus (9300/9400). And Intel has planned to release 65W Lynnfield cpus early 2010.
While I'm at it, LV Xeons (50-60W) would be (IMO) a nicer solution for the high-end iMac than current/clarksfield mobile quads.
Also I think that the iMac lacks matching displays and some kind of expansion slot (ExpressCard, AMD's XGH,...).
I don't think we will see a quad-core notebook from Apple before the end of 2010.
THere is absolutly no difference between the current architecture (CPU+NB+SB) and the mobile nehalem one (CPU+ IOH) in terms of the number of lanes/ports available. The new CPU is equivalent to the old cpu+NB and the IOH is equivalent to the SB. The NB used to be linked to the SB by a DMI bus, the new CPU is linked to the new IOH by a DMI bus. The IOH will have all the ports and PCIe lanes that you used to get on a SB.
What the frack???!!!!
Can you please explain to me that flexible display interface reference in the chart????
I am pretty sad by the fact that Next Gen Intel wont have SATA 3.0. Which is an important update for SSD.
If Apple were to include SSD in their Mac Product Lineup then it would properly use either next next Intel or a New Nvidia Chipset ( If they sort out their license ).
Which should feature 3G IO ( PCI - Express 3.0 , USB 3.0, SATA 3.0, Bluetooth 3.0 )
I am pretty sad by the fact that Next Gen Intel wont have SATA 3.0. Which is an important update for SSD.
If Apple were to include SSD in their Mac Product Lineup then it would properly use either next next Intel or a New Nvidia Chipset ( If they sort out their license ).
Which should feature 3G IO ( PCI - Express 3.0 , USB 3.0, SATA 3.0, Bluetooth 3.0 )
Quite a few companies are bypassing the SATA interface entirely and connecting these SSD drives directly to the PCI Express bus. On an iMac or portable, this can be done using the PCI Express mini standard.
So? You have an on-die memory controller freeing up the FSB for all the rest of the I/O. In a laptop you only have need for one really high performance slot, the graphics card. The rest, USB, firewire, SATA, audio, the FSB bus is overkill.
Currently the FSB needs to handle the connection to the Northbridge (PCI Express, memory, and Southbridge (things like USB, SATA, FW, Ethernet, etc.) and other connections). These new processors have a memory controller and 16 lanes of PCI express, freeing up a lot of the bandwidth os the FSB(DMI) bus that Core 2 has to deal with to the CPU. I suspect FSb will be more than enough to handle the IO for a mobile/SFF Nehalem system.
Been having a look at MacRumors' Macbook Pro revision history and my guess is that the next Macbook Pro revision will come on the first day of the Back To School sale.
The Rev C MBP was released on October 24th 2006, the Rev D was released on June 5th 2007 - the first day of the Back To School sale and one week before WWDC. I'm fairly confident (i.e. hopefull ) that history will repeat itself here.
I'm thinking that maratus is on the right lines with his predicted spec. I think the P9600 will be put in the base model and I'm thinking 4GB will come as standard in light of the recent Laptop Hunters ad, and I'm hoping the GT130M will be standard as well. As far the battery, who knows, it makes sense for Apple to put the non-removable battery in the 15" Macbook Pro since it'll really make it an excellent machine for the road, but for some reason something in me says it might not happen.
Anyway, that's just my thoughts. One thing is for sure, we're definitely due an update soon.
Next chip will be the mobile Lynnfield variant of Nehalem, Clarksfield. It'll finally be the quad core we've been waiting for but memory support will probably stay at 8GB likely because 8GB SO-DIMMs will stay prohibitively expensive throughout 2010-2011.
Graphics should be faster overall, not only because of new tech but because the CPU will have the PCI Express controller right on the same package.
The processor is expected at the second half of this year so we MIGHT see an October surprise launch of all new mobiles.
Whenever and whatever the next revision is, let's say every single MBP laptop will be able to handle and utilize 8GB RAM - does this mean as long as RAM makers still sell the appropriate SO-DIMM modules, these laptops can use them? So let's say 3 years from now, we have 32 GB RAM modules, this hypothetical MBP should be able to use them, right?
Comments
I was thinking for the MacBook Pros.
Sorry, my bad. Got iMac on the brain.
I was thinking for the MacBook Pros.
Having expensive chips customized for tighter specs (35-45W vs 55W) will be even more expensive.
The current C2D used in the MBP tops at $530 (list price), the "regular" quads start at $350 (2.0) them jump to $850/1,050 (2.26/2.53GHz).
Customizing those or the Clarksfield that will replace them, will probably increase the price even more, unless they REMOVE some specs from the cpus (which is easier given the nehalem modular architecture): less cache, HT disabled,... but will this be enough to reduce the TDP to a level appropriate for the MBP? Not so sure.
I won't buy a MBP til the next revisions with hopefully reduced pricing. The 15" needs to get the same battery technology as the 17" (Apple always debuts new technology in their most premium products). Also, I think it's time that the 15" move to 1680x1050 resolution now that the 17" has gone permanently up to HD. 1440x960 makes it really hard to work with professional apps that need a lot of space. It is supposed to be a Pro model after all. In fact, if I had my way I'd like a 16" MBP with 1680x1050 res.
The current crop of MBPs are way overpriced. No doubt they've left room to cut prices with the revisions. I suspect Apple builds a lot of the cost of R&D of a product into the first editions then reduces it over the life of the product.
I won't buy a MBP til the next revisions with hopefully reduced pricing. The 15" needs to get the same battery technology as the 17" (Apple always debuts new technology in their most premium products). Also, I think it's time that the 15" move to 1680x1050 resolution now that the 17" has gone permanently up to HD. 1440x960 makes it really hard to work with professional apps that need a lot of space. It is supposed to be a Pro model after all. In fact, if I had my way I'd like a 16" MBP with 1680x1050 res.
It's 1440x900.
And hell yes, give me 1680x1050 in the 15". It would help justify the price gap between the 13" and the 15" models.
The standard processor speeds might be bumped, though they also might not. In any case, if the lower-end 15" MBP came standard with 2.66 Ghz C2D, 4 GB RAM, GeForce GTS 150M w/ 512 MB GDDR3 VRAM, and a 1680x1050 display would really make it a more desirable machine for the money.
1 question though, about the GT 130M and GTS 150M, how much would those increase power consumption and heat output?
1 question though, about the GT 130M and GTS 150M, how much would those increase power consumption and heat output?
GT 130M consumes 23W (same as 9600M GT) while GTS 150M runs hotter (almost 60W) being approximately 50% faster. Looks like GT 130M still delivers significantly better performance / power ratio.
Built-in battery in new MBP 15" is more interesting guess. According to my calculations, 15" may get up to 85Wh battery (70% more capacity compared to today's 50Wh)
Here's my wishlist:
1. P9600 (2.66Ghz, 6Mb L2, 25W) or P9700 (2.8Ghz, 6Mb L2 25W)
since they performs on par with T-series but consume 10W less.
2. 1680x1050 15" with anti-glare option (or at least 1440x900 anti-glare)
3. 85Wh built-in battery (needs completely new enclosure)
4. 3 USB ports (why not?)
5. IGP (9400M is more than enough) for maximum battery life
6. GT 130M (not 150/160M)
So we may see some real improvements in battery life/power savings.
I think that enclosure with built-in battery is easier to manufacture and large capacity/1000 cycles battery are worth for many users to switch from current unibody MBPs. Even without anti-glare option...
Apple can do whatever they want. My only problem with Clarksfield is that it will be expensive (just like the current mobile quads at $350-850-1,050). In the iMac that could lead to a $500 price increase in the mid/high-end models vs the current custom C2D. Given what Apple has done with the new Mac Pro, it wouldn't surprise me if they release a couple of 24" iMac "Pro" in the fall at $2199/2499.
Moving to 65W desktop quads (s series at $245-320-369) would have been a more customer-friendly solution. nvidia has a single chip desktop chipset that supports those cpus (9300/9400). And Intel has planned to release 65W Lynnfield cpus early 2010.
While I'm at it, LV Xeons (50-60W) would be (IMO) a nicer solution for the high-end iMac than current/clarksfield mobile quads.
Also I think that the iMac lacks matching displays and some kind of expansion slot (ExpressCard, AMD's XGH,...).
I don't think we will see a quad-core notebook from Apple before the end of 2010.
THere is absolutly no difference between the current architecture (CPU+NB+SB) and the mobile nehalem one (CPU+ IOH) in terms of the number of lanes/ports available. The new CPU is equivalent to the old cpu+NB and the IOH is equivalent to the SB. The NB used to be linked to the SB by a DMI bus, the new CPU is linked to the new IOH by a DMI bus. The IOH will have all the ports and PCIe lanes that you used to get on a SB.
What the frack???!!!!
Can you please explain to me that flexible display interface reference in the chart????
What the frack???!!!!
Can you please explain to me that flexible display interface reference in the chart????
I think it's referring to the ability for the CPU to use either discrete PCIe based graphics or an on-die solution.
What the frack???!!!!
Can you please explain to me that flexible display interface reference in the chart????
Has nothing to do with YOUR flexible display fantasy for YOUR mystery "Apple" iDevice.
Here, the interface is flexible, not the display...
If Apple were to include SSD in their Mac Product Lineup then it would properly use either next next Intel or a New Nvidia Chipset ( If they sort out their license ).
Which should feature 3G IO ( PCI - Express 3.0 , USB 3.0, SATA 3.0, Bluetooth 3.0 )
I am pretty sad by the fact that Next Gen Intel wont have SATA 3.0. Which is an important update for SSD.
If Apple were to include SSD in their Mac Product Lineup then it would properly use either next next Intel or a New Nvidia Chipset ( If they sort out their license ).
Which should feature 3G IO ( PCI - Express 3.0 , USB 3.0, SATA 3.0, Bluetooth 3.0 )
Quite a few companies are bypassing the SATA interface entirely and connecting these SSD drives directly to the PCI Express bus. On an iMac or portable, this can be done using the PCI Express mini standard.
So? You have an on-die memory controller freeing up the FSB for all the rest of the I/O. In a laptop you only have need for one really high performance slot, the graphics card. The rest, USB, firewire, SATA, audio, the FSB bus is overkill.
why are they over kill ???
It's just too much work to go to the Amazon.com website yourself
lofl
why are they over kill ???
Because.
Currently the FSB needs to handle the connection to the Northbridge (PCI Express, memory, and Southbridge (things like USB, SATA, FW, Ethernet, etc.) and other connections). These new processors have a memory controller and 16 lanes of PCI express, freeing up a lot of the bandwidth os the FSB(DMI) bus that Core 2 has to deal with to the CPU. I suspect FSb will be more than enough to handle the IO for a mobile/SFF Nehalem system.
The Rev C MBP was released on October 24th 2006, the Rev D was released on June 5th 2007 - the first day of the Back To School sale and one week before WWDC. I'm fairly confident (i.e. hopefull
I'm thinking that maratus is on the right lines with his predicted spec. I think the P9600 will be put in the base model and I'm thinking 4GB will come as standard in light of the recent Laptop Hunters ad, and I'm hoping the GT130M will be standard as well. As far the battery, who knows, it makes sense for Apple to put the non-removable battery in the 15" Macbook Pro since it'll really make it an excellent machine for the road, but for some reason something in me says it might not happen.
Anyway, that's just my thoughts. One thing is for sure, we're definitely due an update soon.
Next chip will be the mobile Lynnfield variant of Nehalem, Clarksfield. It'll finally be the quad core we've been waiting for but memory support will probably stay at 8GB likely because 8GB SO-DIMMs will stay prohibitively expensive throughout 2010-2011.
Graphics should be faster overall, not only because of new tech but because the CPU will have the PCI Express controller right on the same package.
The processor is expected at the second half of this year so we MIGHT see an October surprise launch of all new mobiles.
Whenever and whatever the next revision is, let's say every single MBP laptop will be able to handle and utilize 8GB RAM - does this mean as long as RAM makers still sell the appropriate SO-DIMM modules, these laptops can use them? So let's say 3 years from now, we have 32 GB RAM modules, this hypothetical MBP should be able to use them, right?
Does amazon sell apple products?
You should ask President Obama that.