It's very odd that this has not translated to the price of Motherboards in the desktop arena. i7 Mobos are still seriously expensive. The cheapest are over $200, and that's on a site like NewEgg. A good one will $400. OK, there are one or two that just sneak in under $200, but they're laggy latency crap. Phenom II Mobos or even Core Dup Mobos are less than half that amount.
Now obviously mobile solutions are a bit different, but your point about the 'external tech. being cheaper because there is more 'inside the chip' is untrue.
Ya, but you're talking about buying individual Mobos from a store, some of which are specialized/ tailored for gaming...
Apple's building these things in production runs of 10's of thousands, where huge economies of scale come into play.
The battery life posted is the BEST case scenario. When using simple single threaded tasks like web surfing (which doesn't require 4 cores, or even 3ghz) it's even worse than the 69 minutes. The 2ghz in brackets is the CPU model, not the speed it's running during the entire test. My MacBook CD 2ghz CPU is, right now, running at 998mhz, not 2ghz for example.
CPU throttling has been around since 'Cool 'n Quiet' (AMD). Perhaps even before then.
At no point in this thread have I ever said I wanted the 2Ghz "extreme" Clarksfield chip that you've pointed out as having poor battery life (which operates at a 55W TDP).
I've been repeatedly mentioning the MID-RANGE Clarksfield (which is 1.73Ghz, has a 45W TDP, and is almost half the price!). And I can almost guarantee you, Snow Leopard will use those cores much more efficiently than Windows, which was used in those posted benchmarks.
That's true, although the differential is still the same... my point is that it has nothing to do with memory controllers on-die.
The price of all the other tech (apart from the processors) is always going to be debatable (which I personally don't think is going to change much). Look at the transition from the old aluminum enclosures to the snazzy new unibody enclosures... the unibody design probably required significant R&D, time and investment, but sold for about as much as the previous model.
Though you're ignoring the other important point I was trying to make when I talked about moving the memory controllers on-die. Overall TDP, and how it could work in a MBP (below)...
Quote:
Originally Posted by CdnBook
"...And the people who keep saying it's too hot for the MBP aren't realizing that it makes up for it by reducing the total TDP by getting rid of the hot memory controller that sits outside of the chip in Core 2 Duo notebooks.
Oh boy, I have my finger crossed for this new i7 chip in the MBP & iMac as I need to replace both my old 17' MBP and G5 iMac :-) they are both a little long in the tooth
Because they'll need a battery from the 27th Century to make it last more than 10 mins.
Check out the battery life of these processors... start at Anandtech.
That's at idle... 69 minutes! Even with Apple's super-duper batteries, you're looking at less than 1.5 hours battery life if you just stare at the screen and don't do anything.
All of these machines are gaming laptops. Meaning they have 1 or even 2 very high end GPUs. I wouldn't take much from their battery life numbers. Put a GPU typically used in a MBP in there and you will see a huge difference.
To dream of the day when Apple uses an Intel DESKTOP CPU....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
Smaller, thinner, more compact is the trend. Desktop CPUs are giving way to mobile technology, at least in the segment occupied by the average user (the largest segment.)
Well, if you have a 26" iMac all-in-one surely they could actually use some desktop parts in there. It doesn't have to be so gawddammned thin. It is heavy anyways because of the screen, glass and aluminium. Making it thinner, why oh why.
Mobile gaming is still somewhat of a niche market. I looked at mobile gaming PC laptops, all-in-ones, and for gaming, a desktop with value-for-money desktop parts and my 21" screen and I'm good to go. That or an Xbox360.
Besides blowing cash on Clarksfield laptops for the CPU is just stupid, I think, the GPU IS WHAT REALLY MATTERS. A Core2Duo Penryn at 2.6ghz or so is more than enough. You need a good GPU to get smooth framerates. Intel has surged forward but it is the new masters of the reality distortion field.
And yeah. Battery life.
As a poster mentioned. Given the same GPU Clarksfield isn't going to magically give you tens of extra frames per second.
And yeah, ugly plastic PC laptops. Hard for me to go back to plastic laptops now with holes and ports all over the place. For gaming anyway, blowing cash on gaming laptops is just money down the toilet. My PC tower isn't pretty or quiet or cool but it is powerful and gets the job done.
Just waiting for the ATI 4870 1GB to drop in price (now that ATI Evergreen is out) and Boom! 1920x1080 gaming is rocking.
Not that there are fantastic PC titles nowadays, so many console ports WITH NO BL**DY ANTIALIASING. RAPE. eg. Wolfenstein (not bad actually), Batman (Nvidia AA only - WTFing ripoff) and Dead Space (luckily it was a great game)... Prototype with AA kept crashing on me (rubbish game, in my view). Need for Speed Shift - look up black screen crash on PC ~ what a wonderful job they did with the PC version of that... You have to run the game in Win98 compatibility mode if you get the black screen crash.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoolook
Because they'll need a battery from the 27th Century to make it last more than 10 mins.
Check out the battery life of these processors... start at Anandtech.
That's at idle... 69 minutes! Even with Apple's super-duper batteries, you're looking at less than 1.5 hours battery life if you just stare at the screen and don't do anything.
Oh boy, I have my finger crossed for this new i7 chip in the MBP & iMac as I need to replace both my old 17' MBP and G5 iMac :-) they are both a little long in the tooth
Sorry mate, I think there is a 0.001% chance the iMac this year will have Clarksfield. Arrandale next year, 2 core (and possibly, just maybe, 4 core)... is more likely. In the current profit model for Apple I don't think Clarksfield will make sense.
The iMac if it is refreshed this year will be higher spec CPU but still Core2Duo, maybe some GPU updates, new enclosure, price drop, maybe 28" screen, that's all I can think off.
IMHO. I could be wrong though. Apple has been weird this year with Steve's somewhat-so somewhat-not-so-direct involvement. Global iPhone 3GS shortage, for example, is still quite bad.
All of these machines are gaming laptops. Meaning they have 1 or even 2 very high end GPUs. I wouldn't take much from their battery life numbers. Put a GPU typically used in a MBP in there and you will see a huge difference.
But the power management must be very bad on those laptops because it is at idle and the GPU should be throttled down. Though you do have a point, some discrete powerful GPUs do not throttle down enough at idle, they still use battery quite a bit.
I am confused by the terrible battery life. Is it CPU or GPU or Windows/ laptop hardware power management issues?
Just waiting for the ATI 4870 1GB to drop in price (now that ATI Evergreen is out) and Boom! 1920x1080 gaming is rocking.
There's not even a need for the 4870, as my humble and ancient 512Mb 8800GT with Q6600 (stock speeds) runs most games (Dead Space, COD4, BioShock, Resident Evil 5, Arkham Asylum, Sims III, TF2, Mass Effect, etc.) at 1080p just fine (all settings maxed out for those games). Only a few titles are too demanding and require slightly lower quality settings at 1080p (Far Cry 2, Crysis, GTV IV, etc.).
I can't wait to upgrade to something like the upcoming GTX300s though. Then there will be no game that I can't max out.
Though you're ignoring the other important point I was trying to make when I talked about moving the memory controllers on-die. Overall TDP, and how it could work in a MBP (below)...
I'm not ignoring it, I agree with it - but like most posters I don't go through the forum pointing out what I agree with. I disagreed with the idea that on-chip memory controllers lower the price of Motherboards.
There's not even a need for the 4870, as my humble and ancient 512Mb 8800GT with Q6600 (stock speeds) runs most games (Dead Space, COD4, BioShock, Resident Evil 5, Arkham Asylum, Sims III, TF2, Mass Effect, etc.) at 1080p just fine (all settings maxed out for those games). Only a few titles are too demanding and require slightly lower quality settings at 1080p (Far Cry 2, Crysis, GTV IV, etc.).
I can't wait to upgrade to something like the upcoming GTX300s though. Then there will be no game
that I can't max out.
Yea... Dead Space, Arkham is fine. TF2 as well since it is the delightful Source engine. Need For Speed: Shift, Wolfenstein, FarCry2 needs a decent 1GB card to be able to play at max settings at 1080p. FarCry2 because DX10 has some nice graphics, really nice... NFS:Shift and Wolfenstein because they are somewhat dodgy console ports.
The 8800GT is one of the best heritage of Nvidia's tech. Still alive as rebranded 9 series, rebranded to GTS 200 something-or-other... ... Nvidia 2008 and the 8 series... Some of the best stuff Nvidia has come up with, and since then nothing really up to that mark. Look how huge the GTX280, 260, etc are. Nvidia still not down to 40nm... and it's almost October 2009.
The GTX280 etc (non G80~ based) line appears to have missed the mark because the GTX300 is supposed to be totally new again.
The GTX300s... We'll have to see what Nvidia shoots back with. ATI's 5000 series is set to do some damage. Of course, Nvidia should never be counted out.
BTW I find though since I am playing on a 21" 16:9 screen on my desk now I am more sensitive to frame rates. I'm willing to drop USD $150 (not a penny more... I think) for some killer 1080p 16XAF 8XAA stuff. I might have to wait to middle of 2010 :-0 ... With so many PC titles console ports nowadays, antialiasing is hard to come by (the games don't support it and it is hard to "force" it through PC GPU drivers) so maybe I can kiss goodbye to antialiasing... won't need that feature on PC GPUs.
Ah, gamer and GPU talk. Seems so out of place on a Mac forum.
Because they'll need a battery from the 27th Century to make it last more than 10 mins.
Check out the battery life of these processors... start at Anandtech.
That's at idle... 69 minutes! Even with Apple's super-duper batteries, you're looking at less than 1.5 hours battery life if you just stare at the screen and don't do anything.
Those numbers are misleading because, excluding the Asus, those other notebooks are using desktop parts in a really thick notebook chassis. Look at the specs and SKUs on the processors - they're desktop processor SKUs. Plus Xeon in a notebook? There is no mobile Xeon processor.
You have to compare apples to apples (pun intended)
Comments
It's very odd that this has not translated to the price of Motherboards in the desktop arena. i7 Mobos are still seriously expensive. The cheapest are over $200, and that's on a site like NewEgg. A good one will $400. OK, there are one or two that just sneak in under $200, but they're laggy latency crap. Phenom II Mobos or even Core Dup Mobos are less than half that amount.
Now obviously mobile solutions are a bit different, but your point about the 'external tech. being cheaper because there is more 'inside the chip' is untrue.
Ya, but you're talking about buying individual Mobos from a store, some of which are specialized/ tailored for gaming...
Apple's building these things in production runs of 10's of thousands, where huge economies of scale come into play.
Ya, but you're talking about buying individual Mobos from a store, some of which are specialized/ tailored for gaming...
Apple's building these things in production runs of 10's of thousands, where huge economies of scale come into play.
That's true, although the differential is still the same... my point is that it has nothing to do with memory controllers on-die.
I can see i5 or Clarksfield in the iMac, but not in the MBP any time soon. That's my personal opinion.
I know what they mean...
The battery life posted is the BEST case scenario. When using simple single threaded tasks like web surfing (which doesn't require 4 cores, or even 3ghz) it's even worse than the 69 minutes. The 2ghz in brackets is the CPU model, not the speed it's running during the entire test. My MacBook CD 2ghz CPU is, right now, running at 998mhz, not 2ghz for example.
CPU throttling has been around since 'Cool 'n Quiet' (AMD). Perhaps even before then.
At no point in this thread have I ever said I wanted the 2Ghz "extreme" Clarksfield chip that you've pointed out as having poor battery life (which operates at a 55W TDP).
I've been repeatedly mentioning the MID-RANGE Clarksfield (which is 1.73Ghz, has a 45W TDP, and is almost half the price!). And I can almost guarantee you, Snow Leopard will use those cores much more efficiently than Windows, which was used in those posted benchmarks.
That's true, although the differential is still the same... my point is that it has nothing to do with memory controllers on-die.
The price of all the other tech (apart from the processors) is always going to be debatable (which I personally don't think is going to change much). Look at the transition from the old aluminum enclosures to the snazzy new unibody enclosures... the unibody design probably required significant R&D, time and investment, but sold for about as much as the previous model.
Though you're ignoring the other important point I was trying to make when I talked about moving the memory controllers on-die. Overall TDP, and how it could work in a MBP (below)...
"...And the people who keep saying it's too hot for the MBP aren't realizing that it makes up for it by reducing the total TDP by getting rid of the hot memory controller that sits outside of the chip in Core 2 Duo notebooks.
Mmmm... if the MBP gets i7 then it'll be time for me to upgrade.
Yeah don't forget the iMacs!
Because they'll need a battery from the 27th Century to make it last more than 10 mins.
Check out the battery life of these processors... start at Anandtech.
That's at idle... 69 minutes! Even with Apple's super-duper batteries, you're looking at less than 1.5 hours battery life if you just stare at the screen and don't do anything.
And is this the ugliest Laptop ever, or what?
http://www.anandtech.com/GalleryImage.aspx?id=6888
All of these machines are gaming laptops. Meaning they have 1 or even 2 very high end GPUs. I wouldn't take much from their battery life numbers. Put a GPU typically used in a MBP in there and you will see a huge difference.
To dream of the day when Apple uses an Intel DESKTOP CPU....
Smaller, thinner, more compact is the trend. Desktop CPUs are giving way to mobile technology, at least in the segment occupied by the average user (the largest segment.)
Well, if you have a 26" iMac all-in-one surely they could actually use some desktop parts in there. It doesn't have to be so gawddammned thin. It is heavy anyways because of the screen, glass and aluminium. Making it thinner, why oh why.
Besides blowing cash on Clarksfield laptops for the CPU is just stupid, I think, the GPU IS WHAT REALLY MATTERS. A Core2Duo Penryn at 2.6ghz or so is more than enough. You need a good GPU to get smooth framerates. Intel has surged forward but it is the new masters of the reality distortion field.
And yeah. Battery life.
As a poster mentioned. Given the same GPU Clarksfield isn't going to magically give you tens of extra frames per second.
And yeah, ugly plastic PC laptops. Hard for me to go back to plastic laptops now with holes and ports all over the place. For gaming anyway, blowing cash on gaming laptops is just money down the toilet. My PC tower isn't pretty or quiet or cool but it is powerful and gets the job done.
Just waiting for the ATI 4870 1GB to drop in price (now that ATI Evergreen is out) and Boom! 1920x1080 gaming is rocking.
Not that there are fantastic PC titles nowadays, so many console ports WITH NO BL**DY ANTIALIASING. RAPE. eg. Wolfenstein (not bad actually), Batman (Nvidia AA only - WTFing ripoff) and Dead Space (luckily it was a great game)... Prototype with AA kept crashing on me (rubbish game, in my view). Need for Speed Shift - look up black screen crash on PC ~ what a wonderful job they did with the PC version of that... You have to run the game in Win98 compatibility mode if you get the black screen crash.
Because they'll need a battery from the 27th Century to make it last more than 10 mins.
Check out the battery life of these processors... start at Anandtech.
That's at idle... 69 minutes! Even with Apple's super-duper batteries, you're looking at less than 1.5 hours battery life if you just stare at the screen and don't do anything.
And is this the ugliest Laptop ever, or what?
http://www.anandtech.com/GalleryImage.aspx?id=6888
Intel sure loves to jack over the consumer when they release a new chip.
That's why thank goodness there's AMD.
Oh boy, I have my finger crossed for this new i7 chip in the MBP & iMac as I need to replace both my old 17' MBP and G5 iMac :-) they are both a little long in the tooth
Sorry mate, I think there is a 0.001% chance the iMac this year will have Clarksfield. Arrandale next year, 2 core (and possibly, just maybe, 4 core)... is more likely. In the current profit model for Apple I don't think Clarksfield will make sense.
The iMac if it is refreshed this year will be higher spec CPU but still Core2Duo, maybe some GPU updates, new enclosure, price drop, maybe 28" screen, that's all I can think off.
IMHO. I could be wrong though. Apple has been weird this year with Steve's somewhat-so somewhat-not-so-direct involvement. Global iPhone 3GS shortage, for example, is still quite bad.
All of these machines are gaming laptops. Meaning they have 1 or even 2 very high end GPUs. I wouldn't take much from their battery life numbers. Put a GPU typically used in a MBP in there and you will see a huge difference.
But the power management must be very bad on those laptops because it is at idle and the GPU should be throttled down. Though you do have a point, some discrete powerful GPUs do not throttle down enough at idle, they still use battery quite a bit.
I am confused by the terrible battery life. Is it CPU or GPU or Windows/ laptop hardware power management issues?
As a poster mentioned. Given the same GPU Clarksfield isn't going to magically give you tens of extra frames per second.
That's right ! Changing the GPU from NVIDIA to Intel will drop the game perfomance
in two or three times! Integrated graphics sucks! Apple, don't go back to the past!
Just waiting for the ATI 4870 1GB to drop in price (now that ATI Evergreen is out) and Boom! 1920x1080 gaming is rocking.
There's not even a need for the 4870, as my humble and ancient 512Mb 8800GT with Q6600 (stock speeds) runs most games (Dead Space, COD4, BioShock, Resident Evil 5, Arkham Asylum, Sims III, TF2, Mass Effect, etc.) at 1080p just fine (all settings maxed out for those games). Only a few titles are too demanding and require slightly lower quality settings at 1080p (Far Cry 2, Crysis, GTV IV, etc.).
I can't wait to upgrade to something like the upcoming GTX300s though. Then there will be no game that I can't max out.
Do we even expect a MBP refresh any time soon?
The whole MBP line was refreshed in June.
Though you're ignoring the other important point I was trying to make when I talked about moving the memory controllers on-die. Overall TDP, and how it could work in a MBP (below)...
I'm not ignoring it, I agree with it - but like most posters I don't go through the forum pointing out what I agree with. I disagreed with the idea that on-chip memory controllers lower the price of Motherboards.
There's not even a need for the 4870, as my humble and ancient 512Mb 8800GT with Q6600 (stock speeds) runs most games (Dead Space, COD4, BioShock, Resident Evil 5, Arkham Asylum, Sims III, TF2, Mass Effect, etc.) at 1080p just fine (all settings maxed out for those games). Only a few titles are too demanding and require slightly lower quality settings at 1080p (Far Cry 2, Crysis, GTV IV, etc.).
I can't wait to upgrade to something like the upcoming GTX300s though. Then there will be no game
that I can't max out.
Yea... Dead Space, Arkham is fine. TF2 as well since it is the delightful Source engine. Need For Speed: Shift, Wolfenstein, FarCry2 needs a decent 1GB card to be able to play at max settings at 1080p. FarCry2 because DX10 has some nice graphics, really nice... NFS:Shift and Wolfenstein because they are somewhat dodgy console ports.
The 8800GT is one of the best heritage of Nvidia's tech. Still alive as rebranded 9 series, rebranded to GTS 200 something-or-other...
The GTX280 etc (non G80~ based) line appears to have missed the mark because the GTX300 is supposed to be totally new again.
The GTX300s... We'll have to see what Nvidia shoots back with. ATI's 5000 series is set to do some damage. Of course, Nvidia should never be counted out.
BTW I find though since I am playing on a 21" 16:9 screen on my desk now I am more sensitive to frame rates. I'm willing to drop USD $150 (not a penny more... I think) for some killer 1080p 16XAF 8XAA stuff. I might have to wait to middle of 2010 :-0 ... With so many PC titles console ports nowadays, antialiasing is hard to come by (the games don't support it and it is hard to "force" it through PC GPU drivers) so maybe I can kiss goodbye to antialiasing... won't need that feature on PC GPUs.
Ah, gamer and GPU talk. Seems so out of place on a Mac forum.
Because they'll need a battery from the 27th Century to make it last more than 10 mins.
Check out the battery life of these processors... start at Anandtech.
That's at idle... 69 minutes! Even with Apple's super-duper batteries, you're looking at less than 1.5 hours battery life if you just stare at the screen and don't do anything.
And is this the ugliest Laptop ever, or what?
http://www.anandtech.com/GalleryImage.aspx?id=6888
Those numbers are misleading because, excluding the Asus, those other notebooks are using desktop parts in a really thick notebook chassis. Look at the specs and SKUs on the processors - they're desktop processor SKUs. Plus Xeon in a notebook? There is no mobile Xeon processor.
You have to compare apples to apples (pun intended)