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.
I agree. One thing people have to consider is before the i7 even gets in a Mac, NVIDIA or ATI is going to have to develop a custom chipset for Apple AFTER getting licensed to do so by Intel. That alone is going to take 6 months at a minimum to happen. All that's out now is Intel chipsets with either integrated Intel graphics or no graphics at all. The only thing we'll see Arrandale in I think is the low-end Macbook, the Mac Mini, and the MacBook Air. Everything else should get a Clarksfield eventually as it came out first. Clarksfield doesn't make a lot of sense given the target market of those devices, so that's why I think we'll see Arrandale there.
Also the new Core i5 and i7 processors wouldn't take share away from Mac Pros because they use Xeons. Mac Pros are a different class of hardware from normal desktops. I think a higher-end i7 could appear in a low-end Mac Pro revision though to lower the cost of entry on the Mac Pro.
However, for people that don't need that class of machine, that entry-level cost is a major factor right now. We're looking at refreshing our PowerMac G5s, and management is leaning to switching to PCs because we can get Core i7 workstations cheaper than even the lowest cost Mac Pro. They also point to the new i7s showing better performance than the current Mac Pro Xeons as a reason to switch. More value for the dollar, especially in this economy. Apple isn't doing much to help my case to prevent a switch unfortunately.
I agree. One thing people have to consider is before the i7 even gets in a Mac, NVIDIA or ATI is going to have to develop a custom chipset for Apple AFTER getting licensed to do so by Intel. That alone is going to take 6 months at a minimum to happen. All that's out now is Intel chipsets with either integrated Intel graphics or no graphics at all. The only thing we'll see Arrandale in I think is the low-end Macbook, the Mac Mini, and the MacBook Air. Everything else should get a Clarksfield eventually as it came out first. Clarksfield doesn't make a lot of sense given the target market of those devices, so that's why I think we'll see Arrandale there.
The licensing issue between Intel and Nvidia is really more about the memory controller, and Nvidia's rights to manufacture it. Apple can still combine an i7 Clarksfield with whatever discrete GPU they want, now... not 6 months from now.
And besides the memory controller issue... who wants to wait around for Larrabee, the integrated graphics coming in Arrandale? Intel's graphics technology is horribly slow, and far behind the competition. Any of the discrete mobile GPU's from Nvidia will blow Larrabee away. Sure, Larrabee will be energy efficient, because it lacks performance... say goodbye to playing newer games with it, or hardware accelerating intensive graphics apps.
With the advent of OpenCL, I'd rather have a fast discrete GPU. Apple's eventually going to re-write portions of their pro apps in OpenCL, to unleash all the cores/ power hidden in those GPUs.
Not to mention, when Apple releases new products, they tend to offer more performance at the same price or less (than their previous models). A quad-core is the next logical step for increasing performance, seeing as how Core 2 Duo's have plateaued... and these new i7's are really affordable.
Not to mention that they went to all this effort for this thing called Grand Central Dispatch that really needs more than 2 cores to shine. Moving at least the 17" MBP to the i7 makes sense and probably the entire line up. Then leave the white macbook and mini on Core 2 Duo.
I sincerely doubt that they'll have a media event to trot out the new iMac. It's just not big enough to justify its own event. We'll wake up one day soon to find the news splashed across apple.com, that's all.
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)
There's no mobile Xeon, but there is quite a nice hyperthreaded quad core that uses only 60W and is priced in line with the chips Apple currently uses. That's not low enough for notebook use, but it's only a few watts higher than the current top end iMac needs to power its Core 2 Duo and supporting chipset.
This is an awkward point for a company like Apple that relies entirely on mobile processors because the desktop chips are clocking almost 50% higher at the same price point. Not only that, but the Intel roadmap shows the next chips on deck are low cost dual core ones so even next spring there will be no mobile chip in the same ball park as the desktop chips.
With a gap like that you'd think Apple would be doing something about it and they are. They're trying to convince the world that nobody needs performance, that being "green" is all that matters now. Well I replaced one of the most power hungry Macs ever made with the model that uses the least electricity and couldn't see any difference on my electric bill. Being green isn't saving me any significant amount of money so I'm back to wishing I had a big tower I could fill with hard drives. Too bad everyone except Apple makes one I could afford.
The licensing issue between Intel and Nvidia is really more about the memory controller, and Nvidia's rights to manufacture it. Apple can still combine an i7 Clarksfield with whatever discrete GPU they want, now... not 6 months from now.
And besides the memory controller issue... who wants to wait around for Larrabee, the integrated graphics coming in Arrandale? Intel's graphics technology is horribly slow, and far behind the competition. Any of the discrete mobile GPU's from Nvidia will blow Larrabee away. Sure, Larrabee will be energy efficient, because it lacks performance... say goodbye to playing newer games with it, or hardware accelerating intensive graphics apps.
With the advent of OpenCL, I'd rather have a fast discrete GPU. Apple's eventually going to re-write portions of their pro apps in OpenCL, to unleash all the cores/ power hidden in those GPUs.
The memory controller issue doesn't make any sense here with the i7 Clarksfield because it is embedded in the processor. The Intel Graphics controller is still part of the chipset for mobile i7:
With Apple's recent trend of outsourcing chipset design to NVIDIA, they would have to wait for NVIDIA to design the chipsets with the embedded 9600GT or GT1xx or GT2xx series mobile processors - unless they switch back to ATI again and go with discrete graphics. Clearly Apple has a reason for using embedded NVIDIA chipsets; my guess is it has to do with power consumption and the overall thickness of the mainboard stack in a mobile device. They could go with actual discrete graphics, but that would increase the thickness of their offerings which is not an option for Apple given their design goals.
Arrandale is irrelevant at this point because its not due out till January so we wouldn't see any products that use them till Summer 2010 at the earliest. Clarksfield should be making its appearance by then in Apple products which will be a good thing.
"The memory controller issue doesn't make any sense here with the i7 Clarksfield because it is embedded in the processor. The Intel Graphics controller is still part of the chipset for mobile i7..."
"...unless they switch back to ATI again and go with discrete graphics. Clearly Apple has a reason for using embedded NVIDIA chipsets; my guess is it has to do with power consumption and the overall thickness of the mainboard stack in a mobile device. They could go with actual discrete graphics, but that would increase the thickness of their offerings which is not an option for Apple given their design goals."
"Arrandale is irrelevant at this point because its not due out till January so we wouldn't see any products that use them till Summer 2010 at the earliest. Clarksfield should be making its appearance by then in Apple products which will be a good thing."
Ummm... that's what I'm saying (or have said previously in this thread).
Another poster mentioned that the licensing issue was going to take 6 months to resolve before we see Intel i7 and Nvidia based laptops (I don't think he fully understood the issue). That's why I said it was a licensing issue over the memory controller... but Apple can still combine a Clarksfield i7 with whatever DISCRETE graphics they want.
Though I think you need to read up on the current MacBook Pro. It already has a discrete Nvidia GPU in it... so I don't think Apple's worried from a design perspective.
And as I said before, I don't want to wait for Arrandale.
Ummm... Are we really getting into the semantics of what I personally think is well under 2k?... because last time I checked with myself, I thought $1700-1800 was well under 2k.
And who cares if it doesn't ship for another month... at least HP has come out and announced they're making it.
Remember when the Mac Pro got Nehalem Xeons early, before the rest of the market? What makes you think the MacBook Pro couldn't have gotten the new Nehalem Clarksfields early? Please, your lack of insight on an "insider" forum is the real joke.
Just got one of Dell's promo emails, went to the site to check it out and build one for price comparison. They just added core i7 to their laptop offerings. Studio XPS 16, 4 gig ram, WLED 1080p screen, discreet radeon 4670 1 Gig starting at 1299.00. I'd say that's VERY WELL under 2k. It's damn hard to justify a macbook pro at twice the price for a laptop that will be obsolete in 3 years or so.
I agree. One thing people have to consider is before the i7 even gets in a Mac, NVIDIA or ATI is going to have to develop a custom chipset for Apple AFTER getting licensed to do so by Intel. That alone is going to take 6 months at a minimum to happen. All that's out now is Intel chipsets with either integrated Intel graphics or no graphics at all.
There's no mobile Xeon, but there is quite a nice hyperthreaded quad core that uses only 60W and is priced in line with the chips Apple currently uses. That's not low enough for notebook use, but it's only a few watts higher than the current top end iMac needs to power its Core 2 Duo and supporting chipset.
This is an awkward point for a company like Apple that relies entirely on mobile processors because the desktop chips are clocking almost 50% higher at the same price point. Not only that, but the Intel roadmap shows the next chips on deck are low cost dual core ones so even next spring there will be no mobile chip in the same ball park as the desktop chips.
With a gap like that you'd think Apple would be doing something about it and they are. They're trying to convince the world that nobody needs performance, that being "green" is all that matters now. Well I replaced one of the most power hungry Macs ever made with the model that uses the least electricity and couldn't see any difference on my electric bill. Being green isn't saving me any significant amount of money so I'm back to wishing I had a big tower I could fill with hard drives. Too bad everyone except Apple makes one I could afford.
I'm not going to engage the bulk of your argument (I don't even necessarily disagree), but I would like to point out that "being green" has to do with the cumulative impact of a great many users, and not you personally shaving a few cents off your power bill.
Just got one of Dell's promo emails, went to the site to check it out and build one for price comparison. They just added core i7 to their laptop offerings. Studio XPS 16, 4 gig ram, WLED 1080p screen, discreet radeon 4670 1 Gig starting at 1299.00. I'd say that's VERY WELL under 2k. It's damn hard to justify a macbook pro at twice the price for a laptop that will be obsolete in 3 years or so.
I agree. The laptop market's becoming increasingly competitive, with more and more people buying notebooks instead of desktops. Apple's going to be hard-pressed to add something more powerful to their mobile line-up, to offer their "Pro" market... like the above product, and at a price closer to par (though I don't mind paying a little "Apple tax" for a stylish form factor). I think a mid-range i7 Clarksfield and a faster discrete gpu are the way to go.
I agree. The laptop market's becoming increasingly competitive, with more and more people buying notebooks instead of desktops. Apple's going to be hard-pressed to add something more powerful to their mobile line-up, to offer their "Pro" market... like the above product, and at a price closer to par (though I don't mind paying a little "Apple tax" for a stylish form factor). I think a mid-range i7 Clarksfield and a faster discrete gpu are the way to go.
Yeah, I don't mind paying an Apple tax for OSX and a better designed product, but 100% premium? This "pro" thing is a little much. The thing doesn't cook dinner, do my laundry and give me a massage - it's just a tool. I'll keep buying iPhones and iMacs (still a little too steep, but worth it to me), but you won't see any mac laptops or mac pros in my grubby paws except unless my employer is buyin.
Just got one of Dell's promo emails, went to the site to check it out and build one for price comparison. They just added core i7 to their laptop offerings. Studio XPS 16, 4 gig ram, WLED 1080p screen, discreet radeon 4670 1 Gig starting at 1299.00. I'd say that's VERY WELL under 2k. It's damn hard to justify a macbook pro at twice the price for a laptop that will be obsolete in 3 years or so.
I hope you don't intend to do any gaming because the XPS is fantastic on the CPU side but you'd want a Radeon 4870 1GB or 4890 1GB to go with that... Or the new 5870 1GB.
But yeah, if for desktop use only and gaming it is hard to justify a Macbook Pro.
OH WAIT. YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT A LAPTOP. I stand corrected
The 4670 is a bit on the weaker side still though, I wouldn't mind, for gaming, a Core2Quad laptop with a slightly better 1GB ATI discrete card. The mobile version of the 4770 for example...
But of course if you're not using it a lot for gaming then the it's a different story.
Anyways... Interesting.
But for day to day "life" and "work" stuff, living with Windows all the time, especially Vista, is a blo*dy nightmare. Windows 7, not so bad, but nothing, nothing compared to Leopard or Snow Leopard. Nothing comes close.
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.
You DO realize that some of us do more than play games with our macs? Clarksfield would be a useful thing for some of those things.
You DO realize that some of us do more than play games with our macs? Clarksfield would be a useful thing for some of those things.
Meh. Gaming is useful!
Seriously though, good for CPU progress but I hope people don't get steamrolled by the Intel marketing machine, and have some awareness of the usefulness other components. Particularly with OpenCL, CUDA, SSD drives, 8GB RAM and so on.
I still believe though at this stage the Clarksfield is not going to go into anything but the highest end 26" or 28" iMac.
For those that do "more than play games with Macs"... The iMac could be useful but its crippled by mobile and thin-obsessed architecture.
Clarksfield would be a great bridge between the current iMacs and the Mac Pro. And I feel ya... But it's just not adding up with the way Apple thinks.
Comments
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.
I agree. One thing people have to consider is before the i7 even gets in a Mac, NVIDIA or ATI is going to have to develop a custom chipset for Apple AFTER getting licensed to do so by Intel. That alone is going to take 6 months at a minimum to happen. All that's out now is Intel chipsets with either integrated Intel graphics or no graphics at all. The only thing we'll see Arrandale in I think is the low-end Macbook, the Mac Mini, and the MacBook Air. Everything else should get a Clarksfield eventually as it came out first. Clarksfield doesn't make a lot of sense given the target market of those devices, so that's why I think we'll see Arrandale there.
Also the new Core i5 and i7 processors wouldn't take share away from Mac Pros because they use Xeons. Mac Pros are a different class of hardware from normal desktops. I think a higher-end i7 could appear in a low-end Mac Pro revision though to lower the cost of entry on the Mac Pro.
However, for people that don't need that class of machine, that entry-level cost is a major factor right now. We're looking at refreshing our PowerMac G5s, and management is leaning to switching to PCs because we can get Core i7 workstations cheaper than even the lowest cost Mac Pro. They also point to the new i7s showing better performance than the current Mac Pro Xeons as a reason to switch. More value for the dollar, especially in this economy. Apple isn't doing much to help my case to prevent a switch unfortunately.
How is a quad core processor a "minor upgrade" before "upgrading" to two cores. That's idiotic.
Performance wise there is little difference.
I agree. One thing people have to consider is before the i7 even gets in a Mac, NVIDIA or ATI is going to have to develop a custom chipset for Apple AFTER getting licensed to do so by Intel. That alone is going to take 6 months at a minimum to happen. All that's out now is Intel chipsets with either integrated Intel graphics or no graphics at all. The only thing we'll see Arrandale in I think is the low-end Macbook, the Mac Mini, and the MacBook Air. Everything else should get a Clarksfield eventually as it came out first. Clarksfield doesn't make a lot of sense given the target market of those devices, so that's why I think we'll see Arrandale there.
The licensing issue between Intel and Nvidia is really more about the memory controller, and Nvidia's rights to manufacture it. Apple can still combine an i7 Clarksfield with whatever discrete GPU they want, now... not 6 months from now.
And besides the memory controller issue... who wants to wait around for Larrabee, the integrated graphics coming in Arrandale? Intel's graphics technology is horribly slow, and far behind the competition. Any of the discrete mobile GPU's from Nvidia will blow Larrabee away. Sure, Larrabee will be energy efficient, because it lacks performance... say goodbye to playing newer games with it, or hardware accelerating intensive graphics apps.
With the advent of OpenCL, I'd rather have a fast discrete GPU. Apple's eventually going to re-write portions of their pro apps in OpenCL, to unleash all the cores/ power hidden in those GPUs.
Not to mention, when Apple releases new products, they tend to offer more performance at the same price or less (than their previous models). A quad-core is the next logical step for increasing performance, seeing as how Core 2 Duo's have plateaued... and these new i7's are really affordable.
Not to mention that they went to all this effort for this thing called Grand Central Dispatch that really needs more than 2 cores to shine. Moving at least the 17" MBP to the i7 makes sense and probably the entire line up. Then leave the white macbook and mini on Core 2 Duo.
I sincerely doubt that they'll have a media event to trot out the new iMac. It's just not big enough to justify its own event. We'll wake up one day soon to find the news splashed across apple.com, that's all.
My exact thoughts as well.
The whole MBP line was refreshed in June.
Some people are forgetting that when the first C2D MPB's came out, they got a speed bump only six or seven months later with higher RAM capacity.
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)
There's no mobile Xeon, but there is quite a nice hyperthreaded quad core that uses only 60W and is priced in line with the chips Apple currently uses. That's not low enough for notebook use, but it's only a few watts higher than the current top end iMac needs to power its Core 2 Duo and supporting chipset.
This is an awkward point for a company like Apple that relies entirely on mobile processors because the desktop chips are clocking almost 50% higher at the same price point. Not only that, but the Intel roadmap shows the next chips on deck are low cost dual core ones so even next spring there will be no mobile chip in the same ball park as the desktop chips.
With a gap like that you'd think Apple would be doing something about it and they are. They're trying to convince the world that nobody needs performance, that being "green" is all that matters now. Well I replaced one of the most power hungry Macs ever made with the model that uses the least electricity and couldn't see any difference on my electric bill. Being green isn't saving me any significant amount of money so I'm back to wishing I had a big tower I could fill with hard drives. Too bad everyone except Apple makes one I could afford.
I need to replace my 17' MBP?
That's a big ass laptop!
The licensing issue between Intel and Nvidia is really more about the memory controller, and Nvidia's rights to manufacture it. Apple can still combine an i7 Clarksfield with whatever discrete GPU they want, now... not 6 months from now.
And besides the memory controller issue... who wants to wait around for Larrabee, the integrated graphics coming in Arrandale? Intel's graphics technology is horribly slow, and far behind the competition. Any of the discrete mobile GPU's from Nvidia will blow Larrabee away. Sure, Larrabee will be energy efficient, because it lacks performance... say goodbye to playing newer games with it, or hardware accelerating intensive graphics apps.
With the advent of OpenCL, I'd rather have a fast discrete GPU. Apple's eventually going to re-write portions of their pro apps in OpenCL, to unleash all the cores/ power hidden in those GPUs.
The memory controller issue doesn't make any sense here with the i7 Clarksfield because it is embedded in the processor. The Intel Graphics controller is still part of the chipset for mobile i7:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=3647&p=2
With Apple's recent trend of outsourcing chipset design to NVIDIA, they would have to wait for NVIDIA to design the chipsets with the embedded 9600GT or GT1xx or GT2xx series mobile processors - unless they switch back to ATI again and go with discrete graphics. Clearly Apple has a reason for using embedded NVIDIA chipsets; my guess is it has to do with power consumption and the overall thickness of the mainboard stack in a mobile device. They could go with actual discrete graphics, but that would increase the thickness of their offerings which is not an option for Apple given their design goals.
Arrandale is irrelevant at this point because its not due out till January so we wouldn't see any products that use them till Summer 2010 at the earliest. Clarksfield should be making its appearance by then in Apple products which will be a good thing.
"The memory controller issue doesn't make any sense here with the i7 Clarksfield because it is embedded in the processor. The Intel Graphics controller is still part of the chipset for mobile i7..."
"...unless they switch back to ATI again and go with discrete graphics. Clearly Apple has a reason for using embedded NVIDIA chipsets; my guess is it has to do with power consumption and the overall thickness of the mainboard stack in a mobile device. They could go with actual discrete graphics, but that would increase the thickness of their offerings which is not an option for Apple given their design goals."
"Arrandale is irrelevant at this point because its not due out till January so we wouldn't see any products that use them till Summer 2010 at the earliest. Clarksfield should be making its appearance by then in Apple products which will be a good thing."
Ummm... that's what I'm saying (or have said previously in this thread).
Another poster mentioned that the licensing issue was going to take 6 months to resolve before we see Intel i7 and Nvidia based laptops (I don't think he fully understood the issue). That's why I said it was a licensing issue over the memory controller... but Apple can still combine a Clarksfield i7 with whatever DISCRETE graphics they want.
Though I think you need to read up on the current MacBook Pro. It already has a discrete Nvidia GPU in it... so I don't think Apple's worried from a design perspective.
And as I said before, I don't want to wait for Arrandale.
Dell laptop monstrosity with i7 chip
Ummm... Are we really getting into the semantics of what I personally think is well under 2k?... because last time I checked with myself, I thought $1700-1800 was well under 2k.
And who cares if it doesn't ship for another month... at least HP has come out and announced they're making it.
Remember when the Mac Pro got Nehalem Xeons early, before the rest of the market? What makes you think the MacBook Pro couldn't have gotten the new Nehalem Clarksfields early? Please, your lack of insight on an "insider" forum is the real joke.
Just got one of Dell's promo emails, went to the site to check it out and build one for price comparison. They just added core i7 to their laptop offerings. Studio XPS 16, 4 gig ram, WLED 1080p screen, discreet radeon 4670 1 Gig starting at 1299.00. I'd say that's VERY WELL under 2k. It's damn hard to justify a macbook pro at twice the price for a laptop that will be obsolete in 3 years or so.
I agree. One thing people have to consider is before the i7 even gets in a Mac, NVIDIA or ATI is going to have to develop a custom chipset for Apple AFTER getting licensed to do so by Intel. That alone is going to take 6 months at a minimum to happen. All that's out now is Intel chipsets with either integrated Intel graphics or no graphics at all.
There are discreet graphics...
There's no mobile Xeon, but there is quite a nice hyperthreaded quad core that uses only 60W and is priced in line with the chips Apple currently uses. That's not low enough for notebook use, but it's only a few watts higher than the current top end iMac needs to power its Core 2 Duo and supporting chipset.
This is an awkward point for a company like Apple that relies entirely on mobile processors because the desktop chips are clocking almost 50% higher at the same price point. Not only that, but the Intel roadmap shows the next chips on deck are low cost dual core ones so even next spring there will be no mobile chip in the same ball park as the desktop chips.
With a gap like that you'd think Apple would be doing something about it and they are. They're trying to convince the world that nobody needs performance, that being "green" is all that matters now. Well I replaced one of the most power hungry Macs ever made with the model that uses the least electricity and couldn't see any difference on my electric bill. Being green isn't saving me any significant amount of money so I'm back to wishing I had a big tower I could fill with hard drives. Too bad everyone except Apple makes one I could afford.
I'm not going to engage the bulk of your argument (I don't even necessarily disagree), but I would like to point out that "being green" has to do with the cumulative impact of a great many users, and not you personally shaving a few cents off your power bill.
Just got one of Dell's promo emails, went to the site to check it out and build one for price comparison. They just added core i7 to their laptop offerings. Studio XPS 16, 4 gig ram, WLED 1080p screen, discreet radeon 4670 1 Gig starting at 1299.00. I'd say that's VERY WELL under 2k. It's damn hard to justify a macbook pro at twice the price for a laptop that will be obsolete in 3 years or so.
I agree. The laptop market's becoming increasingly competitive, with more and more people buying notebooks instead of desktops. Apple's going to be hard-pressed to add something more powerful to their mobile line-up, to offer their "Pro" market... like the above product, and at a price closer to par (though I don't mind paying a little "Apple tax" for a stylish form factor). I think a mid-range i7 Clarksfield and a faster discrete gpu are the way to go.
I agree. The laptop market's becoming increasingly competitive, with more and more people buying notebooks instead of desktops. Apple's going to be hard-pressed to add something more powerful to their mobile line-up, to offer their "Pro" market... like the above product, and at a price closer to par (though I don't mind paying a little "Apple tax" for a stylish form factor). I think a mid-range i7 Clarksfield and a faster discrete gpu are the way to go.
Yeah, I don't mind paying an Apple tax for OSX and a better designed product, but 100% premium? This "pro" thing is a little much. The thing doesn't cook dinner, do my laundry and give me a massage - it's just a tool. I'll keep buying iPhones and iMacs (still a little too steep, but worth it to me), but you won't see any mac laptops or mac pros in my grubby paws except unless my employer is buyin.
Just got one of Dell's promo emails, went to the site to check it out and build one for price comparison. They just added core i7 to their laptop offerings. Studio XPS 16, 4 gig ram, WLED 1080p screen, discreet radeon 4670 1 Gig starting at 1299.00. I'd say that's VERY WELL under 2k. It's damn hard to justify a macbook pro at twice the price for a laptop that will be obsolete in 3 years or so.
I hope you don't intend to do any gaming because the XPS is fantastic on the CPU side but you'd want a Radeon 4870 1GB or 4890 1GB to go with that... Or the new 5870 1GB.
But yeah, if for desktop use only and gaming it is hard to justify a Macbook Pro.
OH WAIT. YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT A LAPTOP.
The 4670 is a bit on the weaker side still though, I wouldn't mind, for gaming, a Core2Quad laptop with a slightly better 1GB ATI discrete card. The mobile version of the 4770 for example...
But of course if you're not using it a lot for gaming then the it's a different story.
Anyways... Interesting.
But for day to day "life" and "work" stuff, living with Windows all the time, especially Vista, is a blo*dy nightmare. Windows 7, not so bad, but nothing, nothing compared to Leopard or Snow Leopard. Nothing comes close.
New iMac to get Core i5
Currently I think maybe only the 28" iMac will have the Clarksfield...
Dell laptop monstrosity with i7 chip
That is a big a** monstrosity alright. OMFG.
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.
You DO realize that some of us do more than play games with our macs? Clarksfield would be a useful thing for some of those things.
You DO realize that some of us do more than play games with our macs? Clarksfield would be a useful thing for some of those things.
Meh.
Seriously though, good for CPU progress but I hope people don't get steamrolled by the Intel marketing machine, and have some awareness of the usefulness other components. Particularly with OpenCL, CUDA, SSD drives, 8GB RAM and so on.
I still believe though at this stage the Clarksfield is not going to go into anything but the highest end 26" or 28" iMac.
For those that do "more than play games with Macs"... The iMac could be useful but its crippled by mobile and thin-obsessed architecture.
Clarksfield would be a great bridge between the current iMacs and the Mac Pro. And I feel ya... But it's just not adding up with the way Apple thinks.