[P]

That is power consumption of the complete laptop - not the CPU itself (maybe you knew that, but it wasn't clear from your post, and in an effort to decrease confusion and all that). 74W isn't terrible - some quick googling shows that the iMac G5 could easily draw 120W-130W, and it is significantly better than the Core 2 Quad laptop in the same test which peaks at 140W. Unfortunately the comparison is rather pointless, since the Core i7 laptop had a 16 inch screen and a middling GPU, which the Core 2 Quad had a 17" screen and a better GPU. The iMac is even further off, with older RAM standards and an ancient GPU paired with a much bigger screen.

I think the good news is the consumption at idle. Looks to be 25W - excellent! IME, the fans revving when you do something that tasks the machine heavily is quite OK - it's when they go quickly when just browsing that it's annoying.

[Eug]

With heavy usage, that laptop only lasted 46 minutes on battery. That doesn't bode well in terms of CPU power usage.

Then again that table above suggests the 820QM is only 45 Watts TDP. I had thought it was 55 Watts. 45 Watts isn't terrible. However, there's no guarantee Apple would use it, since it would probably bring noise levels back to the G5 days. I might agree with Apple too, since I've gotten very used to my silent 2.33 GHz Core 2 Duo iMac. Big improvement over my iMac G5 2.0.

P.S. Anyways, I'm prepared to wait. Given that I want to dabble in Final Cut, I actually have a good reason to want quad.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Then again that table above suggests the 820QM is only 45 Watts TDP. I had thought it was 55 Watts. 45 Watts isn't terrible.

55W is the i7-920XM, the quad-core extreme part. The 820QM and 720QM are 45W. But nominally they're also clocked very low (about half of Penryn). And here's the problem. Obviously, you'd pitch these CPUs to people running many heavy threads concurrently. But then lots of people complain about the low clock speeds (the extra efficiency of the Nehalem architecture basically ends up barely bridging the clock gap). So Intel plays the TurboBoost card. But that's only really gonna help when people don't have several heavy threads running concurrently. IOW people who usually prefer few but very fast cores. That's basically the problem Intel's facing with Clarksfield.

Interestingly, they seem to have given up on improving Clarksfield itself and have decided to move straight to 32 nm where they can implement architectural advances as well as better clock speeds while retaining lower TDPs. So Intel's answer to 'slow' Clarksfields isn't going to be better Clarksfields, but a new CPU.

P.S. Anyways, I'm prepared to wait. Given that I want to dabble in Final Cut, I actually have a good reason to want quad.

We'll be waiting for it anyway. Apple's definitely in no rush to move quad core at the TDPs Intel currently has to offer.

I'm still not entirely convinced we'll see Clarksfield in Macs at all. Just like Intel dropped interest and started pushing 32 nm (Westmere, Arrandale), I could imagine Apple is coming to a similar conclusion. Unless of course Intel does some TDP magic on Clarksfield.

[P]

Originally Posted by Simon 

55W is the i7-920XM, the quad-core extreme part. The 820QM and 720QM are 45W. But nominally they're also clocked very low (about half of Penryn). And here's the problem. Obviously, you'd pitch these CPUs to people running many heavy threads concurrently. But then lots of people complain about the low clock speeds (the extra efficiency of the Nehalem architecture basically ends up barely bridging the clock gap). So Intel plays the TurboBoost card. But that's only really gonna help when people don't have several heavy threads running concurrently. IOW people who usually prefer few but very fast cores. That's basically the problem Intel's facing with Clarksfield.

Nehalem architechture does more per clock than Penryn does, and clocks up to 2.8 GHz when run with two cores active (3.06 with only one core). It should be faster than any Penryn dual in either case.

Originally Posted by Simon 

Interestingly, they seem to have given up on improving Clarksfield itself and have decided to move straight to 32 nm where they can implement architectural advances as well as better clock speeds while retaining lower TDPs. So Intel's answer to 'slow' Clarksfields isn't going to be better Clarksfields, but a new CPU.

The problem is the gaping hole this leaves in the center of their lineup. There is no quad mobile chip at the 32 nm before Sandy Bridge in early 2011. I think we will see resteppings of Clarksfield that bring its TDP down towards 35W again.

Originally Posted by Simon 

We'll be waiting for it anyway. Apple's definitely in no rush to move quad core at the TDPs Intel currently has to offer.

I'm still not entirely convinced we'll see Clarksfield in Macs at all. Just like Intel dropped interest and started pushing 32 nm (Westmere, Arrandale), I could imagine Apple is coming to a similar conclusion. Unless of course Intel does some TDP magic on Clarksfield.

I think Apple will put Clarksfield in the top-end iMac. They did put the X7900 Merom CPU in the iMac just before the Penryn switch, and that has a 44W TDP excluding the MCH. The E8435 in the first Penryn generation was even worse, with a TDP of 55W. Assuming 10W for the MCH, and the QM 820 would be 20W below that. I doubt Clarksfield will find its way into the MBP, though.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by P 

Nehalem architechture does more per clock than Penryn does,

Correct but it clocks lower. The extra efficiency just barely makes up for the difference in clock. Of course it depends on which task you chose to benchmark.

and clocks up to 2.8 GHz when run with two cores active (3.06 with only one core). It should be faster than any Penryn dual in either case.

It's much more expensive and in many cases slower to run a quad Clarksfield with only two cores plus Turboboost than to simply run both cores of a dual-core Penryn. That's exactly Intel's problem. They want to pitch this CPU at people running many threads. Challenged with the low clock they then point to Turboboost. That however would require giving up on two-three cores. And that in turns negates the initial advantage. Catch-22 really.

The problem is the gaping hole this leaves in the center of their lineup. There is no quad mobile chip at the 32 nm before Sandy Bridge in early 2011.

That's by no means certain at this point.

I think we will see resteppings of Clarksfield that bring its TDP down towards 35W again.

Umm, you're aware Clarksfield's 45W is the same as Penryn's 35W, right?

I don't see any problem fitting the part in the iMac. It won't be the quietest iMac ever, but it would work. IMHO the problem is price-performance ratio. Apple can spend much less on a part that for most iMac users will show similar performance. Remember, the iMac is a non-portable MBP, it's not a pro workstation.

Apple's fundamental problem with the desktop is their lineup. Shoving a low-end Clarksfield into the iMac won't solve that issue.

[Eug]

It's gonna be tough waiting. Besides the aging dual-core CPU... which in truth isn't too bad... and besides my dire need for hard drive space... which is easily correctable with external hard drive... I have the old model Core 2 Duo which is limited to 3 GB.

3 GB is simply not enough. Disk thrashing galore when I run a couple of the bigger programs (like Aperture). When I bought the thing I thought 3 GB would be plenty for a non-pro until about 2011, but nope. I really need a machine that can handle up to 8 GB, and 4 GB DDR3 modules are actually quite affordable these days. Even just last year, 8 GB cost a fortune IIRC. ie. Now is the perfect time for many of us to upgrade in terms of 2-slotted memory bang-for-the-buck, but Intel simply isn't cooperating.

P.S. I'm almost tempted to just sell the damn thing now and use my MacBook Pro for now until a new iMac comes along, and in fact, that was my original plan. However, that was with the expectation that the quad iMac would come shortly afterwards, but I get the sneaking suspicion we will be waiting a very long time.

[Simon]

Eug, have you considered a used/refurb MP? The current MP is expensive and the standard configurations are unfortunate, but the previous generation should be just right for your ~8 GB RAM and multi-core requirement.

[Eug]

BTW, does anyone know how well Aperture and Final scale over quad-core? Dual-core is apparently very good, but what about 4-core?

Originally Posted by Simon 

Eug, have you considered a used/refurb MP? The current MP is expensive and the standard configurations are unfortunate, but the previous generation should be just right for your ~8 GB RAM and multi-core requirement.

I've considered it, but the used market is often pretty expensive around here.

Apple refurbs are an option, but they're still not exactly "cheap" at least when compared to an iMac. Up until recently, the iMacs were perfect for me. The top-of-the-line units were usually what I was willing to spend with what I thought was enough power... until now.

EDIT:

Here's something probably OK for me:

http://store.apple.com/ca/product/FB...mco=Nzk2MTU0Mw

One 2.66GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon "Nehalem" processor
3GB (3 x 1GB) of 1066MHz DDR3 ECC memory
640GB Serial ATA 3Gb/s 7200 rpm
18x SuperDrive (DVD±R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW)
NVIDIA GeForce GT 120 with 512MB GDDR3 memory

CAD$2500 + an extra monitor (for dual 24" goodness).

I'd have to replace the memory though, and ECC costs more than regular DDR3.

Maybe I'll wait until the next iMac update. If it's dual-core, maybe I'll buy a refurb Mac Pro then (for less than what it costs now).

[P]

Originally Posted by Simon 

It's much more expensive and in many cases slower to run a quad Clarksfield with only two cores plus Turboboost than to simply run both cores of a dual-core Penryn.

Expensive yes, but hardly slower. IMC and HT make a big difference, and you're only talking about 266 MHz in clockspeed advantage for the Penryn.

That this is lower than a quad Penryn package is another story.

Originally Posted by Simon 

That's by no means certain at this point.

There are none on the roadmap, anyway.

Originally Posted by Simon 

Umm, you're aware Clarksfield's 45W is the same as Penryn's 35W, right?

Almost the same. That's not my point, though: My point is that when Intel makes newer steppings, they always tend to bring the TDP down. Witness the Q9650s, which is down to a 65W TDP from an original 95W because they managed to run the chip at a lower voltage. Since a 45W TDP is at the upper limit of what is usually acceptable in a laptop chip, and the low default clockspeed, I think Intel is working on a new stepping that will let them drop the TDP or increase the clockspeed.

Originally Posted by Simon 

I don't see any problem fitting the part in the iMac. It won't be the quietest iMac ever, but it would work. IMHO the problem is price-performance ratio. Apple can spend much less on a part that for most iMac users will show similar performance. Remember, the iMac is a non-portable MBP, it's not a pro workstation.

The 820 is $546 according to rumors. Current top-of-the-line 3.06 GHz Penryn is $530. Close enough.

Originally Posted by Simon 

Apple's fundamental problem with the desktop is their lineup. Shoving a low-end Clarksfield into the iMac won't solve that issue.

We've been over this before. What they're doing is working out for them, and given the price of the low-end MP, they're less willing than ever to cater to the xMac folks.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by Eug 

I'd have to replace the memory though, and ECC costs more than regular DDR3.

As a replacement you can use non-ECC just fine. The only thing you shuldn't do is mix ECC and non-ECC.

[Eug]

Another reason to wait... I suspect the new iMacs will include 1.5 TB drives or possibly even 2 TB drives.

[Simon]

Or you get a MP and put in whatever disk you want whenever you want.

[Eug]

Don't you have to buy from Apple to get the sleds? Or was that just true for the Xserves?

[Simon]

No. The sleds are all built into the MP. You just slide them out, attach the disk, and slide them back in.

[Eug]

Interesting re: Final Cut Pro

After perusing the various video-related sites, it seems the format of choice for camcorder or dSLR HD video editing is ProRes 422. It apparently scales very, very well over multiple cores.



P.S. The bitrate for the HQ version of ProRes 422 (which is 10-bit 4:2:2) is 220 Mbps (or 27.5 MB/s), so even an iMac could handle multiple streams, esp. when armed with an external Firewire 800 drive (and current iMacs already include FW 800). That's really pushing it for my MacBook Pro's internal drive though methinks, but the normal version is 145 Mbps (or 18 MB/s) which is a lot more manageable on a slower laptop drive on the road. There's also a light version of ProRes which is even easier for laptops to handle, and in truth it is probably fine for most of my simple needs.

[Eug]

Hmmm... How loud are the Mac Pros? I get the educational discounts so...

One 2.66GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon Mac Pro
8GB (4x2GB) <-- Now upgradable to 16 GB.
640GB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s <-- I'd add two more 3rd party drives. 640 GB boot, 1 TB data, 1.5 TB scratch and backup
ATI Radeon HD 4870 512MB
One 18x SuperDrive
Apple Mighty Mouse
Apple Keyboard with Numeric Keypad (English) and User's Guide
CAD$3201

vs.

3.06GHz Intel Core 2 Duo iMac
4GB 1066MHz DDR3 SDRAM - 2x2GB
1.0TB Serial ATA Drive
ATI Radeon HD 4850 512MB
Apple Mighty Mouse
Apple Keyboard (English) + User's Guide
CAD$$2557

vs.

3.06GHz Intel Core 2 Duo iMac
8GB 1066MHz DDR3 SDRAM - 2x4GB
1.0TB Serial ATA Drive
ATI Radeon HD 4850 512MB
Apple Mighty Mouse
Apple Keyboard (English) + User's Guide
CAD$3711

ie. The quad Mac Pro actually seems like the best bang for the buck. I'm shocked. The 4 Firewire 800 ports would come in pretty handy too. I was considering buying a Firewire 800 hub anyway. The octocore is out of my budget though.

BTW, will having a second video card be of ANY benefit to me, if I only plan on having two 24" DVI monitors? It seems I can only have one ATI video card, but multiple nVidia cards. I cannot combine ATI and nVidia, not surprisingly. Oh and getting the Mac Pro would allow me to lower the screen height. The chin on the iMac puts the screen a little higher than I prefer. Getting Blu-ray would be a big bonus too. It's gonna be annoying backing up huge video files on DVD.

Either way though, I am waiting for the next revision.

[Simon]

The 8GB RAM upgrade from Apple inflated the price of the iMac. You can get 2x4GB DDR3 at Newegg for $500.

[P]

The first Clarksfield benches are out. It pulls about even with a quad Penryn at 25% higher clock on the multithreaded CPU tests, and beats it on singlethreaded. The other tests are to be taken with a large grain of salt, as the new laptop has an SSD.

[mduell]

I'm looking forward to the new quad core MBP lineup with blistering single threaded performance.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by AnandTech

The new Clarksfield i7-920XM isn't substantially faster than the old Core 2 QX9300 when it comes to running highly threaded code. The problem is that when running highly threaded code, Clarksfield's Turbo modes aren't able to fully activate. We end up with a Core i7 running at 2.26 GHz compared to a Core 2 running at 2.53 GHz, and overall performance is relatively close. Clarksfield is 6% faster in SMP CINEBENCH, 14% faster in the second x264 pass, and 12% faster at DivX encoding.

Shame really. All those architectural improvements made with Nehalem essentially wasted to make up for the low clock. A lock clock which we got to make up for an inflated TDP.

It's ironic that Intel's first mobile quad-core essentially shines at one thing. Single-thread performance. But there's a strategy. Take all those Clarksfield with one or two non functioning cores and sell them as inexpensive but fast single-thread CPUs.

[P]

Originally Posted by Simon 

Shame really. All those architectural improvements made with Nehalem essentially wasted to make up for the low clock. A lock clock which we got to make up for an inflated TDP.

Nehalem is a server processor scaled down, rather than a mobile CPU scaled up, which is what Conroe and Penryn were. Sandy Bridge is the mobile variant again, but this tactic seems to hurt the mobile ships more than it ever hurt server chips. Intel seems to persist in not making a Westmere variant of Clarksfield - that decision isn't looking very good at the moment. A slight delay in Sandy Bridge and barring further process improvements, this will be the best Intel has to offer
for the next two years.

Originally Posted by Simon 

It's ironic that Intel's first mobile quad-core essentially shines at one thing. Single-thread performance. But there's a strategy. Take all those Clarksfield with one or two non functioning cores and sell them as inexpensive but fast single-thread CPUs.

Intel claims that once the process has stabilized, they get a 95% top bin yield. There wouldn't be too many chips with a core or two disabled. Clarksfield also shines on tests with more than four cores, obviously, but such workloads aren't exactly common.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by P 

Nehalem is a server processor scaled down, rather than a mobile CPU scaled up, which is what Conroe and Penryn were.

No kidding. It really shows. Have you seen Jasper Forest yet?

A slight delay in Sandy Bridge and barring further process improvements, this will be the best Intel has to offer for the next two years.

I consider that far too pessimistic. Westmere is arriving much earlier than originally planned. That bodes well for Sandy Bridge. Right now I'd expect first SB CPUs in early 3Q10 and improvements (clock, TDP) in the next steppings. Ready for action no later than 4Q10.

[P]

Originally Posted by Simon 

No kidding. It really shows. Have you seen Jasper Forest yet?

Yes, I saw it - not that there was much hard info on it.

I'm not complaining about Intel's decision here - they needed a server focused CPU to combat AMD, which was very strong in this space - but it does hurt mobiles right now.

Originally Posted by Simon 

I consider that far too pessimistic. Westmere is arriving much earlier than originally planned. That bodes well for Sandy Bridge. Right now I'd expect first SB CPUs in early 3Q10 and improvements (clock, TDP) in the next steppings. Ready for action no later than 4Q10.

At IDF, Intel is expecting first SB chips in 1Q11. If that's a mobile version, then good - we might have them in Macs by April - but they could do something like Bloomfield first. Remember, Clarksfield is several months late compared to their early plans. I hope that the lack of shrunk Clarksfield means that the mobile chips are first in line (desktops do get Gulftown, after all), but we don't know that.

[Simon]

Clarksfield is late not because Intel is generally speaking behind, but because they encountered trouble with Clarksfield while at the same time making huge progress on 32 nm. 32 nm gained momentum, interest in Clarksfield slumped. I think this late arrival should rather be seen as the result of Intel's progress, albeit in another process. Of course for mobile customers in the market today that's not ideal. But regarding the near future I'm pretty optimistic.

[P]

I agree that problems with Clarksfield don't necessarily mean that we will see problems with Sandy Bridge, and Westmere's apparent success is a good omen, but even if Sandy Bridge goes perfectly, it'll be here in about 18 months.

Merom launched at 2.33 GHz max, and reached 2.6 GHz with the same TDP before being replaced by Penryn. 10W up (EE) and it got to 2.8 GHz. If Clarksfield boosts in the same way, we might get an 840 at 2.0 GHz - basically the same as the current 920, but at a reasonable price and lower TDP - and a 940 at 2.33 GHz. That's it for the next year and more.

Arrandale, then? Seems it launches at 2.66 GHz tops, and we still don't know what the main memory and L3 latency will be like. It will likely not beat Penryn, even if you don't take into account that it will come with Intel integrated graphics.

Hm. The future isn't very bright from where I'm standing.

[Spheric Harlot]

Ironically, it makes perfect sense to have a standstill/perceived regression in processor speed now that Apple is on the intel bandwagon.

nostalgia for the PPC days just wasn't cutting it.

[P]

There are reasons why we should be moving towards a lower clockspeed but a higher IPC, but it is slightly disappointing to see Bloomfield setting new speed records and Clarksfield barely reaching the performance of the last generation. I had hoped that the Westmere-gen midrange laptop CPU being cancelled would mean that Clarksfield would be a monster hit, but it doesn't exactly look like that.

[Eug]

Apple ready and waiting with redesigned iMac line

In addition to more affordable pricing, the systems are expected to come clad in a thinner industrial design, one of those people added. Though details are admittedly limited, it's likely these new enclosures will also take design cues from the Cupertino-based company's relatively new LED-lit Cinema Display offerings.

Aesthetic revisions aside, the late 2009 iMac line should also debut several features previously unavailable to Mac buyers.

People familiar with Apple's thinking have suggested in recent months one of these moves could see the company finally embrace Blu-ray -- a technology once derided by Chief Executive Steve Jobs as a "bag of hurt" from a licensing perspective.

With the costs of such drives remaining relatively high, it's reasonable to presume such capability would fetch an added premium on most models.

While it remains precisely unclear when Apple plans to take the wraps off its new iMac line, it's been suggested to AppleInsider that an announcement could come anytime between next week and mid-October. Put simply, it's up to marketing to press the "Go" button.

[P]

And here I came to post just that link...

I don't buy the Bluray thing, though: Bluray makes much more sense of the MBP and the MP.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by P 

And here I came to post just that link...

I don't buy the Bluray thing, though: Bluray makes much more sense of the MBP and the MP.

I don't quite buy the Blu-ray either, but I think Blu-ray makes more sense in a 24" iMac than it does in a 13" MacBook Pro.

[Simon]

Wow. Rarely have I seen so many lines for such little content. AI has hit a new low. Here's a one-line summary.
Apple has a new cheaper and thinner iMac ready to go. It might have BR, it might not. We know nothing else.

I love this idea that Apple supposedly wants to make the iMac even thinner. Maybe they can make it so thin that only an Intel Atom will fit the thermal envelope.

[P]

Originally Posted by Eug 

I don't quite buy the Blu-ray either, but I think Blu-ray makes more sense in a 24" iMac than it does in a 13" MacBook Pro.

The reason for putting Bluray in the MBP is so people can watch movies on a trip - that is why DVDs came first to Powerbooks back in the day, even required dedicated decoder chips because the float performance of the 603e was too low. If you have started to transition to only buying Blurays of new movies, a Bluray player in an MBP makes excellent sense.

[P]

Originally Posted by Simon 

Wow. Rarely have I seen so many lines for such little content. AI has hit a new low. Here's a one-line summary.
Apple has a new cheaper and thinner iMac ready to go. It might have BR, it might not. We know nothing else.

I love this idea that Apple supposedly wants to make the iMac even thinner. Maybe they can make it so thin that only an Intel Atom will fit the thermal envelope.

Agree. I bet that the only thing they have is word that there's an update about due. That is a fairly safe bet, anyway, because it will happen in October/early November or it will happen in January, and there is no Macworld to save stuff for anymore. The Bluray and new case were put in because they draw eyeballs.

[mduell]

New rumor: Xeons

[Simon]

Mac rumor sites have hit a new low. An even thinner iMac with a quad-core Xeon? IIRC even the low-power L5xxx series Xeons come with a 60W TDP. And although JP will be labeled Xeon, it's no quad-core. Twice as much as the Penryns in today's iMac.

[Spheric Harlot]

Thinner would be feasible with a metal back to replace the plastic thermal insulator they use now.

[Eug]

Maybe they'll finally get eSATA. Or I'd be satisfied with two FW 800 ports.

BTW, I just got a Firewire 800 Compact Flash reader with UDMA support. Very fast.

[Spheric Harlot]

Two FireWire ports, or two *busses*? the former isn't too relevant, and the latter not gonna happen.

[Simon]

I'm just waiting for the rumor sites to suggest Apple will launch the new iMac with Light Peak only.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Two FireWire ports, or two *busses*? the former isn't too relevant, and the latter not gonna happen.

Two FW 800 ports on one bus plus another FW 400 port would be fine for my needs.

Firewire 800 hubs are expensive.

[P]

Originally Posted by Simon 

Mac rumor sites have hit a new low. An even thinner iMac with a quad-core Xeon? IIRC even the low-power L5xxx series Xeons come with a 60W TDP. And although JP will be labeled Xeon, it's no quad-core. Twice as much as the Penryns in today's iMac.

There is actually a newly launched Xeon L3426. It's basically a rebranded desktop Core i7 800-series (ie, Lynnfield) but it has Turbo modes like the mobiles with a low base TDP (45W), low base clockspeed (1.86 GHz) and a big max boost (up to 3.2 GHz). This is something very similar to the QM820 Clarksfield at about half the cost - $284 vs. $546.

I came here to say that it's silly to put a Xeon in the iMac, but I cannot actually exclude it after looking at the relevant specs. The P55 TDP is 4.7W - just over 1 W over the PM55 - but it also clocks down to a third when idle. The problem becomes the desktop GPU you need to put in there, but that 4670 in my HTPC is certainly cooler than the 5200 Ultra in the iMac G5, and even a 4770 should fit. You can hardly make the enclosure even thinner and still fit a full 3.5" drive in there, so that part sounds bogus, but that might just be tapering along the edge to hide that the enclosure actually got bulkier in the center.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Two FW 800 ports on one bus plus another FW 400 port would be fine for my needs.

Firewire 800 hubs are expensive.

Most FW800 devices appear to have one built-in, obviating the need for a hub.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by P 

There is actually a newly launched Xeon L3426.

Hehe, missed that one. It's really interesting though compared to the other Xeon 34xx CPUs. The rest of that series (X models) has a 95W TDP. This one CPU is clocked down to 1.86 GHz though to reach the low TDP. But all of this comes at a steep price. $284 at 1.86 GHz vs. $189 at 2.4 GHz for the X3430 model. Still, it's cheaper than Clarksfield. Looks almost like Intel tailored it to Apple's specifications.

[mduell]

Per ARK the chipset costs $31 (1ku) but the system TDP is the same as the CPU TDP.

I get why it's in the Xeon family (low power blades, etc), but weird there's no exact counterpart in another family.

[P]

Originally Posted by mduell 

Per ARK the chipset costs $31 (1ku) but the system TDP is the same as the CPU TDP.

At least when I checked, the P55 chipset has no specified TDP in ark, and none in the spec sheet. That might be why the system TDP is off. The spec sheet pointed me to a special Thermal Design doc, which had the TDP (4.7W at full blast, down to 1.7W at idle). Either the TDP was ready late, or Intel wants to push you to read that document.

Originally Posted by mduell

I get why it's in the Xeon family (low power blades, etc), but weird there's no exact counterpart in another family.

Intel's branding strategy isn't exactly sane at the moment. If they want to call it a Xeon, a Xeon it is. Anything is better than the Core iPrimeNumber mess.

Originally Posted by Simon

Looks almost like Intel tailored it to Apple's specifications.

My thoughts exactly.

[Simon]

The iMac becoming a true desktop? Impossible. But we've seen hell freeze over before.

[P]

Nono, it wouldn't be a desktop. As per Intel's branding guidelines, anything with a Xeon in it is a workstation if it isn't a server - ergo, the iMac would be a workstation. With two RAM slots and a single HD. Really.

Why don't these forums have an exploding-head smiley? I've never had occasion to use it before, but it would be totally appropriate here. That, or a little devil shivering.

[Spheric Harlot]

[Simon]

[Spheric Harlot]

Ooo. Nice.

Incidentally: it is completely impossible to procure an Apple Wireless Mouse in Hamburg at the moment. Absolutely noone has them in stock.

Imminent release, I say.