Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Hardware - Troubleshooting and Discussion > Mac Notebooks > Quad-Core notebooks (Intel Penryn)

Quad-Core notebooks (Intel Penryn)
Thread Tools
badsey
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jan 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 30, 2006, 09:36 PM
 
Intel begins production of 45nm quad-core 'Penryn' chips - Mac - Macworld UK

Based on the same microarchitecture as the Core 2 Duo, Penryn is the first Intel processor to be made using a 45-nanometre process. The chip will be available in versions for notebook PCs, desktops and servers.

Currently, most Intel chips are made using a 65nm process. Moving to the more advanced process means that the size of each transistor shrinks, allowing more of them to fit onto a piece of silicon. In addition, smaller transistors require less power and are generally faster.

Penryn chips will hit the market during the second half of 2007. In addition to faster clock speeds, the quad-core chips will consume less power than existing Intel products and will include new features, such as additional instructions for multimedia and high-performance computing applications, Willoner said. Intel plans to release more information about the chip next year, he said.

As part of Intel's move to the 45nm process, the company's D1D fab in Hillsboro, Oregon, is moving from using the 65nm process to the 45nm process, Willoner said. That leaves three Intel plants — in Oregon, Arizona, and Ireland — using the 65nm process to manufacture chips, he said.
regular QX6700 quad-core (2x2)
( Last edited by badsey; Nov 30, 2006 at 09:44 PM. )
     
DKeithA
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Pittsboro, NC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 30, 2006, 10:13 PM
 
Fantasic. I'm looking forward to how this develops.
     
tkmd
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Michigan
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 30, 2006, 10:32 PM
 
There is no way that those chips are going to consume anything less 30W. I just cant believe that. Well they better not -I just bought a MP.

Damn switch to intel- oh the days of motorola; when speed bumps occured only once a year.
Pismo 400 | Powerbook 1.5 GHz | MacPro 2.66/6GB/7300GT
     
Simon
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 1, 2006, 04:06 AM
 
So, can we get our hopes up for a Fall 2007 quad-core 45nm MBP or will we have to wait till MWSF 2008?
     
spice003
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jun 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 2, 2006, 04:38 PM
 
this is some serious ****
     
SierraDragon
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Truckee, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 2, 2006, 05:09 PM
 
Cool, Intel keeps moving forward, a very good thing. I recently took delivery of a C2D MBP but I certainly don't want progress to slow down!

-Allen Wicks
     
Blasphemy
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Circa 1225, from the Old French
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 2, 2006, 06:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by tkmd View Post
oh the days of motorola; when speed bumps occured only once a year.
And that was when we were fortunate!
     
mduell
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 3, 2006, 12:09 AM
 
There has been some talk, both immediately after the switched was revealed and more recently, that Apple should have gone with AMD rather than Intel. With Intel leading the way on process sizes (Intel will be at 45nm within about a month of AMD getting to 65nm) and Intel's superior quad core implemenation (even Q6600 beats 4x4 in the majority of benchmarks [AMD wins are mostly synthetic]), Apple seems to have made the better choice in the near-term.
     
SierraDragon
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Truckee, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 3, 2006, 12:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by mduell View Post
There has been some talk, both immediately after the switched was revealed and more recently, that Apple should have gone with AMD rather than Intel. With Intel leading the way on process sizes (Intel will be at 45nm within about a month of AMD getting to 65nm) and Intel's superior quad core implemenation (even Q6600 beats 4x4 in the majority of benchmarks [AMD wins are mostly synthetic]), Apple seems to have made the better choice in the near-term.
I fully concur. And in the long term Apple can add AMD to its stable if AMD was to substantially leapfrog Intel.

-Allen Wicks
     
tintin220
Junior Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 3, 2006, 08:22 PM
 
This is quite impressive, though I'd say Christmas time 2007 is when we're likely to see these in MBPs if not later.

In a way though, this actually helps AMD too. They can sell their existing inventory at lower prices which, although costly to them, will expand their userbase quite a bit.
♥ PowerBook G4 1.67 15" / Silver 2G iPod Nano
     
bloodline
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Not far from a shop that sells Logic Pro
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 4, 2006, 10:51 AM
 
Originally Posted by tintin220 View Post
This is quite impressive, though I'd say Christmas time 2007 is when we're likely to see these in MBPs if not later.

In a way though, this actually helps AMD too. They can sell their existing inventory at lower prices which, although costly to them, will expand their userbase quite a bit.
Hmmm... AMD don't really gain anything from an expanded "user base", I just buy the most powerful CPU/Motherboard available in my budget when I'm upgrading. No need to stick with either AMD or intel as my software will run the same on either... A luxuary of which, I'm sure Apple will take full advantage, should intel try and increase their prices
2.8 Ghz Unibody MacBook Pro 15" - 4GB Ram - Logic Pro 8.0
2.33 Ghz C2D MacBook Pro 15" - 3GB Ram - Logic Pro 7.2
1.5 Ghz G4 PowerBook 12" - 1.25GB Ram
     
xmattingly
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Dec 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 2, 2007, 05:24 PM
 
Whoa... that'll make any laptop a behweemoth. Now if they could just get around that ram limitation thing...
     
kamina
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jun 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 3, 2007, 04:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by mduell View Post
There has been some talk, both immediately after the switched was revealed and more recently, that Apple should have gone with AMD rather than Intel. With Intel leading the way on process sizes (Intel will be at 45nm within about a month of AMD getting to 65nm) and Intel's superior quad core implemenation (even Q6600 beats 4x4 in the majority of benchmarks [AMD wins are mostly synthetic]), Apple seems to have made the better choice in the near-term.
I allways thought the reasons for Apple choosing Intel where clear from the beginning. They saw the Core 2 Duo engineering samples before making the choice, and after that it was easy. You do have a fault here though.

4X4 is not a quadcore implementation, it's dual dualcore. Intels current quadcores are also not native quadcores even though they definatly do fill the quadcore defination. They are still just two dualcores cores slapped on the same chip. If the two dualcores need to talk to each other they do it via the memory controller which is behind a slow connection on the motherboard...

Apple has made the better choice in the near-term, and probably long term too. Intel has far better manufacturing process which means AMD will have to make some great architectural improvements to get ahead (as they did with the A64). Even if they get ahead it's not likely they can stay as long as they did last time (and look how little market share they managed to get).

Where AMD still manages extremly well is 4-8 socket x86 or x64 servers. Intel can't fight them with anything they have out now, which might give AMD enough time to come out with something new. However Intel can produce 8-core servers for 2-socket motherboards which takes the low end server market (32GB ram and less) away from AMD to an extent.
     
mduell
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 3, 2007, 09:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by kamina View Post
4X4 is not a quadcore implementation, it's dual dualcore. Intels current quadcores are also not native quadcores even though they definatly do fill the quadcore defination. They are still just two dualcores cores slapped on the same chip. If the two dualcores need to talk to each other they do it via the memory controller which is behind a slow connection on the motherboard...
I was using "quad core" more loosely, in the same way that the final PowerMac had a quad core model (i.e. there are four cores in the machine). They (Kentsfield and 4x4) are the consumer quads on the market today.
     
AppleOptionFour
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Austin, Texas
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 28, 2007, 02:24 AM
 
I was thinking of buying a new macbook this summer.

Any guesses as to the timeline of the speed/processor bumps?

Summer 2007 = Core 2 (Merom) + Faster Chipset (Santa Rosa)

Winter 2007 = Core 2 or 3 Penryn or will it be Stealey or Gilo?


What's the usual delay in processor integration after Intel releases them?



Any thoughts?

Thanks all.
     
Simon
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 28, 2007, 04:07 AM
 
I'm expecting Santa Rosa towards the end of Spring 2007. Penryn could come to the MBP as early as MWSF 2008.

Apple has in the past not been consistent with their adoption. They were one of the very first to introduce CD machines, but with C2D it took em quite a while.
     
mduell
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 28, 2007, 09:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by AppleOptionFour View Post
I was thinking of buying a new macbook this summer.

Any guesses as to the timeline of the speed/processor bumps?

Summer 2007 = Core 2 (Merom) + Faster Chipset (Santa Rosa)

Winter 2007 = Core 2 or 3 Penryn or will it be Stealey or Gilo?

What's the usual delay in processor integration after Intel releases them?
Merom + Santa Rosa will be available in the spring.
Penryn will out late in the year, and will probably still be Core 2 Duo; it's "just" a process shrink with a bit more cache. Core 3 Duo will probably be the new core (Nehalem) released next year.

With Apple there's still no telling when they'll implement the new chips. At first they were right there implementing them ASAP, but lately they've been relatively slow (C2D in the laptops took weeks if not months, Mac Pros still don't have quads).
     
AppleOptionFour
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Austin, Texas
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 29, 2007, 12:11 AM
 
Thanks Simon and mduell.
     
AppleOptionFour
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Austin, Texas
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 7, 2007, 01:10 PM
 
     
mlowe969
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jun 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 11, 2007, 03:04 AM
 
You release a Penryn machine, and I'll buy one immediately. I've got $10k ready to go baby.
     
Simon
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 11, 2007, 04:50 AM
 
Originally Posted by mlowe969 View Post
You release a Penryn machine, and I'll buy one immediately. I've got $10k ready to go baby.
You'll be getting it for lot less than that.

These are the planned high-end mobile Penryns:
XE - 2.8 / 6MB / 800 MHz - 44W TDP
T - 2.6 / 6MB / 800 MHz - 35W TDP
T - 2.5 / 6MB / 800 MHz - 35W TDP

The XE will be overclockable like the current Merom XE X7900. Due to its high TDP Penryn XE will likely not be used in the MBP. It seems the other T-series Penryn will be just fine for the next MBP update though. The launch prices will be similar to the currently used T7700 and T7500. So you can expect a 2.5 GHz Penryn MBP starting at $1999 and a 2.6 GHz Penryn MBP starting at $2499.

There will also be 'low-end' mobile Penryns at 2.4 and 2.1 GHz that come with 3 MB L2 cache (25W TDP announced). I'd expect to see those in the MB.

And finally, in 2Q08 with the arrival of the Montevina platform there will be a Penryn refresh. Expect clock rates up to 3.06 GHz. And the FSB clock will be cranked up to 1066 MHz.
     
mduell
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 11, 2007, 07:16 AM
 
I wouldn't be surprised to see Apple use the 2.6 and 2.4 instead of 2.5Ghz Penryns... need more 'differentiation' than 100Mhz provides (given how marginal the other differences are).
     
PaperNotes
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 11, 2007, 08:42 AM
 
Originally Posted by mduell View Post
I wouldn't be surprised to see Apple use the 2.6 and 2.4 instead of 2.5Ghz Penryns... need more 'differentiation' than 100Mhz provides (given how marginal the other differences are).
When clock speeds are close Apple gives more VRAM and other beefed up specs to the faster model. Many times models have shipped with only 50-133Mhz between them. It's not unusual. In a quad-core solution even that 100Mhz is a good difference because it is really 100Mhz X 4 (some apps can make the most of what looks so little).
     
Simon
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2007, 03:40 PM
 
Just as I thought. It will most likely be 2.6 (T9500) and 2.5 GHz (T9300) on the next MBP.

The prices leaked today are $530 for T9500 and $316 for T9300. The exact same prices as T7700 and T7500 when Apple launched the Mid 2007 MBP.
     
Crasian
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Amarillo, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2007, 05:46 PM
 
I am fantasy League Champion...the rest
of you are losers!
     
tmelcher
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Atlanta, GA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2007, 08:38 PM
 
We probably won't be seeing this in the MacBook Pros until, at the very earliest, January 2008 at MWSF. They'll probably be lumped in with a RAM/hard drive upgrade, and, if we're lucky, a Blu-ray drive (but don't hold your breath).
Mac Pro, 2x 2.66 GHz Dual-Core Xeon
MacBook Pro, 2.4 GHz Core 2 Duo
16GB iPhone 3G
Airport Extreme + Airport Express dual access point setup
     
~bash $
Forum Regular
Join Date: Feb 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2007, 10:51 PM
 
Anyone going to hold out for Penryn instead of buying now? I'm glad I bought, actually. I am sure it will be faster, cheaper, lighter, etc. etc. but I'm pretty happy with the current iterations. Especially coupled to my MP.
     
JoshuaZ
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Yamanashi, Japan
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 20, 2007, 02:57 AM
 
Eh, if they upgrade they upgrade. All this speculation is like geek masturbation.
     
Simon
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 20, 2007, 03:02 AM
 
Originally Posted by ~bash $ View Post
Anyone going to hold out for Penryn instead of buying now? I'm glad I bought, actually. I am sure it will be faster, cheaper, lighter, etc. etc. but I'm pretty happy with the current iterations. Especially coupled to my MP.
I'm getting one now. We'll see what else the Penryn MBP has to offer, but according to Intel a 20% performance increase can be expected from the Penryn CPU (compared to Merom at the same clock). IMHO if the only difference is Penryn that's probably not reason enough to update form a Mid 2007 MBP. OTOH if other things get updated too (200 GB 7200 rpm HDD option, GPU, etc.) it could be very tempting.
     
Simon
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 20, 2007, 03:03 AM
 
Originally Posted by JoshuaZ View Post
Eh, if they upgrade they upgrade. All this speculation is like geek masturbation.
That's what this thread is all about. Welcome.
     
Lancer409
Professional Poster
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Semi Posting Retirement *ReJoice!*
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2007, 04:40 AM
 
I cant wait for the next iteration of the MB and MBP. I hear there may be an option for black ano alum. I've been drowning in my own tears since i parted with my 12inch powerbook. If this is the roadmap, i may wait until Q2 2008, and get the frontside bus bump to over 1k. that being said, what was the frontside bus on a revision c. 1.33ghz g4? was it 233mhz? Geez.

I am curious about the "intel quickpath" replacing front side bus. what is it / how does it work? i read in another thread that they are touting 17GBs

No trees were killed in the sending of this message. However, a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.
     
Simon
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2007, 05:57 AM
 
Originally Posted by Lancer409 View Post
I cant wait for the next iteration of the MB and MBP. I hear there may be an option for black ano alum.
Yep, that's the rumor. We'll see if it materializes.

I've been drowning in my own tears since i parted with my 12inch powerbook. If this is the roadmap, i may wait until Q2 2008, and get the frontside bus bump to over 1k.
The Montevina platform will bring us a 1066 MHz FSB chipset in 2Q08. Penryn will then be refreshed accordingly.
T???? - 3.06 / 6MB / 1066 MHz - TDP 35 W
T???? - 2.80 / 6MB / 1066 MHz - TDP 35 W
T???? - 2.53 / 6MB / 1066 MHz - TDP 35 W
T???? - 2.53 / 3MB / 1066 MHz - TDP 25 W
T???? - 2.40 / 3MB / 1066 MHz - TDP 25 W
T???? - 2.13 / 3MB / 1066 MHz - TDP 25 W

that being said, what was the frontside bus on a revision c. 1.33ghz g4? was it 233mhz? Geez.
The system bus on that PB was actually 167 MHz.

I am curious about the "intel quickpath" replacing front side bus. what is it / how does it work? i read in another thread that they are touting 17GBs
As I wrote there, QuickPath's targeted bandwidth per link is 24-32 GB/s.
     
Lancer409
Professional Poster
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Semi Posting Retirement *ReJoice!*
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2007, 08:55 PM
 
oh god. It was 167? =D *whimpers* Still, I miss it. (The Powerbook, not the bus speed)

What i meant was, QuickPath is being measured by GB/s, where as Front side bus was measured using mhz. How do you compare the two?

How do you compare 1066Mhz Front side bus to a QuickPath bandwith per link of .. say... 24 GB/s?

No trees were killed in the sending of this message. However, a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.
     
mduell
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2007, 11:28 PM
 
Bandwidth is just frequency * bus width.

QuickPath is 4.8-6.4Ghz (well, GT/s), but it's only 43 bits wide, yielding 24-32GBps.
The current FSB is only 667-1600Mhz (again, MT/s), but it's 64 bits wide, yielding 5-12GBps.
     
Simon
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 26, 2007, 02:42 AM
 
Actually, bandwidth = transfer rate * bus width.

Ever since DDR came along we all know that you can transfer more than just once per cycle. For example you can send/receive on the rising and falling edge of the clock pulse. Therefore you're actually more interested in transfer rates than in clock speed.
     
mduell
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 26, 2007, 06:38 PM
 
Yea, but a lot of marketoids still make the transfer rate appear in terms of frequency.
     
Simon
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2007, 03:10 AM
 
That's no reason to repeat the BS and spread the misinformation.

Crestline's so-called 800 MHz FSB is actually running with a 200 MHz clock (the T7700 multiplier is 14: 200 MHz x 12 = 2.4 GHz). The only "800" thing about it is its 800 MT/s transfer rate. And hence the 64 bits x 800 MT/s = 6.4GB/s bandwidth. IOW, either people should specify the FSB at 200 MHz or at 800 MT/s. Anything else is just marketing baloney. No need to repeat it on an independent forum.

There's actually more to that story. Back in the Napa/Calistoga days the FSB was running at 167 MHz which meant that the top of the line Merom, the T7600 had a multiplier of 14x to reach its 2.33 GHz. With the new SR/Crestline Meroms (the T7x00 with odd x) Intel is using a lower multiplier and their new "Dynamic Acceleration". In essence it means that if you load one core (for example when you run one big single threaded task) the T7700 will clock down one core and at the same time increase the multiplier on the other to 13x. That means a single core will run at 2.6 GHz rather than 2.4 GHz while the other core idles. IOW you achieve better performance in single threaded applications while staying within official rated TDPs.
( Last edited by Simon; Sep 27, 2007 at 03:26 AM. )
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:44 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,