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 > Intel X9100 in new Mackbook Pro?

Intel X9100 in new Mackbook Pro?
Thread Tools
stefanos
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Aug 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 20, 2008, 11:29 AM
 
Will the new Intel X9100 chip fuel the Macbook Pro? Anyone?
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 20, 2008, 11:52 AM
 
A Core 2 Extreme? Not bloody likely. In the iMac, probably, but the MBP has always been straight Core/Core 2 Duos as far as I can recall.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
stefanos  (op)
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Aug 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 20, 2008, 12:18 PM
 
but isn't the X9100 a mobile processor?
     
Simon
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 20, 2008, 12:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by stefanos View Post
Will the new Intel X9100 chip fuel the Macbook Pro? Anyone?
It will have a TDP of 44W. That's not something you'll see in a regular MBP (a BTO option is possible though).

Another feasible option is a quad-core Penryn at 2.53 GHz. Supposedly Intel has managed to get the TDP down from the initially targeted 44 W to 35 W on the QX9300. If this has indeed happened the QX9300 is a very likely candidate for the Cantiga MBP.
( Last edited by Simon; Aug 20, 2008 at 12:39 PM. )
     
Simon
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 20, 2008, 12:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
A Core 2 Extreme? Not bloody likely. In the iMac, probably, but the MBP has always been straight Core/Core 2 Duos as far as I can recall.
The last generation MBP offered a C2E as a BTO option too: the 2.6 GHz X7800 Merom XE.

Core 2 Extreme does not imply it's a desktop CPU. There is usually a desktop and mobile C2E version. C2E is just Intel's label for the top of the line CPU. It is clocked higher and usually comes with unlocked multipliers.
( Last edited by Simon; Aug 20, 2008 at 12:36 PM. )
     
Simon
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 20, 2008, 12:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by stefanos View Post
but isn't the X9100 a mobile processor?
Yes, it is. A Penryn XE actually.

In the past XE mobile CPUs came with a 44 W TDP. With such a thermal envelope they are usually geared towards high-end or desktop-replacement notebooks.
     
stefanos  (op)
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Aug 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 20, 2008, 01:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by Simon View Post
It will have a TDP of 44W. That's not something you'll see in a regular MBP (a BTO option is possible though).

Another feasible option is a quad-core Penryn at 2.53 GHz. Supposedly Intel has managed to get the TDP down from the initially targeted 44 W to 35 W on the QX9300. If this has indeed happened the QX9300 is a very likely candidate for the Cantiga MBP.
Simon, what is the 'Cantiga MBP' you refer to?
     
Simon
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 20, 2008, 01:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by stefanos View Post
Simon, what is the 'Cantiga MBP' you refer to?
Cantiga is the new chipset Intel has released as part of the Montevina/Centrino3 platform. The coming MBP refresh will make use of this chipset. Expect it any time within the next few weeks.
     
mduell
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 20, 2008, 06:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by Simon View Post
Another feasible option is a quad-core Penryn at 2.53 GHz. Supposedly Intel has managed to get the TDP down from the initially targeted 44 W to 35 W on the QX9300. If this has indeed happened the QX9300 is a very likely candidate for the Cantiga MBP.
ARK lists QX9300 as a 45W TDP, which seems odd since mobile chips are usually grouped as 35W or 44W; perhaps it's a typo in ARK or a typo in the rumor you saw.
     
Simon
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 21, 2008, 02:39 AM
 
Weird indeed. No mobile Core processor has ever been released with 45 W TDP. Anyway...

Several usually well-informed sources have claimed that in the meantime Intel has managed to push that down and will launch the quad-core Penryn XE at only 35 W TDP.

If that is actually the case I do wonder though why they don't just release it as a regular quad-core Penryn Q9300 next to the planned Q9100. And instead jack up the frequency some more to get a higher clocked quad-core Penryn XE albeit at 44 W. With the X9100 clocked at 3.06 GHz it's going to be a tough job to market a quad-core Penryn XE at "only" 2.53 GHz. Especially to the mobile gamer crowd (which Intel is focussing on with Penryn XE).

Since Cantiga MBPs are about to be released we should know more pretty soon.
( Last edited by Simon; Aug 21, 2008 at 02:45 AM. )
     
mduell
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 21, 2008, 06:48 PM
 
Perhaps they'll get turbo mode (+1-2 speed bins for active core(s) when TDP permits, due to idle or near-idle cores) working for Penryns under OS X. It was originally planned for all Penryn mobile, but Vista's core jumping behavior defeats it so AFAIK it has been mostly forgotten for Penryn.
     
Simon
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 22, 2008, 02:33 AM
 
IMHO TM is more of a marketing thing than something that actually translates into perceived performance gains. 2 bins is the max which translates to max ~300 MHz. So we're looking at a single core getting %10 more clock. And that actually only works when you have a single thread causing all the load. At least under OS X and Linux that's not a very common situation. I'm not saying it's no good, I just wouldn't expect too much from it.
     
applesbiggestfan
Forum Regular
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: infront of my lousy 4 year old 1.4GHz PC!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 23, 2008, 01:11 PM
 
I have the feeling that The Macbook Pro is going to have Intel Core 2 Extreme.
And the Macbook will stay Core 2 Duo...
the iMac will go Core 2 Extreme...
The Mac Pro will go Intel Xeon 6 Quad-Extreme 2 Tri-Duo . just kidding it will stay Xeon
And the Macbook Air will stay Core 2 Duo.
( Last edited by applesbiggestfan; Aug 23, 2008 at 01:29 PM. )
     
applesbiggestfan
Forum Regular
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: infront of my lousy 4 year old 1.4GHz PC!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 23, 2008, 01:25 PM
 
Specs:
Macbook: Up to 2.6Ghz Core 2 Duo -------- RAM up to 4GB
Macbook Pro: Up to 2.8Ghz Core 2 Extreme - RAM up to 4GB
Macbook Air: 2.0Ghz or 2.2Ghz Core 2 Duo - RAM up to 2GB
iMac: Up to 3.2Ghz Core 2 Extreme -------- RAM possibly over 4GB
Mac Pro: Up to 3.4Ghz per core Xeon ------ RAM up to 32GB
     
mduell
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 23, 2008, 02:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by applesbiggestfan View Post
Specs:
Macbook: Up to 2.6Ghz Core 2 Duo -------- RAM up to 4GB
Macbook Pro: Up to 2.8Ghz Core 2 Extreme - RAM up to 4GB
Macbook Air: 2.0Ghz or 2.2Ghz Core 2 Duo - RAM up to 2GB
iMac: Up to 3.2Ghz Core 2 Extreme -------- RAM possibly over 4GB
Mac Pro: Up to 3.4Ghz per core Xeon ------ RAM up to 32GB
No.
     
applesbiggestfan
Forum Regular
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: infront of my lousy 4 year old 1.4GHz PC!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 23, 2008, 02:35 PM
 
Alright mduell,

What do you think the specs and processors and RAM will be?
     
mduell
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 23, 2008, 04:51 PM
 
As my sig says...

Macbook: 2.26 and 2.53Ghz Core 2 Duo, 8GB RAM max (unless Apple cripples it in firmware)
Macbook Pro: 2.53 and 2.8Ghz Core 2 Duo, 8GB RAM max
Macbook Air: 1.86Ghz (low voltage) or 2.4Ghz (standard voltage) max, 4GB RAM... not sure if Apple is going to push CPU (like they generally do) or go with the lower power/longer life option
iMac: The hardest to predict (and probably the furthest away), 2.53Ghz Core 2 Duo on the low end, 3.06 or 3.2Ghz Core 2 Extreme or 2.53Ghz Core 2 Quad Extreme on the high end, 8GB RAM max
Mac Pro: Gainestown clockrates haven't leaked yet, but the whole lineup will probably be in the 2.93-3.6Ghz range, but supporting at least 48GB RAM (6x8GB) and possibly 96 (16GB modules) or even 192GB (12 slots).
     
Simon
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 23, 2008, 04:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by applesbiggestfan View Post
Specs:
Macbook: Up to 2.6Ghz Core 2 Duo -------- RAM up to 4GB
Nope. That's a socket P Crestline Penryn. No such part with the socket B Penryn Cantiga refresh. A 2.53 GHz T9500 or P9500 at the high end maybe.

Macbook Pro: Up to 2.8Ghz Core 2 Extreme - RAM up to 4GB
Nope. RAM ceiling should be 8GB. Also there is no such C2E part with the socket B Cantiga refresh. The 2.8 GHz part is the T9600 and that's a regular C2D at 35 W TDP. The C2E is either the X9100 or the QX9300. The X9100 is out of the question heat-wise. Only if we see Intel get that QX9300 TDP down it could come near a MBP.

Macbook Air: 2.0Ghz or 2.2Ghz Core 2 Duo - RAM up to 2GB
Wrong RAM ceiling. And again wrong parts. If they're smart they'll stick to SL9x00 but keep the clock where it is now. If they want to be MHz whores it will be SP9x00. Those would come in at 2.4 and 2.26 GHz. And Apple will get sued to no end because those MBAs will ignite users.

iMac: Up to 3.2Ghz Core 2 Extreme -------- RAM possibly over 4GB
RAM ceiling definitely at 8 GB. There is no mobile C2E (i.e. Penryn XE) at 3.2 GHz. And we have absolutely no reason to believe Apple won't stick with Penryn (XE) on the iMac. The XE part is the X9100 at 3.06 GHz. Another high-end option would be the QX9300 with 4 cores at 2.53 GHz.

Mac Pro: Up to 3.4Ghz per core Xeon ------ RAM up to 32GB
Nope. RAM ceiling is much higher with Nehalem. And Nehalem/i7 update on the MP won't be happenining till late this year or beginning of next year. Clock speeds are still not definitely decided on - Intel still has some fudge freedom there.

You see, meaningful predictions are not just big numbers that sound flashy. You have to find out what Intel has to offer, what fits the thermal envelope of a certain Mac line, and finally - most importantly - what it costs Apple to use this stuff. Only then can you make an educated guess about what will happen and when. And with Apple getting custom-tailored parts from Intel there's still more than enough error margin even if your predictions are smart.
     
Brien
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Southern California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 24, 2008, 01:23 AM
 
Originally Posted by mduell View Post
As my sig says...

Macbook: 2.26 and 2.53Ghz Core 2 Duo, 8GB RAM max (unless Apple cripples it in firmware)
Macbook Pro: 2.53 and 2.8Ghz Core 2 Duo, 8GB RAM max
Macbook Air: 1.86Ghz (low voltage) or 2.4Ghz (standard voltage) max, 4GB RAM... not sure if Apple is going to push CPU (like they generally do) or go with the lower power/longer life option
iMac: The hardest to predict (and probably the furthest away), 2.53Ghz Core 2 Duo on the low end, 3.06 or 3.2Ghz Core 2 Extreme or 2.53Ghz Core 2 Quad Extreme on the high end, 8GB RAM max
Mac Pro: Gainestown clockrates haven't leaked yet, but the whole lineup will probably be in the 2.93-3.6Ghz range, but supporting at least 48GB RAM (6x8GB) and possibly 96 (16GB modules) or even 192GB (12 slots).
Cantiga supports 8GB RAM off the bat, right? I doubt Apple would cripple RAM capacity; considering what a 4GB DDR3 SODIMM costs it cripples itself for a majority of people.
     
Simon
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 24, 2008, 04:10 AM
 
Cantiga supports addressing of up to 8GB.

Apple has limited max RAM capacity in lower-end Macs before. I wouldn't be surprised to see them do it on the MB and Mac mini again. The MBA is RAM-crippled by design with its soldered RAM and no DIMM slots.

Apple's not limiting the RAM ceiling because of cost. It's about encouraging upsell.
     
mduell
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 24, 2008, 11:54 AM
 
Originally Posted by Brien View Post
Cantiga supports 8GB RAM off the bat, right? I doubt Apple would cripple RAM capacity; considering what a 4GB DDR3 SODIMM costs it cripples itself for a majority of people.
Yes. They've done it before; all of the Core Duo Macs were crippled to 2GB.

Originally Posted by Simon View Post
Cantiga supports addressing of up to 8GB.

Apple has limited max RAM capacity in lower-end Macs before.
Cantiga supports 36 bit addressing (64GB), but 8GB physical memory.

The CD MBP wasn't a lower-end Mac, but it was crippled from 3.mumble to 2GB.
     
Simon
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 24, 2008, 01:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by mduell View Post
The CD MBP wasn't a lower-end Mac, but it was crippled from 3.mumble to 2GB.
That made zero sense. There was nothing more expensive people could have chosen instead.
     
shawmanus
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 24, 2008, 01:17 PM
 
Apple has tendency to ask for custom cpus for various platforms.

Current MBA and iMac both have custom designed cpus.

I would predict

MBA - Apple could ask Intel to tweak their LV cpus to keep TDP under 20W but clock at 2GHZ
MB - Probably use 3M versions. 2.26ghz and 2.4ghz
MBP - if apple is agressive they will ask intel for 2.66ghz at 25W. So they could offer 2.53 and 2.66ghz at 25W TDP.
iMac - If they wait till Q1 09 T9800 at 2.93ghz will release. So they can offer platforms from 2.26ghz to 2.93ghz standard. They could offer "custom"(or intel overclocked) CPU at 3.2ghz(XE version) or 2.66ghz quad core.
MP - As simon and mduell have said clockspeeds for gainestown have not been revealed. But general consensus is they will match harpertown at minimum. So Apple might continue with similar offerings with much larger RAM. DDR3 should hopefully be cheaper than FBDIMM. Plus the MetaRam is available, insane amounts of RAM can be supported.
     
mduell
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 24, 2008, 02:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by Simon View Post
That made zero sense. There was nothing more expensive people could have chosen instead.
What?

Originally Posted by shawmanus View Post
MP - As simon and mduell have said clockspeeds for gainestown have not been revealed.
OTOH it's not too much of a stretch to make an educated guess based on the leaked Bloomfield clockrates and prices.
( Last edited by mduell; Aug 24, 2008 at 02:20 PM. )
     
Simon
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 24, 2008, 04:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by mduell View Post
What?
There's no upsell from the MBP. Limiting the MB, sure. The MBP? Doesn't make any sense.
     
mduell
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 24, 2008, 07:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by Simon View Post
There's no upsell from the MBP. Limiting the MB, sure. The MBP? Doesn't make any sense.
Right, I agree. But they still firmware crippled the memory capacity of the Core Duo MacBook Pros.
     
thetman
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Dec 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 25, 2008, 02:30 AM
 
What about DDR2 vs DDR3, I have seen some notebooks with DDR3 now, Does anyone think Apple would move to DDR3?

Also in regards to video cards I would expect something like a 9600m GT 512mb in the MBP with possible BTO 9700m GT . Macbook I would guess to be X4500.
     
Simon
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 25, 2008, 05:34 AM
 
Originally Posted by mduell View Post
But they still firmware crippled the memory capacity of the Core Duo MacBook Pros.
Nobody challenged that. I'm merely pointing out that while I can understand why they do it on devices like the mini or MB, I cannot understand what lead them to do it on the original MBP.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 25, 2008, 06:38 AM
 
The CD iMacs and MB/MBPs were pretty clearly a rush job. Apple weren't supposed to launch Intel Macs until the Core 2 (well, according to what they said when they announced the switch) so the CD Macs were a bit of a hack on a semi-finished design. I could very well see that they didn't have the firmware code for a perfect split between RAM and other hardware done in time for launch, and hacked in a 2 GB line to just get the machines out there.

I agree with the CPU picks above, but GPUs are always a surprise with Apple, it seems. The 8600m GT is getting old, but it would take a 9700m GTS to bring any sort of performance improvement. That still wouldn't let it compete with the top iMac, something MBPs/Powerbooks has usually been able to. Will Apple really spring for a 9800m model? There are also mobile Radeons (3850, at least) that may fit. The MBs will probably get the X4500, yes.
     
Brien
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Southern California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 25, 2008, 11:18 AM
 
I don't think they'll go with nVidia as a base due to the fiasco (even if the cards are okay, PR isn't). I can see them switching back to an ATI with nVidia BTO (or maybe vice-versa). Also, the 9X series nvidia's and 38X0 cards run way to hot for the MBP as it's built right now. If they severely underclock them I can see it happening but Apple's never gone with high-end cards in the MBP, usually mid-range cards.

I think that we'll get a 3650, hopefully a 3670.
     
applesbiggestfan
Forum Regular
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: infront of my lousy 4 year old 1.4GHz PC!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 25, 2008, 12:50 PM
 
If mduell is right and the Macbook goes from 2.4Ghz to 2.53Ghz... and can have 8GB or RAM... is it worth the wait for a High-School freshman?
     
thetman
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Dec 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 25, 2008, 01:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by applesbiggestfan View Post
If mduell is right and the Macbook goes from 2.4Ghz to 2.53Ghz... and can have 8GB or RAM... is it worth the wait for a High-School freshman?
the newer processors would have more going for them than just 130mhz, I believe they have more L2 cache and possibly lower TDP, The 4GB vs 8GB ram max for basic work probably isnt worth it considering 4GB costs ~$75 and 2 x 4GB modules would be something like $800.

The advantage of buying right now is the free ipod, I would say if you have an ipod now wait it out and get the new macbook. If you dont have an ipod and are considering one go for the current gen macbook and get yourself a free ipod (or is that a college only promotion?)
     
mduell
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 25, 2008, 03:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by thetman View Post
What about DDR2 vs DDR3, I have seen some notebooks with DDR3 now, Does anyone think Apple would move to DDR3?
Yes, for the power savings and or blingyness.

Originally Posted by Brien View Post
I don't think they'll go with nVidia as a base due to the fiasco (even if the cards are okay, PR isn't). I can see them switching back to an ATI with nVidia BTO (or maybe vice-versa). Also, the 9X series nvidia's and 38X0 cards run way to hot for the MBP as it's built right now. If they severely underclock them I can see it happening but Apple's never gone with high-end cards in the MBP, usually mid-range cards.
Originally Posted by applesbiggestfan View Post
If mduell is right and the Macbook goes from 2.4Ghz to 2.53Ghz... and can have 8GB or RAM... is it worth the wait for a High-School freshman?
Originally Posted by thetman View Post
The 4GB vs 8GB ram max for basic work probably isnt worth it considering 4GB costs ~$75 and 2 x 4GB modules would be something like $800.
Even though you can't afford 8GB today, it increases the viable life of the machine.
     
Simon
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 25, 2008, 04:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by applesbiggestfan View Post
If mduell is right and the Macbook goes from 2.4Ghz to 2.53Ghz... and can have 8GB or RAM... is it worth the wait for a High-School freshman?
The MB will most certainly not get an 8 GB RAM ceiling. I can pretty much guarantee you that while the MBP will come with an 8 GB ceiling, the MB will be firmware-capped at 4 GB.

That said I still think you should wait and get a new MB. It's another two weeks or so till well get them. That's not a long time to hold out. The MHz increase is not as important as the power-savings (let's hope they go for the 25 W P9500 rather than for the 35 W T9400), cache, FSB, RAM, etc. In addition it looks like a nice case change (nice apart from wireless reception that is) is also in there.

I'm usually not at all somebody to suggest waiting. But in this case with the update coming right up I see no reason to jump the gun.
     
shawmanus
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 25, 2008, 05:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by Simon View Post
The MB will most certainly not get an 8 GB RAM ceiling. I can pretty much guarantee you that while the MBP will come with an 8 GB ceiling, the MB will be firmware-capped at 4 GB.
I dont see why Apple would do that. They will ask for a huge premium on 8GB RAM option. Plus it is too much hassle to have different firmwares for the same platform.

I think they will only use CPU's with 3MB L2 cache for MB and 6MB L2 cache for MBP. They may also support quad core if intel can keep the TDP to 35W as you say. Plus Dedicated GPU option and LED backlit screen should be sufficient to separate them.

Apple may start offering SSD for MBP as well. But they will continue to be prohibitively expensive.
     
thetman
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Dec 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 26, 2008, 12:46 AM
 
I also hope the MBP 15" can get a 1680x1050 option. Im guessing too if Apple decides to introduce BluRay as a feature/option that they would have HDCP on the DVI port.
     
Simon
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 26, 2008, 02:26 AM
 
Originally Posted by shawmanus View Post
I dont see why Apple would do that. They will ask for a huge premium on 8GB RAM option.
It's not about them selling RAM. It's about upsell to the MBP. They've done it before and they'll likely do it again - especially now when MB and MBP CPUs are so close in performance.

Plus it is too much hassle to have different firmwares for the same platform.
Not at all. Changing one register in FW is a piece of cake when you have just written an entire FW. They have done it several times in the past.

I think they will only use CPU's with 3MB L2 cache for MB and 6MB L2 cache for MBP.
Probably not. For the simple reason that that would mean not increasing the clock on the MB. Apple likes CPU clock rates. It makes life easy for Phil Schiller an his marketing folks.

They may also support quad core if intel can keep the TDP to 35W as you say. Plus Dedicated GPU option and LED backlit screen should be sufficient to separate them.
Most certainly the MB will get the LED backlit screen this time. They are committed to changing all displays to LED backlighting as they have repeated on several occasions. And now Apple can basically use the MBA panel for the MB.
( Last edited by Simon; Aug 26, 2008 at 02:37 AM. )
     
shawmanus
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 26, 2008, 03:02 AM
 
^^

If Apple wait till Q1 for Macbook P8700 at 2.53ghz 3M L2 cache will be available.
     
Simon
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 26, 2008, 03:41 AM
 
Originally Posted by shawmanus View Post
If Apple wait till Q1 for Macbook P8700 at 2.53ghz 3M L2 cache will be available.
If, maybe.

But the MB should be updated much sooner. Actually from all I've heard it should be here within the next two weeks.
     
kamina
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jun 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 26, 2008, 03:48 AM
 
Originally Posted by Simon View Post
Cantiga supports addressing of up to 8GB.

Apple has limited max RAM capacity in lower-end Macs before. I wouldn't be surprised to see them do it on the MB and Mac mini again. The MBA is RAM-crippled by design with its soldered RAM and no DIMM slots.

Apple's not limiting the RAM ceiling because of cost. It's about encouraging upsell.
Apple has also limited max RAM capacity in higher-end Macs. I have one of the first gen macbook pro's which is crippled to not accept more then 2GB of ram. I can run 2GB in one stick, or 2*1GB but no way to get it to use more. The chipset supports 4GB, though only a bit over 3GB would realy be usable (hence later macbook pro's where limited to 3GB).
     
Simon
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 26, 2008, 04:05 AM
 
Originally Posted by kamina View Post
Apple has also limited max RAM capacity in higher-end Macs. I have one of the first gen macbook pro's which is crippled to not accept more then 2GB of ram.
Yes, as we have already established in this thread, there has been one instance where Apple also limited max RAM in firmware on a higher-end Mac. The original CD MBP was limited in firmware to 2 GB even though the Calistoga chipset would have been able to address 3 GB.

To me this has always made very little sense since there is no upsell possibility with the MBP. P's insightful post above however points out a possible reason behind this "blunder".
     
kamina
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jun 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 26, 2008, 07:02 AM
 
Ah, I think I read through too hastingly.. Unfortunatly I now need to replace a 1st rev macbook pro since I can't cope with only 2GB of ram.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 26, 2008, 07:53 AM
 
Originally Posted by Brien View Post
I don't think they'll go with nVidia as a base due to the fiasco (even if the cards are okay, PR isn't). I can see them switching back to an ATI with nVidia BTO (or maybe vice-versa). Also, the 9X series nvidia's and 38X0 cards run way to hot for the MBP as it's built right now. If they severely underclock them I can see it happening but Apple's never gone with high-end cards in the MBP, usually mid-range cards.

I think that we'll get a 3650, hopefully a 3670.
That was my prediction last time we were due for an iMac bump. Now I'm thinking that the 4650/4670 are around the corner, so we might get that instead. The 3670 would compare favorably to the 2600XT already in the iMac, and probably to the 8600m as well (comparisons of notebook graphics are notoriously unreliable, but they seem to be about equal). The 3650 seems slightly slower. I do think that the MBP should get a higher specced model at the high end or as a BTO option, however.

Many of nVidia's mobile 9x00 cards are just rebranded 8x00s. The few new ones, like the 9600M GT, seems to have about the same TDP as the older 8600M GT (23W versus 20W). The 9800s are where the TDPs go insane, but Apple is never going to include those. Where did you find Mobile 3850 TDPs? That would be very interesting.

In general, I think that Apple will split the iMac and MBP between ATi and nVidia again, but predicting the exact specs is looking very hard at the moment. The only upgrades to the 8800M GTX in the iMac (well, that's what I think it has...) seems to have a way higher TDP.
     
Dark Goob
Forum Regular
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Portland, OR
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 26, 2008, 11:54 PM
 
My question is not which GPU they will put in the next MBP.

Rather I want to know WHEN IN THE HELL ARE THEY GOING TO COME UP WITH DRIVERS FOR THESE GPUS THAT CAUSE THE FRAME-RATES TO COMPETE WITH THE FPS THAT THE SAME GAMES GET ON WINDOWS.

And when is there going to be an NVIDIA Control Panel on Mac?

And when is there going to be something to compete with DirectX 10?

And when is Apple going to get serious about the 3D internet beyond viewing OpenGL as merely a toy to make their GUI flashy?

sigh!!!!
     
mduell
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 27, 2008, 12:29 AM
 
Originally Posted by Dark Goob View Post
Rather I want to know WHEN IN THE HELL ARE THEY GOING TO COME UP WITH DRIVERS FOR THESE GPUS THAT CAUSE THE FRAME-RATES TO COMPETE WITH THE FPS THAT THE SAME GAMES GET ON WINDOWS.

And when is there going to be something to compete with DirectX 10?

And when is Apple going to get serious about the 3D internet beyond viewing OpenGL as merely a toy to make their GUI flashy?
Even if they get the drivers up to par, the ported games will still probably be slower.

OpenGL 3 had a shot, but the committee decided against it.

3D internet? Ugh.
     
Brien
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Southern California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 27, 2008, 12:47 AM
 
Originally Posted by Simon View Post
If, maybe.

But the MB should be updated much sooner. Actually from all I've heard it should be here within the next two weeks.
I certainly hope so. I'll need a new MBP in about a month, and all the whispers point to new notebooks soon.

@P: I don't have exact numbers but from what I was hearing at SIGGRAPH they run about 10/15W more than the 36X0's. Maybe they'll get the TDP down, I would love to get a 3850 in the MBP.
     
kamina
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jun 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 27, 2008, 03:04 AM
 
Originally Posted by Brien View Post
I certainly hope so. I'll need a new MBP in about a month, and all the whispers point to new notebooks soon.

@P: I don't have exact numbers but from what I was hearing at SIGGRAPH they run about 10/15W more than the 36X0's. Maybe they'll get the TDP down, I would love to get a 3850 in the MBP.
I hope so too... I was talking with my boss about replacing my macbook pro, and he agreed, actually he decided to replace his too.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 27, 2008, 07:47 AM
 
Originally Posted by Brien View Post
@P: I don't have exact numbers but from what I was hearing at SIGGRAPH they run about 10/15W more than the 36X0's. Maybe they'll get the TDP down, I would love to get a 3850 in the MBP.
I can't seem to find TDP numbers for any of the ATi mobile parts right now. The desktop 3650 is a quite frugal chip though, and the mobile 3650 ought to be at least a little better than the 2600 XT in the iMacs today because of the smaller threadsize. A 3850 shouldn't be more than about 35W worst case - bad, but nothing near the 75W craziness of the 9800M models. Not impossible, at least for a BTO.
     
   
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 09:05 PM.
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.,