New Macbook Pro owners, Wait for Core i7!

Well the reviews are in for Clarksfield and it looks quite impressive.

1.6ghz, 1.73ghz, 2.0ghz are the three Clarksfield processors that are out now for other vendors.

From the benchmarks Clarksfield performs equal to or even better than the 2.53 ghz core 2 Quad Extreme even with a clockspeed deficit.

I think Apple is going to skip Clarksfield as it runs a little too hot and go for Arrandale early next year. If Clarksfield is any indication of Arrandales performance, expect low end Arrandales beating out top Core 2 Duo's in multitasking.

This is the next leap in CPU laptop power ever since Conroe went mobile, if you don't need a laptop now, I would wait for Core i7.

 

In technology, you'll generally always do better when you buy when you have to instead of when you want to, because there's always something better around the corner.

 

yeah, the i7 kicks booty... everyone already knows this.... thats why the Mac Pros right now are so fast.

 

regardless, its still generally stupid to buy a new piece of equipment when a better piece will be coming out tomorrow.

 

Well generally I usually buy when I need things thats why I bought my mbp back in June. But core i7 isn't too far away and what Conroe has done for the mobile world Core i7 will do the same.

So this isn't about a die shrink or better efficiency. This is a whole new architecture

 

A C2D is still fast for me. My overclocked E6300 still meets all my needs. I'm just wanting better netbooks right now.

 

January is 'tomorrow?' The i7 is hot and needs a 120 watt PSU and is not suitable for thin and lights - before you bring up the new HP envy you should read the preview at notebookcheck.

I'll wait a year or two until Apple gets i7 right.

 

it might as well be when you know exactly(or pretty damn close) what is coming out and how much better its going to be.

 

I wonder if Arrandale can realistically be crammed into the tight MBP casing without compromises (undervolting, underclocking, etc.).

Other quad laptops have far more room to work with than Apple's sub 1" notebooks.

 

I'm pretty sure laptops got the core series of Intel CPUs first. I seem to remember Desktops running modified sockets so they could fit laptop processors in them to replace their Pentium D and Pentium IV processors.

 

Are the macbooks even using these? Don't these things have 45w and 55w TDPs? Macbooks are probably going to use the duel core Arrandale, which won't be that much faster than the current core 2s. Plus still don't come out for a while.

 

I fail to see how the fact that i7s are so good that the current MBPs are so fast? According to reviews, the i7s aren't much better performance wise than the current CPUs (check out Anandtech reviewing the two top models, QX9300 vs. 920XM for example). But idle consumption is down, which is a plus. It only makes sense that newer CPUs will be better, but the extent of that difference is mostly limited to the usage of the CPU (ie. encoding/rendering).

 

They are a lot faster when running single core aps, but almost all aps these days (at least those that need a lot of cpu power) are designed for multiple cores. I heard overall an i7 is about 20% faster then a core 2 at the same clock.

 

Nothing's coming out tomorrow. But if by Tomorrow you mean some time in the near future, then there's always something new and better coming out "tomorrow" and when you wait till tomorrow to buy and that day finally comes, guess what, a better piece will be coming out tomorrow. Ideally wait till you must buy and then evaluate based on that moment in time. If something is indeed coming out literally tomorrow, then of course it's silly to buy today. But I gather you weren't referring to the literal term when you said "tomorrow".

 

Something new, better, faster will always be about 4-6 months away. Nothing special there.

The Core 2 Duo is already a ridiculously fast processor compared to most tasks we demand of it. What we really need is to bring up the bottle neck... the bottom line. We need faster hard drives that are priced reasonably... 256GB or 512GB SSD for $150 to $225 or so.

Other than that, I would be way more interested in a processor that consumed 20% less power than I would a process that performed 20% faster.

 

Its going to be a long while for i7 in apple laptops. Plain and simple most users have no need for it. Apple will slowly increase C2D speed offerings over the next few years and maybe offer a quad at some point(not within the next year) but the i7 will not be here for a while.

 

i strongly disagree, apple, when they do update, update with top of the line parts, within a given TDP range, although the mbp is becoming a much more mainstream "affordable" computer every year so they will still keep a cheaper alternative cpu, although you will DEFINITELY see dual-core arrandale cpus in the next refresh. They can't be shipping out old c2d when their competitors are using new chips. i personally would love them to remove the word "pro" from the whole line up except for the mac pro.

 

Core 2 Quads != Arrandale.

Arrandale = Current Core 2 Duo's in terms of power consumption.

Really? I don't recall that. I'm positive that Conroe came out on desktops first. It wouldn't make sense for it to come out on Laptops first, it would be way too hot initially.

No, as I said in my post before. Macbooks will most likely use Arrandale a 35w cpu. It will be quite a bit faster than current Core 2's.

Core i7 is Nehalem. The "Tock" in Intel's Tick Tock road map. A tock is new architecture meaning Nehalem is substantially faster than current Core 2's. Clarksfield may not be a ton faster than the QX9300, but not very many laptops can fit a qx9300 without being a brick. Also MBP's dont have quad processors.

Arrandales are dual cores with 4 threads, but are clocked higher, so we should see similar performance.

 

If a QX9300 is a brick, the 920xm is a brick with some mortar to boot. Having run multiple QX9300 configs across many systems, even at 45w the QX9300 can pump out some serious heat and most 15" form factor notebooks produce an abundance of heat and some even throttle down. 55w is downright toasty.

And HT is not the same as an actual additional core. Better than a dual core? Sure, but not equivalent to a true quad core.

I agree, though, that Apple will clearly skip this 1st gen proof of concept power sucking construct. And unless you are running specific apps, the advantages of a 920xm does not merit an upgrade from your current quad core laptop. I think once Arrandale is upon us, we'll really start to see the i7 mobile parts start to refine and shine.

The 17" MBP under load @ 2.93ghz runs very warm and the upper left bezel/keyboard is downright smokin' hot IMHO and that is with a mid range 9600M GT (23w)and a T9800 (35w).

 

the Core Solo and Core Duo... were out for laptops, and only laptops, before Core 2's, and people were adapting them to use in desktops.

 

I see. I remember those, but I don't think Core Solo's were Conroe architecture. It was still in its infancy.

Well, I know that HT is not the same as having actual cores. Arrandales will be clocked higher, hence my comment about it may be performing the same as Clarksfield.

 

I have two Nehalem desktops at only 2.66 Ghz and they run smoking fast so I'd definitely wait. My Penryn notebook does everything that I need it to anyways and it probably will for several years. It will be tough to justify a notebook upgrade for quite some time. I might have to wait for Larrabee.

The Core 2 architecture has far more execution resources than the Pentium 4 did so hyperthreading makes much more sense. Microsoft has improved threading in their OS and I assume that Apple did similar things in Snow Leopard. More and more cores or threads is the way of the future. From what I've read in comparing Nehalem with and without HT, the HT adds a noticeable look and feel difference.

 

This isn't true anymore since Clarksfield's Turbo will turn off unused cores and overclock the remaining cores, effectively reaching competitive dual core clock speeds with the Arrandales.

Not according to Anandtech's review of the QX9300 vs. i7-920XM.

 

> Not according to Anandtech's review of the QX9300 vs. i7-920XM.

I don't recall the review that I read my comments in as it was a while ago. Their comments were subjective - hence my comments on look and feel.

 

So just to clarify, you're saying that after Intel moves away from C2D to Nehalem architecture in Clarksfield and Arrandale, Apple will still continue to release old C2D processors over the next few years just because "users have no need for it"?

I disagree. I feel like Apple and Intel have a pretty good partnership going, so when Intel releases Arrandale I feel like Apple will be one of the first with it in their laptops, especially given how close Apple and Intel worked together on the Macbook Air for example. But then again, I am hoping for this because I plan on buying a Macbook Pro once they get upgraded with hopefully the newer processor/gpu. Also, users will always have a need for faster better technology. It's the way the world works...

I would be heartbroken if they just upped clock speeds when they upgrade/refresh their MBP lineup.

Speculate on I guess....

 

HP/Voodoo just released a Nehalem laptop. I don't think that Apple will put up with that for long. I expect that they will have something for January.

 

I agree with mmoy. The new HP Envy 13/15 should put a lot of pressure on Apple to up their specs at least, both gpu and cpu.

Even though it is an obvious imitation, there's no denying it has wayy better specs.

 

OK, so what are you going to do with that i7 cpu? and how much faster it will be? I am still happily using my pentium D on almost everything. As for the macbook, an SSD is more helpful than i7 for speed boosting in my opinion.

 

The key is good enough for your usage is good enough.

 

> OK, so what are you going to do with that i7 cpu? and how much faster it
> will be?

Video editing. When you run iMovie on a dual-core MBP, it generates about 20 threads (my observations). Processing doesn't seem to be particularly disk-bound but then I'm using an external Firewire drive. Video processing in general seems to me to be rather compute-intensive.

Software development. I routinely compile two million lines of code.

Longer battery life. Intel's model is hurry up and sleep. This means getting the job done as quickly as possible and then going into the deepest sleep state that makes sense.

Even browsing the web will benefit - I counted 15 threads when I was running Firefox yesterday.

 

Well just because your happy with a Pentium D, that doesn't mean everyone else would be.

Video Editing is extremely cpu intensive. I work on an 8-core mac pro and I feel like that's barely enough.

So any more horsepower in a laptop is always a plus in my book.

 

I know this has probably been answered countless times but when should I buy if I was gonna invest in a MBP. Im looking to buy in Janurary at the latest, this is a big investment for me and I have just started saving up so I wanna make sure I get it when its just been refereshed so it stays current for a lil bit longer. Due to the fact that its such an investment for me I dont mind waiting an extra month or whatever.

 

Intel is improving technology at a pretty rapid clip with Nehalem coming up and Light Peak (or is it Light Peek) in the Fall of 2010. They will be doing process shrinks along the way. I think that Nehalem is worth waiting for but I already have a Penryn MacBook Pro so I can easily wait - actually I can't justify an upgrade for probably a few more years as my 1.5 year-old MBP does what I need it to just fine. Would I like more power and speed and better battery life? Sure. But I don't need it right now. And we don't have anymore kids that I can give it to as a hand-me-down.

 

That was why I asked the first question. What are you going to do? Not everyone is doing video editing either. So no need to wait for i7 just to do web browsing. If you need a laptop now, buy it now.

 

> That was why I asked the first question. What are you going to do? Not
> everyone is doing video editing either. So no need to wait for i7 just to do
> web browsing. If you need a laptop now, buy it now.

I bought iLife last week and started video editing this weekend. I've had my MacBook Pro for 18 months.

It's not a matter of just what you're going to be doing today.

 

Well, the thing is that Apple isn't expected to use i7 until early 2010. So if January is the latest you can wait, you may have to pick up a MBP now, because the refresh might not be in Jan. Could be Feb, Mar.

 

Have fun waiting guys... and make sure you hold your breath

 

I dont actually have the money atm, i start saving from scratch in a weeks time so thats ok. ^^

 

Poor battery life and lots of heat. Envy 15 needs a strap on battery - LOL.

Dual core with HT will be the next bump for MBP IMO. With OpenCL and GC a beefy GPU - like an 800 shader unit 5650 - will help MBP more than a crazy hot and power hungry GPU.

 

Actually, the quad core i7 is pretty power efficient. Its consumption almost matches the C2Ds at idle. The battery life is fairly good, considering you get 7 hours of life at 100WHr, compared to Apple's 7 hours on a 73WHr battery (but Apple uses integrated graphics to get that and the HP you get a much more powerful GPU than even the 9600M GT). The HD 4830 is on the new 40nm process and consumes very little power (comparable to last generation midrange 128-bit GDDR3 55nm parts). MBP will be refreshed with Arrandale but the HD 5xxx series won't be in it.

 

I feel like we're straying from MBP to HP Envy 15 now.... >.<

But as far as MPB is, I am willing to wait until early 2010 for a worthy update. If it just a graphics bump I would buy now, but since it's processor, it's kind of a big deal, especially with new architecture....not just a clockspeed boost/update.

And theres no way I can wait until fall 2010. Light Peak isn't worth that wait IMO. USB 3.0 maybe, but here's to hoping that it comes out sooner rather than later.

So there's your response to the people who'd ask why not just wait until the next gen of technology. I am going to wait until I get a generation of technology that will last me through the generation that follows it. I'm not about to get a C2D that will be replaced in >6 months. Because it'll probably slow down (due to software requirements ect.) in 2-3 years time from now on, when Intel releases their next thing after Arrandale/Clarksfield. Since about 6 months or so before Larrabee or Sandy Bridge or whatever it is called will be released, people who just bought Arrandale/Clarksfield processors will say that they're happy with what they have and that people shouldn't wait for intel's newer ones. Just like the whole "C2D satisifies me right now" argument going on now.

That's my 2 cents now on the whole there's always something new around the corner debate

 

Still want to know when the MBP refresh will be come out....If pair with 820QM in 17" then is perfect.
My dream MBP is 15" with 820QM, W UXGA and new VGA with also Expresscard......Seems to be impossible.......

 

Thats what I've been trying to tell peeps. Its an entirely new processor, so I think its a big deal.

Apple is skipping Clarksfield. Arrandale comes out early 2010, thats when Apple will do a refresh.

Oh another thing I forgot to mention. Arrandale has an integrated GPU!

 

You guys think this new processor will also be refreshed in the 13' line as well?

 

For sure..

 

> My dream MBP is 15" with 820QM, WUXGA

I have an old Pentium 4 15.4 inch with WUXGA. WUXGA in 15 inch notebooks is rare to non-existent today because the size of the population with that kind of eyesight is so small. I would love a WUXGA in 15 inches though. I have the 17 inch MBP with WUXGA which is wonderful. It is bulky though. Next best thing: buy a 13 inch and a couple of 24 inch displays at your home, office and wherever else you hang out.

 

I'm surprised the MBP 15" doesn't have a 1680x1050 resolution. I think that's the sweet spot to the 15" notebooks. The MBP 17" is right on with the resolution. The MBP 13" should have a 1440x900 resolution. Hopefully, not holding my breath, maybe we'll see these options next year?

 

1680x1050 on a 15.4 is actually pretty high resolution. I have an old HP laptop with this resolution in the office and most people that look at it comment that the characters are very small. I think that the MBP 13 is less than 1330x900 - maybe 1200x800. There apparently is very little demand for high-res in laptops.

 

Well Folks it looks like unless Apple dumps the Nvidia chipset and goes Intel we may not be seeing i5 or i7 in anything soon. Nvidia has dumped chipset development for nehalem, i5 / i7 and all updated processors due to licencing problems so for the forseeable future only Intel and AMD will have a chipset to even run the new CPU's

quick blurb here http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Nvidia-Chipset-Nehalem-Core-i7,8810.html

Update: we now have Nvidia saying they are still in the game but not giving details... Guess we wait till this goes to US courts next year sometime

 

Take a look at Charlie Demerjian's latest on nVidia.