Upcoming mobile penryn processors previewed

See here. Got it from macrumors. Which ones do you think will be the default ones for low & mid-range macbook pros? You think they could put the x9000 in the 17" mbp? What about the macbook??

 

I think the MBP will at least get the T9300 processor & T9500 processor.

 

I agree. Looking at the numbers, they aren't all that impressive. I assume the X9000 will be an Extreme version, so scoring only a couple of points higher than the current top choice in the MBP (2.6) which isn't a Core2Extreme, is really not that impressive. In real world performance that would add up to around zero perceptible increase. Now granted, these are only engineering samples and probably are not a good indicator of what real performance will be, but I think we will see the real boost in performance when Montevina is released with a faster FSB.

 

I think the MacBook is getting the T8100 and T8300, and the MBP getting the T9300 and T9500.

X9000 on the iMac, probably .

 

i hope the basic mbp doesn't get the 2.4ghz... it has less cache than the old ones

 

Well the desktop CPUs are substantially faster, so I don't know why the mobile versions wouldn't be relatively similar. But at the same time, while I'm eager to upgrade my E6400 in my desktop with a nice midrange quad-core Penryn CPU, I couldn't really care less about that sort of change in a laptop.

 

doesn't penryn shrink the die size? usually makes for smaller/cooler chips, correct?

 

Yes, it does.

 

Yeah, down to 45nm. But it's still only a minor update, Nehalem will be a much more significant improvement. I'm guessing the Nehalem mobile chips will popularize quadcore CPUs in laptops.

 

It seems unlikely, given that Nehalem will remain on the 45nm process. Roadmaps indicate Nehalem mobile quad cores remain on a 45W TDP which is the same as rumoured Penryn mobile quad cores which means that they will be restricted to mobile Extreme Editions and desktop replacements. It seems that quad-threading in mainstream mobile will come through HyperThreading redux rather than physical quad cores. Which really isn't that much of a limiter since I don't there will be many mobile applications that can really require 4 full physical cores. Nehalem's HT should be better than Netburst's implementation, and the lack of a replay loop and the possibility of the Smart Cache being able to control virtual core cache to prevent cache thrashing should help things.