Is it worth waiting for mobile Nehalems?

I was planning to buy a Precision M4400 with a Core 2 Duo, but I've heard Intel will be bringing out mobile Nehalem CPUs toward the end of the year. Is it worth waiting? I know the whole "if you keep waiting for the next new hardware you'll be waiting forever" thing, but the i7 was a giant step forward in desktop computing, will it have the same impact for notebooks?

 

gonna be a while before they hit the market, the OEM's are also putting pressure on intel to delay it because centrino2 models have been selling slowly this year. unless you're prepared to wait at least until the final quarter of this year, dont bother.

you could always get the precision with the Core2Quad chip, or pick one up on ebay and sell whatever processor you order it with.

the difference between the mobile nehalem's and the core2quads should be pretty small

 

My rule of thumb: If you need a laptop now, buy today! If you don't need, wait...

There will always be a "newer model" round the corner all the time. If you wait for the "upcoming model" you have to wait forever...


--

 

wait 9 months for nehalem, then you realize that the laptop that you want is going to be replaced within 3 months, so you wait.. then new model comes out.. but then usb 3.0 is about to be released in 2 months, then you wait.. then there's a refresh of your laptop in another month.. wait.. oh my, there's suddenly another laptop that just came out that caught your eye! but the price is a little high right now.. let's wait for the price to go down first.. hey! a "centrino" low power nehalem is going to be released soon.. wait wait wait wait wait

 

The Nahalem CPU is without a doubt the performance king at the moment. However, if you don't use hardware intensive programs such as encoding then I doubt you will benefit that much from it.

Nahalem is performance focused but the Core 2 Duo has enough performance for most things anyway. The next major technology worth your wait is either the die shrink (Westmere 32nm) or Sandy Bridge (new architecture) which is focused on bring down the power consumption.

In my opinion the Core 2 Duo is already a great CPU, and not worth your wait. Although, the prices of Core 2 Duo will decline with the introduction of mobile Nahalem.

 

Like everyone says. if you need it now get it now. if your fine with what you got then their is no sense in buying until you need/want it enough. there will always be something better around the corner no matter when you buy...

 

I intensely dislike it when anyone says to just buy now, don't wait. NO YOU SHOULDN'T. Position your buy appropriately. Prioritize your needs. If its money then wait for sales (at holidays or when something new is released and old stock is cheap). If its performance, then wait for a step up.

Technology is NOT linear.

Again, priorities. Priority: CPU power then buy when something new is released.

C2D is going to be old news by then. The minimum you'd want is a c2q or a nehalem. There are a couple of options:

1. Buy the M4400 now with a decent C2D then upgrade when C2Qs get cheap (they will eventually)

OR

2. Buy a M4400 with a C2Q (there should be an option for it somewhere).

OR


3 Wait for the mobile nehalems which should arrive (expensively) next year this time.

The question really is can you wait? I'd recommend option 2 as nehalem doesn't really improve vastly on C2Q except on certain applications like movie editing.

 

That's what I am saying... If you wait for a "step up" you have to wait forever. Now you are waiting for Nehalem. When Nehalem is up, Westmere will be coming up next. Shall we wait for another "step up"? Sure, but then Sandy Bridge will be coming up in the next few quarters. Shall we wait for that "step up" also???

If your priority is money, again you have to wait forever. I am sure 10 years later, the Core2Duo's that we use right now will drop to $15 - $20 bucks. Shall we wait more until the prices go down even more?


--

 

Thanks for repeating what I said in my first post a bunch of times without answering the actual question. Now that everyone has established there's always new technology on the horizon, let's talk about whether or not the mobile Nehalem will be a big enough jump forward from the C2D and C2Q to justify the wait?

 

Depends on the step up. All the step ups are not equivalent. Some are bigger than others. And IMHO Nehalem will be a significant step up. esp with USB 3.0

For ex., it would have been a bad time to not wait in 2005, just before Core Duo was released.
It was a good time in 2007 when core 2 duo came out.

It also depends on the laptop being bought. For a $600 laptop, it doesnt really matter. For a $2000 laptop which is expected to lasta long time, it matters.

 

Thank you. I plan to spend around $2000, which is what I spent on my last notebook - which has lasted since 2003. I'm hoping to get almost as much life out of my next purchase.

 

Precisions are built well, so even if you buy now, they should last 6 years; the question here is how *well* will the technology last. I say wait a year.

Another option if you are in US is to keep an eye on dell outlet. If you can snag a M4400 that you like for 1100 or below, then you can go for it and get a new one a 3 years from now.

I have my precision M90 from about 3 years ago, and I feel it is still pretty current wrt todays technology. It has 2Ghz core duo, sata HDD; its a huge step up from the pentium M laptops of the year before.

If you pick the right time to buy, the laptop can feel current for a long time.

Imagine a next year $2000 laptop with SSD, quad core Nehalem and USB 3.0. I feel it will be a significant step up.
You can get a M4400 with quad core and SSD right now, but the cost would be much higher.

 

I've heard SSD isn't the way to go for longevity. Don't they die out naturally after a certain number of read/write actions?

 

Only writes are hurtful, and technology is constantly improving. They also have smart controllers to distribute the writes.
Think about it, how many times do you replace data ?
Some writes DO occur often, eg, updates to a file by OS, or multiple saves to a file by user. But these can and are being taken care of by having a write cache in the SSD, so that writes to the actual SSD are low.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid-state_drive

Also, windows 7 is being optimised for SSDs.

 

Manufacturers are claiming that you would need to write 10GB+ a day for a SSD to wear out within its lifetime of use in your computer.

 

As I already stated, his choice of processor will depend on the type of applications he will use. If you don't need the processing power then there is no point waiting for new technology.

 

Interesting question.

Here is my take:

It's best to buy at particular times. Figure out what's coming out in the next year or so and then decide if it's the best time to buy.

I am in a very similar position... this is what I've concluded:

1. A C2D running at 2.4ghz+ will do me just fine for the next four years or so. I don't do anything more than your typical browsing, music, movie watching so it's actually more power than I need- a 1.6ghz dual core CPU is really more than enough. More performance in the future doesn't really entice me to wait to be honest. Lower power consumption on the other hand does. From a heat standpoint I think about waiting but something tells me they will still be pretty hot. The temperature differences between the T/P processors doesn't seem to be "that" great, at least from what I can tell, and there's 10 watts between them, at 25/35 watts, percentage wise it's huge. I really don't think Nehalem will be all that better, especially considering it'll probably be running at higher frequencies. Figure lower power consumption along with a higher frequency, you end up with similar temperatures. Factor in the fact that 2.4ghz+ is way more than I need anyway, and I don't see myself needing anymore for a very very long time, and so the CPU wait is moot.

2. USB 3.0
USB is a standard and running technology based on the latest standards is best. Then again, what do I really need 3.0 for? Right now I use USB for connecting my mouse/keyboard, printer, external hard drive, and phone. My mouse/keyboard doesn't need USB 3.0, and heck, I think they would be fine on USB 1.0, ditto for my printer. My external hard drive would definitely benefit from the higher transfer rates of 3.0, but the Studio XPS 13 includes an eSATA port, so I will get myself a new enclosure for cheap on eBay or wait for a deal or something, and that will be moot. Then comes my phone, and well, I could just use the memory card slot if I want fast transfer times to the storage, and it's not like I am transferring large documents that frequently anyway. Camera wise- I just throw the SD card in the reader and it's way fast as is, easier without a cable and probably as fast as it would be with 3.0. So I guess that's it on the USB front. OH. My iPod. Songs are transferred pretty darn fast as is. I transfer the majority of my songs when I first bought it, and now I just transfer 4-5 songs here and there as I get them- it's only a 30 second wait as is anyway so (if that). When I get my new phone I might start transferring movies and such, be great to decrease the wait time from 4-5 minutes to 1, but not great enough to wait a year for it at this point.

So in my opinion, waiting a year for USB 3.0 isn't worth it to me.

3. SSDs

This IS worth it. I am not going to buy a new laptop without it because I think the performance is well worth it from what I can tell. Seems to really give you a new computing experience. Dell wants $200 for 128gb and $400 for 256gb- I know the 256gb is more future proof and somewhere down the line I would have wished I took the plunge, but at this point I am sticking with the 128gb. I know the more I think about it the more I will probably just go for the 256gb. I know in a year or two SSDs will be the norm in performance laptops and I want to have that. I would not buy a laptop right now without it because I know in a year or two, your typical HD be old school. I won't have an SSD that's at fast or as big, but at least it will be an SSD.

LEDs also go up there, just for the battery savings. Any new laptop I buy needs to have an SSD and LED. LED isn't a deal breaker, but I would prefer to have it.

Other technologies such as GPUs don't really interest me, heck they scare me man. My 8400m died on me so it's integrated all the way for me. I don't play games anyways so whatever, as long as they can drive my LCDs at higher resolutions while playing movies, I am cool- and the 9400m can without a hiccup, and I think even the basic Intel ones can too.

I guess that's about it.

So personally.... I am waiting till June to purchase a laptop. I am hoping there will be a price decrease on the Studio XPS 13 since it was just released a month ago or so and hoping that they work out all their manufacturing kinks by then too. Maybe the 256GB SSD upgrade goes down to $300 or Dell throws out a coupon code that eliminates the price of the SSD as it compares to the price now.... worth the 2-3 month wait IMO seeing as how I am using this old POS laptop and I am doing just fine with it. Really, it's more about the manufacturing to be honest- I don't want to get an S-XPS 13 with wobbly feet or a missing LCD... lolz. If I didn't have this POS laptop I am using now (celeron), I would just go buy it now. But I am doing fine with it and I have nothing to lose by waiting a few months... but that's just me.

Hopefully you can agree with some of my logic and find it helpful....

 

Following your logic I think you should wait for sandy bridge. That is being designed by the same group that created Merom architecture. Their strength is on mobile side, so it should be good.

But the ideal rule to follow is buy when you need unless there is pending new release(within 2-3 months).

Clarksfield based nehalem laptop may release during 3rd quarter but it will be expensive. Cheap dual core with built in gfx (arrandale) will probably release around christmas with wide availability during 1st quarter.

 

Yup, I agree. Only a year off. 365 days

 

ROFL

Great post! Sums up my temptations exactly.

 

I would wait until Q4 09 for the following reasons.

1) ATi and Nvidia are moving to 40nm, GDDR5, and DirectX 11 in the new GPUs.

2) Windows 7

3) SSD, cheaper and increase performance.

4)Intel Calpella

Just my 2 cents

 

This is all well worth the wait. Buy now and be jealous you didn't wait.

 

I recently bought, and I won't be jealous. really what will nehlem be able to do that my T9600 with and SSD with an LED can't? assuming your not gaming. I think the i7m will be a bit of a power hog. look at the desktop chips... 2.66/2.93/3.2 = 130Watt.

 

q4 2009 is a long time away in computing lifespans. if you consider the typical notebook is kept for 4 years, thats a quarter of its life.

dont forget moore's law, every 18 months, performance doubles.

between a core2quad and a mobile i7, i dont think there is much of a difference.

between a core 2 duo, and an i7, yes. but since the precision can support the core 2 quads, and they have less technology refreshes since its a business unit, upgrades are possible. when the i7 comes out, pick up a c2q on ebay for cheap and slot it in.

 

Mobile Nehalems should be well worth waiting for. They're a nice improvement over what Intel already offers (in performance and power savings) and AMD simply isn't offering anything.

 

There are no such thing as mobile Nehalems yet, so I don't see how you can say that. They don't offer much performance/power consumption over Core2. The desktop versions consume considerable power (as much as their 90nm counterparts) and only offer more performance in a few apps due to hyperthreading. While Intel has the performance crown, most people simply don't require that much computing power. At the lower end, AMD competes quite well with Intel and will satisfy the general consumer.

 

Proof enough for you? This is 32nm, it will have better power savings than Core 2. With Nehalem, the computer can turn off a core if not needed.

<object width='425' height='344'><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/vTJLQuHUYFw&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/vTJLQuHUYFw&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width='425' height='344'></embed></object>

 

Sorry it isn't. Nehalem (45nm) in notebooks will be Clarksfield and they will have 4 cores at 45/55W power consumption and is predicted for H2 09.

The successor to Nehalem is Westmere (32nm) which will be Arrandale for notebooks which is planned for late 2010. So, the video shows the next generation after Nehalem, hence if you get Nehalem, you will not see those benefits yet.

 

Intel has working samples already. They also have working samples of the Larrabee platform.

Nope. Clock-for-clock, the Nehalem's are faster and more efficient, even in applications executing on a single core.

The upcoming platforms have superior power saving abilities. This is forward-thinking design.

Being a year behind on the tech isn't satisfactory. At the current low end, they might be somewhat attractive, but that won't last another 12 months. Their mobile offerings are terribly inferior against Core 2, how will this add up against what arrives then?

 

Arrandale is actually planned for Q1 2010, and Westmere is still Nehalem (its the die shrink). The successor to Nehalem is Sandy Bridge.

Nehalem 45nm shrinks to Westmere 32nm like Santa Rosa Core 2 Duo got shrunk to Penryn 45nm.

 

Every new generation should be better than the last, it's only logical. While I am not disagreeing with you that Nehalem's are faster and more efficient, in terms of what has been released for desktops, the gains are unsatisfactory for the increase in price. From comparing a Core2 and Core i7 desktop, it's pretty difficult to notice a difference unless you're doing a lot of video encoding for example. Using a Core2 (a technology that is a year behind) is perfectly satisfactory, especially when your main audience just uses their computer to surf the web and do basic tasks. AMD isn't terribly inferior in that respect and it's not like they are stagnant in their release of new technology either so you can't compare their current offerings with Intel's future offerings.

Ok, so Westmere is Nehalem but it's the die shrink revision. So Intel will release Clarksfield first (like Merom, not Santa Rosa -> chipset) and after what, 6 months update the line to the die shrunk Arrandale (like Penryn)? By then, we might as well wait for Sandy Bridge... to answer the OP's question, I don't believe in waiting. If you need a computer get it.

 

No. Clarksfield on 45nm is released this fall on the Calpella platform. In Q1 2010, Arrandale is introduced onto the Calpella platform. By summer, Clarksfield is shrunk to 32nm. Arrandale does not replace Clarksfield, it will be sold alongside so consumers have a quad core or dual core option, though Arrandale will be in the majority of laptops.

 

That might be true for some, but we also don't know what kind of pricing we'll see in the mobile lineups.

 

I think the fundamental issue is here: there just isn't much use for top-of-the-line processors at the moment. The Core i7s are superior to the Core 2s and as long as you're willing to go with the 2.66GHz variety, they're not actually that much more expensive. Clarksfield will almost certainly be an even better value because unlike in the desktop market, there simply aren't any decent mobile Core2Quads for a reasonable price. Based on Intel's February 22 price list, here are your mobile quad options:

QX9300 (12MB L2 cache, 2.53GHz, 1066MHz FSB, 45nm): $1038
Q9100 (12MB L2 cache, 2.26GHz, 1066MHz FSB, 45nm): $851
Q9000 (6MB L2 cache, 2.00GHz, 1066MHz FSB, 45nm): $348

Basically, you can pay a ridiculous price or you can get something with lousy single threaded performance for a price that is merely high. If you would like a quad core laptop, waiting for Clarksfield makes sense. However, how many people would really benefit from a quad core laptop? I would (because of my work), but if you're just going to browse the web and play games, what do you really need the quad core for?

Since I'm not interested in buying a laptop right now (and hopefully not for another year or two, depending on long how my 8600M GT survives), I'm actually rather curious about Sandy Bridge. If the Wikipedia article is to be trusted, unlike the Nehalems, it will be released for the mobile segment at the initial launch.

 

Please do a little more research before posting.

1.Performance: In laptops where there is no low latency memory the gains from going to Nehalem will be more significant.

2. Power Consumption: The mobile versions won't use QPI to connect between CPU and PCH, but use DMI which is likely more power efficient. Plus, the PCI-Express controller will be 45nm too which will further lower power(unlike desktops).

And as Jayayess1190 said, early Q1 2010 is Arrandale(dual core with IGP). Sandy Bridge on a desktop version will probably be late 2010 with the high-end variants. Mobile versions will be next year which makes Arrandale-->Sandy Bridge transition at least a year.

 

Another advantage of waiting for Nehalems is the fact that in 6-12 months time you'll have saved extra cash and get larger screen or better specs. If you aren't in a rush to upgrade, you might as well wait it out.

The only machines I know of with them right now are the new mac pros?

 

Sorry if I don't have time to research every detail up, care to provide sources? I'm just stating my opinion from my experiences on comparing desktop versions. I still stand that I don't believe in waiting since I wouldn't notice any benefit in performance as I don't tax my CPU often and it isn't the component in my system that limits performance.

 

Here is info on power savings: Link 1
Here are the slides from the Westmere presentation: Link 2

 

Mobile versions always get advantages over desktop versions due to various reasons. The Pentium 4-M wasn't bad(the true mobile version not the desktop chip-with-speedstep version) because unlike the first Pentium 4 it was based on the 0.13u Northwood core.

-Laptop memory: You know this. Laptops use generic memory because of the nature of the portable market. The effect of the integrated memory controller is diminshed because the comparison platforms have faster memory.

DMI vs. QPI: http://www.hkepc.com/568/page/3#view
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nehalem_(microarchitecture)

The current Bloomfield Nehalem has PCI-Express controller in the X58 and QPI to connect the CPU to the X58.

-You can see from there Lynnfield and Havendale will use DMI to connect the CPU and Ibexpeak PCH. DMI is older technology but will use less power than QPI.

-Performance in games will be likely better on Lynnfield because the PCI-Express controller doesn't require extra hop like in Bloomfield. Ever wonder why Core i7 performs good on SLI setups and very low end settings(800x600 low)?? That's because those are CPU-bound setups. PCI-Express integrated also means that the controller will be 45nm and save more power.

Low resolution benchmark: http://hothardware.com/Articles/Intel-Core-i7-Processors-Nehalem-and-X58-Have-Arrived/?page=13
SLI/Crossfire benchmark: http://hothardware.com/Articles/Intel-Core-i7-Processors-Nehalem-and-X58-Have-Arrived/?page=13

-Turbo Boost benefits: Laptops can rarely be overclocked so vast majority of the systems will benefit from this. The additional advantage is that Turbo Boost actually measures TDP usage so unlike overclocking it keeps the power consumption, heat dissipation in check.

And for Sandy Bridge, so the mainstream and mobile Nehalem is coming a year after the high end desktop versions. What makes you think Sandy Bridge mainstream and mobile won't be later like Nehalem?

 

The Wikipedia article says otherwise, citing this article in Japanese. The articles has some nice schedule images (in English), but they don't go as far as Sandy Bridge so it would be nice if somebody who speaks Japanese can confirm it.

 

Q2 09 should see a Montevina Plus refresh:

http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2009/03/05/intel_update/

Not really new news though... With the current market as is, you can definitely expect delays in Nehalem for notebooks. Even Penryn was delayed by a few months when it was released last year... Intel might "release" their new chipset in the end of 2009, but it usually takes some time before you can actually purchase and get your hands on it.

 

Calpella has already been delayed, not coming until October, was supposed to be out by summer.