[Roland]

Ok boys and girls, mix and match

(dual core)

T2600 2.16 GHz
T2500 2.00 GHz
T2400 1.83 GHz
T2300 1.66 GHz

Low-Voltage

L2400 1.66 GHz
L2300 1.50 GHz

Ultra Low Voltage

U1400 1.20 GHz
U1300 1.06 GHz

[intlplby]

so what does this mean exactly for those of us not speaking intel-speak

[Robo]

iBook mini - 11" Widescreen - $799 - U1400 (1.2 GHz)
iBook - 13" Widescreen - $999 - L2300 (1.5 GHz)
iBook - 15" Widescreen - $1,299 - L2400 (1.66 GHz)
Compact Prosumer Notebook - 13" Widescreen - $1,499 - T2400 (1.83 GHz)
Powerbook - 15" Widescreen - $1,999 - T2500 (2.00 GHz)
Powerbook - 17" Widescreen - $2,299 - T2600 (2.16 GHz)

Just some quick speculation...

[runner91786]

17" Powerbook - 2.16ghz dual core
15" Powerbook - 2.00ghz, 2.16ghz as BTO
12" Powerbook - 1.66ghz Low Voltage, POSSIBLY the lowend dual-core depending on heat output

14" iBook - 1.20ghz ULV
12" iBook - 1.06ghz ULV

-in order to maintain iBooks LONG battery life I think they will use these

Mac Mini $599 & $699 - 1.66ghz low voltage, dual core if they get excited
Mac Mini $499 - 1.50ghz low voltage, and as aforementioned, possible dual-core

Agreements? Disagreements?

[runner91786]

Originally Posted by intlplby so what does this mean exactly for those of us not speaking intel-speak

This means more power, more than likely more battery life, and also the possibility of new chipsets bringing pci-express graphics, and sata drives to the laptop arena. Also probably cooler laptops, but there again that is debatable. The possibility of slimming down the 12" or introducing a much slimmer 13.3" or something. Who knows, but with sony's engineers working with Apple's laptop specialists, a 13 could be born.

[Robo]

Originally Posted by runner91786 17" Powerbook - 2.16ghz dual core 15" Powerbook - 2.00ghz, 2.16ghz as BTO 12" Powerbook - 1.66ghz Low Voltage, POSSIBLY the lowend dual-core depending on heat output 14" iBook - 1.20ghz ULV 12" iBook - 1.06ghz ULV -in order to maintain iBooks LONG battery life I think they will use these Mac Mini $599 & $699 - 1.66ghz low voltage, dual core if they get excited Mac Mini $499 - 1.50ghz low voltage, and as aforementioned, possible dual-core Agreements? Disagreements?

I don't think that the iBook will take a clock speed decrease. I could see the iBook getting the faster Low Voltage chips. If Apple made a smaller, sub-$1,000 "iBook mini," I could see that using the Ultra Low Voltage chips.

If Apple keeps the compact prosumer notebook around (read: 12" Powerbook), I'm not sure what it would use. It'd be nice if it could use the dual core chips, but it might need a Low Voltage chip to fit in, say, a 13" enclosure.

I also doubt that the Mac mini will go dual core anytime soon.

[runner91786]

But you must realize, that a slower clocked Pentium M will blow past a 1.33 or 1.42 G4, or atleast more than likely. There is strong evidence supporting this theory, both in benchmarks and in people using the pirated OSX86 and reporting back really fast machines.

[MCQ]

Originally Posted by runner91786 17" Powerbook - 2.16ghz dual core 15" Powerbook - 2.00ghz, 2.16ghz as BTO 12" Powerbook - 1.66ghz Low Voltage, POSSIBLY the lowend dual-core depending on heat output 14" iBook - 1.20ghz ULV 12" iBook - 1.06ghz ULV -in order to maintain iBooks LONG battery life I think they will use these Mac Mini $599 & $699 - 1.66ghz low voltage, dual core if they get excited Mac Mini $499 - 1.50ghz low voltage, and as aforementioned, possible dual-core Agreements? Disagreements?

Not a chance on the iBook/Mac mini.

The missing piece of the chart above is the pricing.

http://news.com.com/Yonah+to+suck+up...tag=st.ref.goo



iBook and Mac mini get a single core Yonah (Celeron). They're not going to get a $250-$300 CPU... cuts way too much into the profit margins.

[PB PM]

Originally Posted by runner91786 14" iBook - 1.20ghz ULV 12" iBook - 1.06ghz ULV -in order to maintain iBooks LONG battery life I think they will use these

Slower than the current G4, not likely, what would be the point in switching? If that were the case they would be better off putting 1.5Ghz G4 in the 14"ibook and 1.42Ghz in 12" ibook.

[Dr_LHA]

Originally Posted by PB PM Slower than the current G4, not likely, what would be the point in switching? If that were the case they would be better off putting 1.5Ghz G4 in the 14"ibook and 1.42Ghz in 12" ibook.

Remember the whole "Megahertz Myth" thing? Don't treat those Ghz numbers like they're equal to the speed. A 1.2Ghz Yonah is a faster CPU than a 1.5Ghz G4.

[PB PM]

Maybe a little, but when it comes to battery life (maybe as much as 2 hours less) is the little bit of extra speed worth it for a consumer machine?

[mjteix]

Originally Posted by MCQ Not a chance on the iBook/Mac mini. The missing piece of the chart above is the pricing... iBook and Mac mini get a single core Yonah (Celeron). They're not going to get a $250-$300 CPU... cuts way too much into the profit margins.

Those prices are list price (quantity of 1000, if I remember well). Apple will nerver pay those prices.
What bothers me is the power requierements/dissipation of the fastests chip, I remember reading somewhere that up to the T1400 (dual 1.83GHz) it's OK for iBooks/PowerBooks, maybe the top 2 models are more for small desktop computers.
So my predictions for Q1/Q2 2006 are:
- mac mini: single 1.66Ghz Yonah
- mid-range desktop (if released): from dual 1.66 to 2.16Ghz Yonah
- iBook 13": single 1.66 Yonah
- iBook 15" (if released): single 1.66 Yonah or dual LV 1.3 Yonah
- PowerBook 13": dual 1.66 Yonah
- PowerBook 15": dual 1.83 Yonah
- PowerBook 17": dual 1.83 Yonah

But I also tend to agree with MCQ, we may also get:
mac mini: celeron single 1.6/1.7GHz
iBooks: celeron single 1.6/1.7GHz
PowerBooks: LV dual 1.3/1.66GHz Yonah
but I'd be disappointed

[faramirtook]

Originally Posted by MCQ Not a chance on the iBook/Mac mini. The missing piece of the chart above is the pricing. http://news.com.com/Yonah+to+suck+up...tag=st.ref.goo iBook and Mac mini get a single core Yonah (Celeron). They're not going to get a $250-$300 CPU... cuts way too much into the profit margins.

But remember, Apple is going to be buying a huge amount of those processors, so they'll most likely be less, and they'll be saving money on using Intel's chipsets instead of making their own.

[powerequivalent]

Originally Posted by PB PM Slower than the current G4, not likely, what would be the point in switching? If that were the case they would be better off putting 1.5Ghz G4 in the 14"ibook and 1.42Ghz in 12" ibook.

Even the ULTA LOW VOLTAGE use more watt then the G4 we have in the powerbook today. Think about that people.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by MCQ iBook and Mac mini get a single core Yonah (Celeron). They're not going to get a $250-$300 CPU... cuts way too much into the profit margins.

Funny that you say that since the list price of the 1.42 GHz 7447A is $531, so according to that, 90% of the $599 Mac mini's price is the CPU -- not, since list prices are entirely meaningless for computer manufacturers. Rebates are huge.

[Kyros]

Originally Posted by powerequivalent Even the ULTA LOW VOLTAGE use more watt then the G4 we have in the powerbook today. Think about that people.

How are pc laptops getting better battery life than current macs? Is the current pentium m better with power consumption or is something else involved?

[ast3r3x]

Originally Posted by Kyros How are pc laptops getting better battery life than current macs? Is the current pentium m better with power consumption or is something else involved?

I don't think most of them are. There are some ones that are super low usage, but they aren't nearly as fast. There are also faster ones with a factory battery life of 43min.

Although I desire longer battery life, Apple's laptops are a great compromise between power and battery life and weight. However some people need more specific uses that require longer battery life or more power which Apple doesn't provide.

[shell]

There is no way the mini will get a dual-core before the iMac, not without a signifcant spike in the mini's price, making it not a mini at all but some kind of "headless iMac."

[MCQ]

Originally Posted by chucker Funny that you say that since the list price of the 1.42 GHz 7447A is $531, so according to that, 90% of the $599 Mac mini's price is the CPU -- not, since list prices are entirely meaningless for computer manufacturers. Rebates are huge.

For a single CPU, yes. For lots, no.

http://www.theregister.com/2004/02/2...nch_paves_way/

Considering Freescale has 1.67 GHz parts now, and given that the above article is almost 18 months old, I would suppose that Apple gets the 1.42 GHz parts for $100-$150 including volume discount.

Obviously, Apple would get some break with Intel on the pricing, but I doubt it would be too substantial as their PC volumes are nowhere near the levels of Dell or HP. I still think neither the mini or iBook get a dual core CPU immediately due to either pricing, Apple's tendency to strongly delineate their product lines, or some other reason.

Perhaps it's just that I'd rather be surprised than disappointed But somehow I won't be suprised that 3-6 months down the line I see people shouting in the forums "Why didn't Apple use dual core blah blah blah! I'm so disappointed." if Apple does use single core to start out with some of their consumer products.

[halo1982]

Many PC notebooks using the Pentium M already get 4+ hours of battery life, so I doubt Apple will have any problem. They most likely won't use the low voltage models either...those are generally for subcompacts only (also they cost a lot more).

[jer2eydevil88]

Originally Posted by MCQ Not a chance on the iBook/Mac mini. The missing piece of the chart above is the pricing. http://news.com.com/Yonah+to+suck+up...tag=st.ref.goo iBook and Mac mini get a single core Yonah (Celeron). They're not going to get a $250-$300 CPU... cuts way too much into the profit margins.

Consider that Apple gets a BIG discount like all the other OEM vendors when buying massive quantities of parts. Don't forget that those are also launch prices which fall immensly after the first few months in production and Apple is not one to start doing refreshes on hardware as often as the other companies.

[hmurchison]

The iBook and Mac mini will likely use the Core Solo. We musn't forget that Intel gives further price cuts to vendors who are Intel only. The Powerbooks should be the first Macintel with the Core Duo procs.

Asking for a Core Duo in a Mac mini is a bit of wishful thinking.

[PB PM]

Also considering the targeted buyer for the mini I don't see much need a for dual core CPU to be in it. The idea is to have a cheap machine that anyone can buy.

[geokker]

I think to remain different, Apple will exclusively go dual core. In my experience, the current powerbooks have slipped far behind new pentium machines in the performance stakes and their need a serious speed boost - maybe twin dual core chips. High end, again to stay different, I can see the powermacs incorporating a 'blade' architecture allowing the user to add extra chips when needed as easily as ram with proper smp suppport from the os. To tempt people, I think they'll need to restyle the entire hardware range as well. Or, they might not to make the transition as seamless a possible - do we really need to know what's under the hood?

[PB PM]

I doubt they will go dual core for all machines. First of all that would drive up the price of consumer machines, untill dual core becomes cheaper and more main stream that is, and that is not good. Secondly considering how many consumer type apps use dual cores, its not worth it. The Mac Mini has no need for such a thing, nor to ibooks. All the Pro Machines might go dual core though.

[ja0912]

Originally Posted by powerequivalent Even the ULTA LOW VOLTAGE use more watt then the G4 we have in the powerbook today. Think about that people.

They're **roughly** the same, but yonah brings in dual core.
I agree though, Merom is what will run cooler than a G4

[chucker]

Originally Posted by ja0912 They're **roughly** the same, but yonah brings in dual core. I agree though, Merom is what will run cooler than a G4

Er, the ULV models are single-core.

[geokker]

My point is that Apple will have to offer more to get punters. If they offer the same chips in the same configuration, they won't sell as they cannot possibly compete with hugh volume, razor thin margin traders like Dell. People look at the chip specs. If I see Intel X 3Ghz $500 versus Intel X 3Ghz $600 - I'd seriously question the extra goodies. Taking laptops for example, the powerbooks are competing with biometrics, built-in cams, card slots, remotes, removable drives, tablets, ultra portables, docking stations etc.

[powerequivalent]

Originally Posted by ast3r3x I don't think most of them are. There are some ones that are super low usage, but they aren't nearly as fast. There are also faster ones with a factory battery life of 43min. Although I desire longer battery life, Apple's laptops are a great compromise between power and battery life and weight. However some people need more specific uses that require longer battery life or more power which Apple doesn't provide.

They have wikked batterys, they have a integraded grafik card in the mainboard ect and then they dont tell the truthe (even more then apple does.) The CPU is far from everything when it comes to battery time. The high end IBM laptop can have in realtime almost 7hours. That is WILD. And they use a Intel Pentium M 760 so MUCH more then the G4 we have today. but it is not as thin as the PB/iBook, and not that good looking and it is not a mac. But you get the point.

ja0912:
1) the g4 cpu we use today is 10-12 max watt the ULV is max 14Watt
2) the ULV of yohan is as chucker say singelcore
3) ULV is FREAKING $$$$$$$$ it cost a LOT
4) Since the G4 if I am not wrong 130nm and lest say 11Watt, and the Yohan is 65 nm and 14 ( and then that is the lowes watt out there) The yohan is much smaler in die then a G4 so the Watt/cm^2 is higher on the Yohan. Merom is also 65nm, and it have to have a max 5-7 watt to make it run as cool as a g4, that is when the Watt/ cm^2 is the same.

[Anthem]

Originally Posted by powerequivalent The high end IBM laptop can have in realtime almost 7hours. That is WILD. And they use a Intel Pentium M 760 so MUCH more then the G4 we have today. but it is not as thin as the PB/iBook, and not that good looking and it is not a mac. But you get the point.

My sister's got a $1000 centrino laptop (compaq) with a realtime of at least 6 hours when running Firefox and MSOffice.

And it's got integrated wifi/bluetooth, a wide-screen 14", 512mb ram, a 5400" hard drive, and a DVD burner. Plus it's light and portable. If only it didn't run Windows.