Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

3.72 GHz Core 2 Extreme mobile chip - super-fast iMac coming?

K

kraftzwerg

macrumors regular
Original poster
Jul 8, 2005
120
0
I just found this info on the upcoming Core 2 mobile chips on Wikipedia. The Core 2 Extreme X9500 has a TDP of 44 Watt, indicating that it would be perfectly suitable for the 24" iMac. That machine would be much faster than a Mac Pro in single-threaded tasks ... :cool:

... however no release date for the chip is indicated :(
 
You think they would cost more than the previous generation $851 Core 2 Extreme X9100 ? Have they ever made a mobile chip that costs more than $1000 ? If it's indeed that expensive, I agree it's probably not worth it.
 
kraftzwerg said:
You think they would cost more than the previous generation $851 Core 2 Extreme X9100 ? Have they ever made a mobile chip that costs more than $1000 ? If it's indeed that expensive, I agree it's probably not worth it.
Click to expand...

To me, even the old core 2 extremes at $800 are not worth it. I personally believe it's kind of stupid to go top-end hardware on a machine that is not a desktop, but that's just me.
 
That's more incentive for Apple not to go quad on the iMac. Mid-2007 2.8GHz Core 2 Extreme iMac had X7900 @ $851 (although cheaper in bulk for Apple) so I can see them going for it. You want more cores? Go for the Mac Pro they'll say.
 
:eek: What the… :eek:

There's quite a few others I haven't seen before…

T9950: Dual-core, 3.19 GHz, 35 W ($851)

X9300: Dual-core, 3.33 GHz, 44 W ($851)
X9500: Dual-core, 3.72 GHz, 44 W ($1038)

QX9200: Quad-core, 2.40 GHz, 45 W ($851)
QX9500: Quad-core, 2.93 GHz, 45 W ($1038)

Prices in parentheses are my guesses.

These to me raise other questions (assuming they are real). Why would Intel release a bunch of quad-core CPUs soon when Clarksfield is likely to come a quarter later? Is it because Clarksfield is delayed?

The dual-core 35/44 W CPUs also are interesting since Arrandale will supposedly top out at 35 W (including iGPU, which means ≈25 W CPU). I wonder if Intel is planning to keep a set of high-clocked dual-cores in 2010, and those happen to be Penryns instead of Nehalems (not likely IMO).

kraftzwerg said:
Have they ever made a mobile chip that costs more than $1000 ?
Click to expand...
QX9300 mobile quad-core is $1038.
 
For the average user isn't there a point where this just becomes overkill?
It seems once you reach a certain point the rest is really unused potential by average and most advanced users....
Just a thought;)
 
That sounds ridiculous. Next step will be quad-core and after that 32nm processors. 3.72GHz dual core is slower than 2.53GHz quad core and it's cheaper so....
 
I would love a 3gHz quad-core MBP. I'd sell my current 2.8 for one.
 
Eidorian said:
The E8700 comes close. Not that you can't overclock it. Intel is cherry picking these processors though.
Click to expand...

How does this work in practice? Do they somehow test each processor right after fabrication as to how high it can go in clock speed? Why is there so much variation from one processor to the other? Does it have to do with leakage currents? I could imagine that those currents depend very sensitively on how close things get to each other on the chip and there may be some fluctuations in the distances during the fabrication process - just a wild guess, but I'd love to hear an explanation from someone who is knowledgeable.

Eidorian said:
Not that you need this kind of clock speed unless you happen to think you're CPU bound in gaming.
Click to expand...

Well, another good use for high clock speeds is for simulations that cannot easily be made parallel - we do have problems like that at work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back