AMD iMac

[Hellhammer]

the AMD chips are hot>? how hot!

For iMac they could fit 95W 3GHz quad (x4 945) or even x4 965 if there will be 95W version of it.

Main problem would be laptops as there are no fast chips from AMD and as I said, AFAIK they top out at 2.4GHz dual core. There is 2.3GHz quad with TDP of 45W but that's too hot for MBPs.

AMD is concentrated on low-end computers and servers, and IMO Macs are not low-end.

 

[DoFoT9]

For iMac they could fit 95W 3GHz quad (x4 945) or even x4 965 if there will be 95W version of it.

yea the imac is pretty decent at cooling. so no worry there.. but that would interrupt with the quad imacs with intel chips - apple wont do that

Main problem would be laptops as there are no fast chips from AMD and as I said, AFAIK they top out at 2.4GHz dual core. There is 2.3GHz quad with TDP of 45W but that's too hot for MBPs.

AMD is concentrated on low-end computers and servers, and IMO Macs are not low-end.

yea fair enough,, no laptop AMD chips then! just mac mini + imac

 

[Hellhammer]

just mac mini + imac

Mini uses laptop chips

Too much hassle for just iMac and as I said, Apple should use only AMD and ATI to get better deal and have less work in OS X

 

[DoFoT9]

Mini uses laptop chips

what you think im a n00b or something

Too much hassle for just iMac and as I said, Apple should use only AMD and ATI to get better deal and have less work in OS X

thats true. it would take ALOT of effort..... not that i want AMD in the mac picture anyway.

 

[pilot1226]

AMD hasn't been the top since Intel figured out how to beat the Athlon64 design (which was brilliant, by the way). I would probably not buy an iMac if it only shipped with AMD based processors.

Intel i5/i7 is by far the industry leader for home computers.

 

[DeSnousa]

Really is any modern PC chip that slow, I would have no issue as long as email, net, iTunes etc ran fine. The fact is all chips run great with what most people want to use them for, so why not go the value version if it meant cheaper Macs?

 

[Hellhammer]

Really is any modern PC chip that slow, I would have no issue as long as email, net, iTunes etc ran fine. The fact is all chips run great with what most people want to use them for, so why not go the value version if it meant cheaper Macs?

Apple ≠ cheap

iPhone's parts costs ~70€ (if I recall correctly) and Apple sells it for +400€. Even if iMac's parts cost 400€, Apple would charge the same 999€ anyway, that's how the business is done. As I said above, Apple should move AMD only because it needs so much work to get decent AMD support so why to do that for one or two iMac models?

I would get it if AMD was Intel but seeing that Intel is dominating in CPU market (made 10x bigger profit last quarter), I doubt it.

 

[skaertus]

Apple could use an AMD processor in its high-end iMac. The near future of AMD processors looks very promising to me.

Intel processors are very expensive. The company has no plans to replace the i5-750 and the i7-860 (which come inside the top iMacs) in the near future. Instead, Intel is set to release expensive Core i7-870S and Core i7-880 chips, which Apple will not use in its iMacs.

AMD, on the other hand, will release cheap six-core processors this April, its "Thurban" line. The top-range Phenom II X6 1090T, with six cores and a 3.2 GHz clock, is set to cost US$ 299, just a little more than the Core i7-860 2.8 GHz (which costs US$ 284). However, this processor has a TDP of 125W. Apple could put in the iMac the T1055, which will have a TDP of 95W (identical to the i5-750 and the i7-860), will have 6 cores running at 2.8 GHz and will cost US$ 195 (about the same as the i5). The Phenom II X4 965 (quad-core, 3.4 GHz) has about the same performance as the Core i5-750, so the T1055 will probably perform way better.

I have no idea on which AMD processor Apple could put inside the low-end iMacs (top-range AMD processors consume more than the required 65W), but they may probably come out with something.

I don't see a transition to AMD as a bad idea. Intel still has the best processors, but the prices are becoming prohibitive to most consumers and Apple won't include the top-range processors in its machines. Intel already has a six-core processor, but it costs US$ 999, a rip-off which is simply not worth it. Intel is set to release a cheaper six-core in Q3, for US$ 562. Average consumers will be stuck with the same old Intel quad-core processors for ever and ever. Intel has the best technology, but it is just holding back the evolution of the computer industry by refusing to make it available at affordable prices.

AMD, on the other hand, could attract Apple by offering lower prices and custom processors. Intel is showing to everyone it doesn't need Apple. AMD, on the other hand, is a smaller company and a link with a premium brand such as Apple would mean a lot. I think the transition makes perfect sense.

 

[DeSnousa]

Apple ≠ cheap

iPhone's parts costs ~70€ (if I recall correctly) and Apple sells it for +400€. Even if iMac's parts cost 400€, Apple would charge the same 999€ anyway, that's how the business is done. As I said above, Apple should move AMD only because it needs so much work to get decent AMD support so why to do that for one or two iMac models?

I would get it if AMD was Intel but seeing that Intel is dominating in CPU market (made 10x bigger profit last quarter), I doubt it.

I do agree that Macs are not cheap, however does AMD in lower end Macs make it appear that much cheaper. Macs are dedicated hardware that is not comparable to other pcs i.e. they are not upgradable, the fact is if Apple supported AMD their chips would be valid for years to come and be supported, the reason I pay a premium.

The G4 was crap compared to the G5 yet Apple sucessfully sold them.

 

[lyptt]

ohhhh yea, making OSX compatible with AMD is a HUGE task. apple is working on iphone os4 versions now, and they dont have many other workers lying around!

No it isn't, otherwise AMD hackintosh distros wouldn't exist.

All it requires is some reworking of the kernel to be more compatible with the AMD architecture, and some work on the drivers. Very do-able.

 

[skaertus]

Apple ≠ cheap

iPhone's parts costs ~70€ (if I recall correctly) and Apple sells it for +400€. Even if iMac's parts cost 400€, Apple would charge the same 999€ anyway, that's how the business is done. As I said above, Apple should move AMD only because it needs so much work to get decent AMD support so why to do that for one or two iMac models?

I would get it if AMD was Intel but seeing that Intel is dominating in CPU market (made 10x bigger profit last quarter), I doubt it.

Apple products are not cheap, but the processors inside the Macs are cheap ones. Apple could use better processors if it moved to AMD, as AMD could offer a better price/performance ratio.

 

[Hellhammer]

No it isn't, otherwise AMD hackintosh distros wouldn't exist.

All it requires is some reworking of the kernel to be more compatible with the AMD architecture, and some work on the drivers. Very do-able.

Sure it wouldn't be hard to make it WORK but would have to make the support a lot better than crappy Hackintosh ways. I doubt AMD Hackintosh can fully utilize the power of CPU, sure it'll run but do you want to use only 20% of the CPU's real power?

Apple products are not cheap, but the processors inside the Macs are cheap ones. Apple could use better processors if it moved to AMD, as AMD could offer a better price/performance ratio.

In desktop CPUs, yes but in laptop CPUs, no. As I said, AMD mobile chips top out at 2.4GHz which is dual core, same as we now have in base 13" MBP.

Computers have other components than just CPU, remember that. E.g. 27" iMac is IMO pretty cheap for what you get as for 1699$, you get 27" IPS panel display with LED backlight. 27" Dell is +1000$ and then add CPU, PSU, RAM, GPU....

AMD would mostly be downgrade not upgrade

 

[MacHamster68]

ok not amd ..then, you just look at pure benchmark figures , and then the only thing you do on your i7 is writing a letter using microsoft word , and for games the processor is only marginal important more important is a really good graphics card is far more important and ram ram ram and at the moment apple is wasting money for a i7 instead of giving the iMac a proper craphics card as the one installed is absolute low end

btw the graphics card from ati(amd) that i mentioned (hd 5970 ) drains about 300 watt
who the hell cares about the power consumption on a desktop anyway , on a laptop ok there i understand the need for low power consumption , but hey a desktop does not run on batteries

 

[skaertus]

In desktop CPUs, yes but in laptop CPUs, no. As I said, AMD mobile chips top out at 2.4GHz which is dual core, same as we now have in base 13" MBP.

Yes, that is true.

However, I see that AMD will soon launch the Phenom II line of laptop processors, with triple and quad-core options. And the quad-core offerings will have a lower TDP than Intel's. A Phenom II X4 P920 1.6 GHz will consume only 25W and could replace the Core 2 Duo P series which equip the low-end MacBooks. Apple could use the Phenom II X4 N930 2 GHz (35W) to equip MacBook Pros. I don't know yet the performance of these mobile processors, but they are quad core chips and, at least in desktops, AMD quad-core processors seem to offer better performance than Intel dual-core processors with HyperThreading.

If Apple is considering AMD processors, it is certainly not looking at its current line-up.

Computers have other components than just CPU, remember that. E.g. 27" iMac is IMO pretty cheap for what you get as for 1699$, you get 27" IPS panel display with LED backlight. 27" Dell is +1000$ and then add CPU, PSU, RAM, GPU....

AMD would mostly be downgrade not upgrade

The current iMacs are great value because of the LED-backlit IPS 27" screen, but they are far from being cheap machines (i.e. it is worth it, but it's still a lot of dollars).

Anyway, my point is: Intel chips are better, indeed, but a transition to AMD doesn't necessarily mean a downgrade. I am talking specifics here, not in general. Apple uses mid-range Intel processors, and AMD may be able to offer that.

I mean, Apple is never going to put a US$ 999 six-core Core i7-980X 3.33 GHz inside a US$ 1,999 iMac (which current has a Core i5-750). But it may put a US$ 195 six-core Phenom II X6 T1055 2.8 GHz, because it will cost the same as a Core i5. If the performance of the T1055 is superior to the performance of the Core i5, that would be a great change. This would be an upgrade, at least for me.

 

[Hellhammer]

btw the graphics card from ati(amd) that i mentioned (hd 5970 ) drains about 300 watt
who the hell cares about the power consumption on a desktop anyway , on a laptop ok there i understand the need for low power consumption , but hey a desktop does not run on batteries

Look at your electricity bill with ATI 5970 and you will see why...

Mac Pro is the only Mac what uses desktop GPUs and could even use ATI 5970. No matter what CPU in iMac, it can never handle 300W GPU as mobile 4850 uses ~60W, so it'd be 5 times hotter making iMac a piece of melt aluminum plus iMacs currently carry 330W PSU so ATI 5970 would need its own PSU

 

[Hellhammer]

Yes, that is true.

However, I see that AMD will soon launch the Phenom II line of laptop processors, with triple and quad-core options. And the quad-core offerings will have a lower TDP than Intel's. A Phenom II X4 P920 1.6 GHz will consume only 25W and could replace the Core 2 Duo P series which equip the low-end MacBooks. Apple could use the Phenom II X4 N930 2 GHz (35W) to equip MacBook Pros. I don't know yet the performance of these mobile processors, but they are quad core chips and, at least in desktops, AMD quad-core processors seem to offer better performance than Intel dual-core processors with HyperThreading.

If Apple is considering AMD processors, it is certainly not looking at its current line-up.



The current iMacs are great value because of the LED-backlit IPS 27" screen, but they are far from being cheap machines (i.e. it is worth it, but it's still a lot of dollars).

Anyway, my point is: Intel chips are better, indeed, but a transition to AMD doesn't necessarily mean a downgrade. I am talking specifics here, not in general. Apple uses mid-range Intel processors, and AMD may be able to offer that.

I mean, Apple is never going to put a US$ 999 six-core Core i7-980X 3.33 GHz inside a US$ 1,999 iMac (which current has a Core i5-750). But it may put a US$ 195 six-core Phenom II X6 T1055 2.8 GHz, because it will cost the same as a Core i5. If the performance of the T1055 is superior to the performance of the Core i5, that would be a great change. This would be an upgrade, at least for me.

Do you have an article about those new AMD chips? Haven't heard of them would be nice to read about them.

Also, what is the TDP of Phenom x6 T1055? 27" can handle 95W, but doubt it can handle any hotter one. Those new AMDs have Turbo which is very nice extra too.

I still think Intel wins clock for clock, right?

 

[skaertus]

ok not amd ..then, you just look at pure benchmark figures , and then the only thing you do on your i7 is writing a letter using microsoft word , and for games the processor is only marginal important more important is a really good graphics card is far more important and ram ram ram and at the moment apple is wasting money for a i7 instead of giving the iMac a proper craphics card as the one installed is absolute low end

btw the graphics card from ati(amd) that i mentioned (hd 5970 ) drains about 300 watt
who the hell cares about the power consumption on a desktop anyway , on a laptop ok there i understand the need for low power consumption , but hey a desktop does not run on batteries

Power consumption is an important issue with iMacs and with all-in-ones in general. That's why Apple used to put mobile processors inside the iMacs. Apple has to put a power supply unit inside the iMac, and the iMac is not supposed to run very hot. There are size and heat constraints, just like what happens in laptops. Because it is an all-in-one, an iMac behaves much like a laptop. The 27" iMac has more space and thus Apple was able to put a 95W processor inside of it. But I don't think Apple could put a 95W processor inside the 21.5" iMac.

Plus, Apple would not be able to put an ATI 5970 inside a 27" iMac, because it would run hot and the PSU would not be able to handle its required 300W.

Apple computers are not made for games. There are few games available for Mac OS (at least comparing to PCs) and Apple does not design computers for such market. Macs are computers for the average guy, for happy families, for creative artists, for graphic designers, for video editors. Not for gamers. That's not Apple's philosophy. The processor is still the most important part of a computer and an i7 offers a performance boost in several tasks. Apple is putting better video cards probably because it wants to take advantage of its GPGPU OpenCL technology. If you're looking for games, you'll have to buy a PC...

 

[skaertus]

Do you have an article about those new AMD chips? Haven't heard of them would be nice to read about them.

Also, what is the TDP of Phenom x6 T1055? 27" can handle 95W, but doubt it can handle any hotter one. Those new AMDs have Turbo which is very nice extra too.

I still think Intel wins clock for clock, right?

Yes, take a look here for an article on the new mobile AMD processors: http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20091217191244_AMD_Readies_Phenom_II_Processors_for_Mobile_Computers_for_May_Launch.html


Phenom II X6 T0155 will come in two versions, and the cooler one will run at 95W (the other one will run at 125W, and the TDP is the only difference between them, as far as I'm concerned - price will probably be different too). It will be the fastest AMD six-core processor running at 95W. It runs at 2.8 GHz and it may reach 3.33 GHz in Turbo Mode.

The T1090, which will be AMD's fastest six-core offering, will run at 3.2 GHz and will reach 3.6 GHz in Turbo Mode. It will consume 125W, but maybe AMD could produce a 95W custom version exclusively for Apple (just like Intel has done in the past)... who knows?

You're right, Intel still wins clock for clock, and by a large margin. The Phenom II X4 965 3.4 GHz is only marginally faster than the Core i5-750 2.66 GHz.

 

[Hellhammer]

Yes, take a look here for an article on the new mobile AMD processors: http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20091217191244_AMD_Readies_Phenom_II_Processors_for_Mobile_Computers_for_May_Launch.html


Phenom II X6 T0155 will come in two versions, and the cooler one will run at 95W (the other one will run at 125W, and the TDP is the only difference between them, as far as I'm concerned - price will probably be different too). It will be the fastest AMD six-core processor running at 95W. It runs at 2.8 GHz and it may reach 3.33 GHz in Turbo Mode.

The T1090, which will be AMD's fastest six-core offering, will run at 3.2 GHz and will reach 3.6 GHz in Turbo Mode. It will consume 125W, but maybe AMD could produce a 95W custom version exclusively for Apple (just like Intel has done in the past)... who knows?

You're right, Intel still wins clock for clock, and by a large margin. The Phenom II X4 965 3.4 GHz is only marginally faster than the Core i5-750 2.66 GHz.

Thanks! Hmm, 45W CPUs are too hot for MBPs so that'd be 2GHz quad or 2.8GHz dual. I'm interested on the prices though.

I doubt AMD can make 3.2GHz 6-core with 95W TDP anytime soon, as they would come up with one if they could. Otherwise, those CPUs look very good, I'm sure I'll be building a lot PCs with them when they are out!

 

[skaertus]

Thanks! Hmm, 45W CPUs are too hot for MBPs so that'd be 2GHz quad or 2.8GHz dual. I'm interested on the prices though.

Yes, Apple would have to use the 2 GHz quad-core for the MacBook Pros. Still looks pretty good, doesn't it?

And Apple could use the 1.6 GHz quad-core for the MacBook and for the low-end MacBook Pro, as it consumes only 25W, the same as the P-series Core 2 Duo. And I guess it would probably be better than a 2.4 or a 2.66 GHz Core 2 Duo. But I haven't heard of the prices yet.

It seems to me that Intel Nehalem processors are too hot. Intel hasn't managed to deliver a quad-core mobile Nehalem running cool at decent clock speeds. Apple won't put these processors inside their MacBooks Pro.

And the only 25W Nehalem processors available are the Core i7-620LM and the i7-640LM, both of which are too expensive for putting inside the MacBook and the 13" MacBook Pro.

Apple will have to stick with Core 2 Duo for its 13" laptops and with dual-core processors for the remaining MacBooks, and that will only change after the launch of Sandy Bridge, unless Apple moves to AMD.

I doubt AMD can make 3.2GHz 6-core with 95W TDP anytime soon, as they would come up with one if they could. Otherwise, those CPUs look very good, I'm sure I'll be building a lot PCs with them when they are out!

Yes, it may be. But perhaps AMD is able to make 95W 3.2 GHz 6-core processors and, due to the price, they may be just not worth to be launch anytime soon.

 

[Hellhammer]

Yes, Apple would have to use the 2 GHz quad-core for the MacBook Pros. Still looks pretty good, doesn't it?

And Apple could use the 1.6 GHz quad-core for the MacBook and for the low-end MacBook Pro, as it consumes only 25W, the same as the P-series Core 2 Duo. And I guess it would probably be better than a 2.4 or a 2.66 GHz Core 2 Duo. But I haven't heard of the prices yet.

It seems to me that Intel Nehalem processors are too hot. Intel hasn't managed to deliver a quad-core mobile Nehalem running cool at decent clock speeds. Apple won't put these processors inside their MacBooks Pro.

And the only 25W Nehalem processors available are the Core i7-620LM and the i7-640LM, both of which are too expensive for putting inside the MacBook and the 13" MacBook Pro.

Apple will have to stick with Core 2 Duo for its 13" laptops and with dual-core processors for the remaining MacBooks, and that will only change after the launch of Sandy Bridge, unless Apple moves to AMD.



Yes, it may be. But perhaps AMD is able to make 95W 3.2 GHz 6-core processors and, due to the price, they may be just not worth to be launch anytime soon.

No quad in low-end for few years.. Do they have Turbo? Without it, 1.6GHz is useless as there aren't enough apps to take advantage of quad so apps that can't will be very slow due low clock speed. All current mobile quads are too hot for MBPs (they are 45W and MBPs use 35W), though I'm sure Apple could improve the cooling system and fit one in there but we just got update without them so..

So far there is no quad core Westmere (32nm Nehalem), only Xeons which are 6-core with two cores disabled.

Early benchmarks are showing Sandy Bridge is looking enormously good and it'll be a significant upgrade in CPUs, so if Intel can come up with reasonably priced SBs, AMD has to do something major.

 

[skaertus]

No quad in low-end for few years.. Do they have Turbo? Without it, 1.6GHz is useless as there aren't enough apps to take advantage of quad so apps that can't will be very slow due low clock speed.

The Phenom II P920 1.6 GHz will use in fact 25W, so it may be used in low-end 13" MacBooks. But you're right, the clock is too slow for single-threaded applications. Apple may enhance it with the "Grand Central" feature of Snow Leopard, though. I have no idea if these mobile processors will have a Turbo Mode.

All current mobile quads are too hot for MBPs (they are 45W and MBPs use 35W), though I'm sure Apple could improve the cooling system and fit one in there but we just got update without them so..

Intel Core i7-720QM and 820QM use 45W; the i7-920XM uses a whopping 55W! Apple may enhance its cooling system to handle these processors. However, the MagSafe of the MacBook Pro handles a total of 85W, so, unless Apple increases this TDP, I don't think there will be room for a 45W processor.

So far there is no quad core Westmere (32nm Nehalem), only Xeons which are 6-core with two cores disabled.

At this point, I don't see Intel launching a 32nm quad-core Nehalem. I think we won't see them before Sandy Bridge is launched.

The Core i7-980X "Gulftown" is 32nm, but it is a six-core processor.

Early benchmarks are showing Sandy Bridge is looking enormously good and it'll be a significant upgrade in CPUs, so if Intel can come up with reasonably priced SBs, AMD has to do something major.

I haven't seen any benchmark for Sandy Bridge yet. Where have you seen them?

For what I've read on Sandy Bridge (including this recent article on CNET: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13924_3-20002617-64.html), I thought Intel would focus on power efficiency, on mobile technology and on fighting NVIDIA's GPUs, instead of delivering sheer performance.

Intel of course can come up with reasonably priced SBs. It can come up with reasonably priced Gulftowns either. But it doesn't want to, and that's the problem with Intel.

 

[Hellhammer]

The Phenom II P920 1.6 GHz will use in fact 25W, so it may be used in low-end 13" MacBooks. But you're right, the clock is too slow for single-threaded applications. Apple may enhance it with the "Grand Central" feature of Snow Leopard, though. I have no idea if these mobile processors will have a Turbo Mode.

It would be odd if whole laptop lineup only used two processors, 1.6GHz and 2GHz quad

Grand Central is for developers so they can more easily adopt multicore support but it won't make single-threaded app multithreaded if it isn't coded to be multicore

At this point, I don't see Intel launching a 32nm quad-core Nehalem. I think we won't see them before Sandy Bridge is launched.

There has been rumors about Lynnfield and Clarksfield going 32nm in mid 2010 but Intel hasn't commented that

"DailyTech has received information that Core i5 Lynnfield and Clarksfield CPUs might be replaced by quad core Westmere variants in the middle of 2010. Intel refuses to comment on unannounced products, although they did state that "additional 32nm products will follow in 2010"."

http://www.dailytech.com/Gulftown+is+the+Flagship+of+32nm+Westmere+Line/article14227.htm

The Core i7-980X "Gulftown" is 32nm, but it is a six-core processor.

Yeah but there are several 32nm quad core Xeons which uses the same chips as 6-core Gulftown but two of the cores have been disabled, just like AMD Phenom x2s which have four cores but two disabled

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Nehalem_(microarchitecture)#32_nm_processors

I haven't seen any benchmark for Sandy Bridge yet. Where have you seen them?

I haven't seen any, I've just read that it'll be FAST but so was Nehalem compared to Core

For what I've read on Sandy Bridge (including this recent article on CNET: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13924_3-20002617-64.html), I thought Intel would focus on power efficiency, on mobile technology and on fighting NVIDIA's GPUs, instead of delivering sheer performance.

Yeah, they will likely top out at 95W.

Intel of course can come up with reasonably priced SBs. It can come up with reasonably priced Gulftowns either. But it doesn't want to, and that's the problem with Intel.

Sandy Bridge is micro-architecture, while Gulftown is just a codename for high-end desktop CPUs, so there'll be CPUs for all price categories, maybe not launched at the same time but sooner than later, just like there is Arrandale and Clarkdale in Nehalem

 

[kmaute]

If you look at the list prices for the intel lines and then Apple's corresponding price increase to upgrade the CPU, it's readily apparent that the cost of CPUs are not the true reason for the prices that Apple charges. Apple would only be considering switching to AMD for a technical advantage, they have no concerns with passing on their costs on to their consumers.

 

[skaertus]

It would be odd if whole laptop lineup only used two processors, 1.6GHz and 2GHz quad

Very weird indeed. Apple may use dual and triple cores. Or it may mix AMD and Intel processors (this would be nice).

There has been rumors about Lynnfield and Clarksfield going 32nm in mid 2010 but Intel hasn't commented that

"DailyTech has received information that Core i5 Lynnfield and Clarksfield CPUs might be replaced by quad core Westmere variants in the middle of 2010. Intel refuses to comment on unannounced products, although they did state that "additional 32nm products will follow in 2010"."

http://www.dailytech.com/Gulftown+is+the+Flagship+of+32nm+Westmere+Line/article14227.htm

I've heard that too. But, at this point, I seriously doubt it. Intel has released a 45nm quad-core (the i7-930) after the launch of 32nm. And it is set to release another 45nm processor, the i7-880.

Yeah but there are several 32nm quad core Xeons which uses the same chips as 6-core Gulftown but two of the cores have been disabled, just like AMD Phenom x2s which have four cores but two disabled

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Nehalem_(microarchitecture)#32_nm_processors

Ah, OK! But they're still Gulftowns, not Lynnfields.

I haven't seen any, I've just read that it'll be FAST but so was Nehalem compared to Core

Hummm. I hope it is fast. However, I remember that when Intel launched Nehalem, the focus was performance: HyperThreading, Turbo Boost, etc. It was supposed to be a Core 2 killer. I don't see that with Sandy Bridge. Intel seems to be taking a different approach: AVX to enhance audio/video capabilities (meaning: you don't need NVIDIA), power efficiency (meaning: more laptop processors).

I've also read that the first Sandy Bridge chips will be mobile and quad-core desktops. The top-range six-core Nehalem (Gulftowns) will remain as Intel's best offering for a while.

Yeah, they will likely top out at 95W.

Nehalem was clearly a processor designed for desktops. Intel took a year to launch the mobile version, and it runs too hot. Sandy Bridge will fix that, but, unless I see some benchmarks that show otherwise, I don't think Intel is putting much effort on increasing performance.

Sandy Bridge is micro-architecture, while Gulftown is just a codename for high-end desktop CPUs, so there'll be CPUs for all price categories, maybe not launched at the same time but sooner than later, just like there is Arrandale and Clarkdale in Nehalem

Yes, there will be Sandy Bridges for all price ranges. But there will also be Sandy Bridges for all performance ranges. It doesn't really matter to most consumers (including me) which architecture the processor uses. Performance matters. Price matters. And the price/performance ratio matters. Intel has become very greedy. Twenty years ago, the performance of Intel processors nearly doubled from one year to the other. Nowadays, I've gotta be happy if I get a 20% speed bump in Intel mid-range processors from one year to the other.