Penryn vs. Montevina iMac

[Sped]

Intel is not expected to release their first quad-core mobile CPU until the latter part of this year, but I don't expect Apple to put it in a Mac until maybe Mac World.

I don't expect quad-core consumer macs for a while. Software is currently not well optimized for 4 cores (hardly even 2 cores). I've read several comments about how fantastic a 4 core iMac would be, but I personally doubt average iMac users would notice any difference between 2 and 4 core macs.

 

[Eidorian]

I don't expect quad-core consumer macs for a while. Software is currently not well optimized for 4 cores (hardly even 2 cores). I've read several comments about how fantastic a 4 core iMac would be, but I personally doubt average iMac users would notice any difference between 2 and 4 core macs.

There are plenty of stock quad core Windows computers for average users. They're under ~$600 if you don't need a monitor.

 

[Tsurisuto]

These are the mobile CPUs Intel will be releasing next month that support Montevina:

• Core 2 Extreme QX9300 with 12MB L2 cache and TDP of 45W (unknown clock)
• Core 2 Extreme X9100 (3.06GHz, 6MB L2 cache and TDP of 44W)
• Core 2 Duo T9600 (2.8GHz, 6MB and 35W)
• T9400 (2.53GHz, 6MB and 35W)
• P9500 (2.53GHz, 6MB and 25W)
• P8600 (2.4GHz, 3MB and 25W)
• P8400 (2.26GHz, 3MB and 25W)

Note that both Core 2 Extreme are dual-core CPUs. Intel is not expected to release their first quad-core mobile CPU until the latter part of this year, but I don't expect Apple to put it in a Mac until maybe Mac World. And within six months of that, Apple will likely release (non-Mac Pro) machines using Nehalem which will be significantly better.

The list you have is slightly out of date, as Intel announced recently that the QX9300 IS a Quad Core mobile processor running at 2.5Ghz.

 

[Eidorian]

http://guides.macrumors.com/Core_2_Extreme_QX9300

'Q' denotes a quad core. Kinda obvious it was a quad core.

 

[bigwig]

Capella will show up with Nehalem derived mobile processors in Q2 2009.

Calpella

 

[mmccaskill]

Great. Thanks for that. Sounds like indeed I should wait. These potential changes do sound more significant.

It depends on your definition of significant. The Penryn XE chip set for release next month will clock in at 3.066 gHz and at the same price as the current Merom XE 2.8 gHz chip available today. That's 10% right there. The new Penryn chip will have a 6 MB L2 cache and a 1066 mhz bus. Those two additions should provide some performance gains as well. Finally, Apple will be able to include DDR3 memory. Whether they do or not remains to be seen, but there are performance gains to be had there too.

One of the more interesting possibilities is the potential to not use the Xtreme processor, save about 10W of TDP, and include a hotted up GPU. Although Apple poo-poo'd the megahertz myth in years past, I bet they follow it and use the Xtreme processor rather than finally include a GPU worth a s&*%.

My money right now is on Apple releasing a Penryn / Montevina combo in June. It probably will happen around WWDC but not at WWDC. I expect WWDC to be all about 10.5 and the iPhone.

 

[CWallace]

I don't expect quad-core consumer macs for a while. Software is currently not well optimized for 4 cores (hardly even 2 cores). I've read several comments about how fantastic a 4 core iMac would be, but I personally doubt average iMac users would notice any difference between 2 and 4 core macs.

It depends. I have a dual quad-core Xeon HP workstation (essentially a Mac Pro) and a single quad-core desktop Core 2 Extreme HP workstation. The single quad core actually seems to be a bit quicker in more cases that the dual-quad, which is likely due to less overhead. However, in applications that take advantage of every core, the dual-quad Xeon is handily quicker.

The list you have is slightly out of date, as Intel announced recently that the QX9300 IS a Quad Core mobile processor running at 2.5Ghz.

Thanks. The data was from a May 2007 release so it is about 12 months old. I have edited my original post.