OSNews

According to the slides it's 13W (typical)..whatever that means .

LOL, 'typical' sounds like the old joke, "how long is a piece of string?"

I would say that Apple already knew about this product well in advance; the issue isn't so much the power consumption NOW but the power consumption later on - when the clock speed starts going up, and the wattage goes up as well, the two will get out of wack.

From what I understand, as Apple shows it on their PR, Apple need something that has equal performance to IBMs future road maps, but without the watt consumption hanging over it; Intel has shown its cards, and Apple likes it - Apple was probably also persuaded by the completely integrated solution - video, audio, wireless etc etc The video may have looked weak now, but I'd say that the future video chipsets by Intel will be a massive improvement - equal to that of the 'value end' Nvidia and ATI priced chipsets.

I think people forget, Intel offered the whole deal - they not only offered the foot long sub, the included a drink and 4 biscuits at no extra charge - thats in comparison to IBM who were just selling the Sub, and required the customer to find the other parts of different vendors.

IBM, like Intel, reports average thermal design power. I couldn't tell you how much higher max thermal design power is, but for reference, a Prescott with 130W TDP can use over 180W under load. It should be noted that AMD deserves kudos for citing max thermal design power in their specs.