Intel's Upcoming Quad-Core "Mobile" Chip Realistic For Laptops?

[MacRumors]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

In March we reported that Intel's upcoming Core 2 Extreme QX9300 (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/03/17/intel-to-launch-quad-core-mobile-processor-in-q3-2008/) was scheduled for quarter 3 of this year. The chip promised to be the first mobile quad-core chip available, however the expected 45W power requirements was going to limit the chip's adoption.

The Inquirer is now reporting that the chip may actually come in at 35W (http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2008/05/14/intel-updates-gaming-notebooks), which would be much more palatable for mobile use.

Apple has habitually offered Intel's top-shelf mobile and workstation processors, often obtaining unannounced products. It remains speculation as to when or if the chip may end up in an Apple computer.

Article Link (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/05/15/intels-upcoming-quad-core-mobile-chip-realistic-for-laptops/)

[Eidorian]

It's good to hear it might be coming in at 35W now. It has been on the roadmap for ages now so a mobile quad core isn't a surprise. ;)

[flopticalcube]

Quad core iMac is now a given. Quad core MBP is a highly probable.

[PlaceofDis]

the lower they can get the power the more likely we'll see it used in the macbooks and macbook pros, but i'm still unsure if they'll work alright in such a thin enclosure.

[hvfsl]

the lower they can get the power the more likely we'll see it used in the macbooks and macbook pros, but i'm still unsure if they'll work alright in such a thin enclosure.

I can't see them putting it in a MacBook for at least 5 years (considering there is no real need to it for the average MacBook user).

[Eidorian]

I can't see them putting it in a MacBook for at least 5 years (considering there is no real need to it for the average MacBook user).Please don't drag up the "average user" argument. It turns quickly into a pointless hardware specification war.

Apple is very fond of using the fastest processors Intel has to offer while skimping on the remaining hardware.

[PlaceofDis]

I can't see them putting it in a MacBook for at least 5 years (considering there is no real need to it for the average MacBook user).

well that all depends on the development process. they won't put it in the macbooks immediately, but it should trickle down in a year or two. five would be much too long imo.

[flopticalcube]

the lower they can get the power the more likely we'll see it used in the macbooks and macbook pros, but i'm still unsure if they'll work alright in such a thin enclosure.
I guess it would depend on what Apple had in mind for the MBP. If they go the way of the MBA and go even thinner, then heat could be a problem, although they could always underclock it.

[vendettabass]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/420.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.0 Mobile/4A102 Safari/419.3)

the lower they can get the power the more likely we'll see it used in the macbooks and macbook pros, but i'm still unsure if they'll work alright in such a thin enclosure.

I can't see them putting it in a MacBook for at least 5 years (considering there is no real need to it for the average MacBook user).

octo core MacBooks at least! in 5 years!

[Yvan256]

Would it be possible to see both the iMac and Mac mini with quad core first, before the laptops?

[PlaceofDis]

Would it be possible to see both the iMac and Mac mini with quad core first, before the laptops?

imac, of course.
mini? unlikely. hell it would be nice to see the mini with just some faster chips in it at this point. plus that thing just as cramped for space and heat dissipation as the laptops.

[SirOmega]

I'm inclined to think that we'll see the iMac upgrade in late Q3, with MBP add-on in early Q4 (it'll be added to the BTO options for the 17" MBP).

[vansouza]

quad core iMac please.

[KindredMAC]

Quad Core is needed in the iMac, since it is becoming more and more a pro designers computer with all that it offers.

A Quad Core in a MacBook Pro would create a nice gap between the Pros and Dual Core MacBooks.

Would still like to see Apple offer a couple more low end Quad Core options for the Mac Pros that would be in line with the high end of the iMac line.

[iBunny]

This is good news. Hopefully they get announced at WWDC. Even if we dont see them until Q3... I can live with that.

[Eidorian]

Quad Core is needed in the iMac, since it is becoming more and more a pro designers computer with all that it offers.

A Quad Core in a MacBook Pro would create a nice gap between the Pros and Dual Core MacBooks.

Would still like to see Apple offer a couple more low end Quad Core options for the Mac Pros that would be in line with the high end of the iMac line.I'm more concerned about the tri and quad core offerings that are found in SFF and minitowers for $500 - 1,000.

[mjteix]

Don't believe everything posted by the Inquirer.

That a quad-core chip will get into the 24" iMac later this year is almost certain.

I don't believe will see those in the 20" iMac or the MBP this year, Apple doesn't even use the current extreme edition 2.8GHz Penryn in the MBP.

AFAIK, Nehalem (mid-2009) will bring mobile quads in the 35W power envelop for sure, that's when the MBP will get his (and hopefully the 20" iMac too).

@ Eidorian

I agree. Even if the mid-tower segment is not growing as fast as the rest of the industry (laptops and Apple's AIO), it still represent a huge part of the market worldwide. I'd love Apple to release a "regular" desktop with desktop parts all the way at a reasonable price (more in the $999-1999 price range however).

[kjs862]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/420.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.0 Mobile/4A102 Safari/419.3)

Nice get this thing into an iPhone and you got yourself a deal!

[kornyboy]

Wirelessly posted (iPhone: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/420.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.0 Mobile/4A102 Safari/419.3)

I would definitely like to see one of these in a laptop soon.

[CmdrLaForge]

I will wait for quad core MBP to buy a new one. So I keep my fingers crossed.

[RoDe]

If this is true, this could be good news, for the upcoming MBP's. Apple does seem to get president when it comes to new processors.

[cnote678]

It would be awesome to get a quad-core into the MBP but yes, it seems unlikely that would happen before 2009. As long as battery life keeps going up, I'm happy.

[KindredMAC]

Apple does NOT need a mini-tower as everyone keeps clamoring for.

All they really need to do is offer a couple Mac Pros with a single Quad Core Xeon chip with a price starting at $1499.

This is how Apple always used to handle the Power Mac G3's, G4's and G5's, why not go back to a system that worked and no one was screaming for a model between the iMac and the PowerMac.

Here is an example of what could make sense with the next Mac Pro revision:
- Single Quad Core 2.8GHz XEON $1499
- Single Quad Core 3.0GHz XEON $1999
- Double Quad Core 2.8GHz XEON $2499
- Double Quad Core 3.0GHz XEON $2799
- Double Quad Core 3.2GHz XEON $3299
- Double Quad Core 3.4GHz XEON $3699

For this to work out, Apple would also have to offer either a $999 or $1099 iMac.

For me personally at home I would pick up the lowest end Quad Core Mac Pro, while at work I would put in for the mid-high range Octo Core Mac Pro.

[twoodcc]

great news! looking forward to 4 cores in a laptop

[longofest]

Don't believe everything posted by the Inquirer.

That is one of the reasons why I posted this on page2. They do have some correct rumors to their credit as well though. Its just weird that they are going against the grain on this. (35W vs. 45W)

[savvos]

Regardless of the Inquirer's bias against Apple (which seems to have changed slightly in the last few months) they tend to have a very good handle on Intel and AMD roadmaps, often getting the dirt on chips and chip problems months before specs are made official.

[winterspan]

Apple does NOT need a mini-tower as everyone keeps clamoring for.

All they really need to do is offer a couple Mac Pros with a single Quad Core Xeon chip with a price starting at $1499.

This is how Apple always used to handle the Power Mac G3's, G4's and G5's, why not go back to a system that worked and no one was screaming for a model between the iMac and the PowerMac.

Here is an example of what could make sense with the next Mac Pro revision:
- Single Quad Core 2.8GHz XEON $1499
- Single Quad Core 3.0GHz XEON $1999
- Double Quad Core 2.8GHz XEON $2499
- Double Quad Core 3.0GHz XEON $2799
- Double Quad Core 3.2GHz XEON $3299
- Double Quad Core 3.4GHz XEON $3699

For this to work out, Apple would also have to offer either a $999 or $1099 iMac.

For me personally at home I would pick up the lowest end Quad Core Mac Pro, while at work I would put in for the mid-high range Octo Core Mac Pro.

I understand you might just mean adding more choices, but don't they already offer the Mac Pro with only 1 Xeon (expandable to two of course) ?

[EagerDragon]

This is for the iMac.
In Feb or March a newer version will go into the MBP.

Those waiting for a better bump for the iMac, rejoice!!!!

[BenRoethig]

I would see this as an option in the iMac and maybe the 17" Powerbook

[KindredMAC]

I understand you might just mean adding more choices, but don't they already offer the Mac Pro with only 1 Xeon (expandable to two of course) ?

Yes I do know that and yes they do offer a single Quad Core chip as a "down grade"......

My point is to offer more than just a single option at the low end. Offer something hat is still affordable yet expandable like a lot of people want.

I know I for one just can't seem to let go of having a Mac tower. I need to have access to the inside so that I can upgrade the HD, RAM, Optical Drives, Video Cards, etc... whenever I want and add any PCI cards if the need arises. I also like being able to hook up any monitor or any number of monitors to my system. If I want 2 screens in extended, fine.... If I want to go all out and have 4, well that's my choice too.

[CWallace]

If Apple changes the MacBook Pro's enclosure, it could be to support this chip with the Mobile 45 Express chipset. The MacBook could very well also get the Mobile 45 Express chipset in order to gain the X4500 GPU, plus the faster FSB and memory speeds would be beneficial.

If the Intel Mobile 965 Express chipset can (be made to) support the QX9300, then it could launch on the current (refreshed) iMac. If it needs the Mobile 45 Express chipset, however, then it might or might not make it, depending on how soon Apple intends to transition the iMac to Nehalem.

[MacManX]

I wonder if the new shiny Quad Core processor would fit in my existing iMac...?
The 2.4GHz Core2 Duo I've got in it today is sitting in a socket just waiting to be replaced by something faster as soon as I can get my hands on it... :D

[Jackal-Head]

Apple doesn't even use the current extreme edition 2.8GHz Penryn in the MBP.

But this is likely because the 2.8GHz Core 2 Extreme also has a 44W TDP as opposed to the 2.6GHz Core 2 Duo's 35W.

[RedTomato]

I'd wet myself over a quad-core in a MacBook.

4 x 2.5GHZ equals 10GHZ of processing power in a budget laptop. Never thought I'd see the day.

[Genghis Khan]

We always knew that quad cores were coming for the MBP's in the next year (at the outside).

I'm waiting for a quad core and solid state memory in the middle mbp before i upgrade. When that tuesday comes, my cash will be out...

[wheelhot]

Well its nice that we know that quad core is coming to notebooks but I'll wait for a couple of years more until it has a lower voltage usage. Even now I managed to get around 4-5 hours on my MBP by taking care and turning off unnecessary stuffs. I cant imagine how hard it is to achieve 5 hours on a MBP if it has quad core.

Its either battery life improve as in become more efficient and last longer so it can accommodate more power or the quad core processor power usage is reduced.

I give it 3 years until they managed to get the power voltage reduced.

Oh yeah and I guess the MBP will be called MacBurnerPro if they use QuadCore cause DualCore is hot enough.:cool:

[BenRoethig]

I'd wet myself over a quad-core in a MacBook.

4 x 2.5GHZ equals 10GHZ of processing power in a budget laptop. Never thought I'd see the day.

Doesn't quite work that way. Its probably more like 7 or 8 and that's only in applications that accept 4-core multi processing. In most cases the 2.8 and 3.0ghz models are going to be faster than the quad core.

[askthedust]

four cores and seven years ago I purchased my first apple product. would love to see quad in a laptop as that is what I want to upgrade to....

[Digital Skunk]

Here is an example of what could make sense with the next Mac Pro revision:
- Single Quad Core 2.8GHz XEON $1499 (won't happen)
- Single Quad Core 3.0GHz XEON $1999 (won't happen)
- Double Quad Core 2.8GHz XEON $2499 (will start here)
- Double Quad Core 3.0GHz XEON $2799
- Double Quad Core 3.2GHz XEON $3299
- Double Quad Core 3.4GHz XEON $3699



I would love to see these models, but since when did Apple offer a tower that was below $1999 that was Intel based? We are still waiting for that, and there won't be a need for Apple to do it if the Mac Pro, iMac, and mini (to some extent) are selling rather well. Here's to wishing though.

As for the quad core offerings, we will just have to wait and see. I am keeping my eyes peeled over in the Dell/Alienware, HP, etc etc camps. I am sure that they will start offering their quad core laptops before Apple.

And for the record, it's mini tower or cheaper Mac Pro. Either way we are clamoring for it. In essence we are asking for a cheaper upgradeable tower. I would love to have 8 3.2GHz cores but I know that I can save $1000 or more and get 4 2.8GHz cores. Others may want less than that, but still need the expandability.

[Bye Bye Baby]

quad core iMac please.

Perhaps with Nahlem we will finally have our four hearted beast.

[macwall]

If the product name has "pro" in it, then I expect it to contain bleeding edge electronics. I can't wait for a quad core macbook pro to come out.

[BenRoethig]

Apple does NOT need a mini-tower as everyone keeps clamoring for.

All they really need to do is offer a couple Mac Pros with a single Quad Core Xeon chip with a price starting at $1499.

This is how Apple always used to handle the Power Mac G3's, G4's and G5's, why not go back to a system that worked and no one was screaming for a model between the iMac and the PowerMac.

Here is an example of what could make sense with the next Mac Pro revision:
- Single Quad Core 2.8GHz XEON $1499
- Single Quad Core 3.0GHz XEON $1999
- Double Quad Core 2.8GHz XEON $2499
- Double Quad Core 3.0GHz XEON $2799
- Double Quad Core 3.2GHz XEON $3299
- Double Quad Core 3.4GHz XEON $3699


I agree, but its going to going to happen at those prices with xeons. The FB-DIMMs and the 5400 chipset are too expensive. Its doable with the x48 and the equivalent core 2 quads though.

I understand you might just mean adding more choices, but don't they already offer the Mac Pro with only 1 Xeon (expandable to two of course) ?

At $2300. That's close to a grand higher than the traditional entry level PowerMac price.

[EspressoLove]

I don't want Quad Core on my lap.
What I want is really a laptop - something I can comfortably place on my lap....

And I'm yet to see any real reason to have a Quad core, when all your mobile needs are more than satisfied with Dual core.
Two cores was a real breakthrough, with four we don't get enough of advantage if any. that is in a real world "performance apps".

Yeah I can see that someone might "feel" the "need" to use Octo cores, ok then, go with Mac Pro.

What I want [in a laptop ... with mobile CPU] is more battery life, less heat, less bulk, girth & weight.
What I want is 14-15" MBA Pro. With 2.5Ghz & 9400mGT. And with 25W full speed CPU weeks away, this is much more feasible.
Which goes well with glossy thininnovation they are into recently.

So I hope Apple ignores dreamers & pseudo-professionals, and passes on "mobile" Quad Core for now, which even if in the same 35W TDP as previous Merom/SantaRosa, still much hotter in real life, and that will stand in a way of long due redesign of old MBP cases.

The only chance I see for a "Mobile" Quad, is if Apple decides on fourth family of books, along the lines of not really successful DTRs, which survived only as extreme gaming rigs for "gamers on the run".

[EspressoLove]

Ok, I'm not saying that Quad Core is useless at all.
What I'm saying that wanting Quad in a portable, is just like wishing for V20 Dodge Ram, as if V10 is too underpowered for you, when 99% you use it for is - commuting in traffic.

That being said, I feel there could be two, distinct categories of Pro users of Pro machines (portables) :
1) those who constantly need max cycles (Pro Video encoding, PS maybe, what else ?)
2) those who need CPU/GPU cycles only to [comfortably] power their UI : browsing, coding, occasional gaming & video/picture manipulation.
for them (Me) much more balanced approach, with all amenities going with Pro machine is appreciated.

Because it's not just speed I'm after, but rather whole UI, both : Computing & Physical, that I digg in Apple hardware.

[bdavis78]

I think it is kind of silly arguing what people need or don't need for a notebook computer. I replaced my PowerMac G4 and iBook with a 15" Santa Rosa Macbook Pro. At my next job I won't have a formal office, just some bench space in a lab, so I don't want to deal taking up valuable bench space with a computer or the inconvenience of having to transport files back and forth between the two machines. I do a lot of scientific computing, so I for one would be quite happy with a quad core MBP. I realize it's not going to speed up any of my individual calculations unless the program I'm using is specifically designed to use multiple cores, but I can still get more work done at a time by being able to do multiple analyses at concurrently instead of consecutively. And some scientific applications are starting to support multiple cores natively, for example Mathematica. And since the trend seems to be toward adding more cores as a method of improving a computers speed, it would seem that software developers are going to have to start designing their programs to be inherently multicore capable.

Quad Core MBP? Bring it on baby.

[fafner]

for me it would be an interesting technical solution if you could choose to use 1-4 cores. Using four cores on your office and only one or two cores when preserving power.

[Jackal-Head]

I don't want Quad Core on my lap.
What I want is really a laptop - something I can comfortably place on my lap....

And I'm yet to see any real reason to have a Quad core, when all your mobile needs are more than satisfied with Dual core.
Two cores was a real breakthrough, with four we don't get enough of advantage if any. that is in a real world "performance apps".


Right. And why would anyone want more than 640K RAM in their computer? DOS 5 can't make proper use of Extended Memory anyhow.

The tools I am using on my new MacBook Pro (mostly Visual Studio 2005 on VMWare-virtualized XP Pro) do not make effective use of multi-core - in VS2005, you can only compile separate projects simultaneously, but I mostly work with one C++ project that contains many source files that will be compiled one after another. So a dual core with high single-threaded performance is optimal for my purposes. One core compiles while the other core keeps my UI running smoothly. Also, VMWare Fusion currently only supports two processors per virtual machine. I am in fact very satisfied with the processor performance of the MacBook Pro. It's simply blazingly fast.

BUT many people do work with applications that can already make use of 4 cores (Motion, Photoshop, Final Cut etc. etc.). And more recent rsp. future versions of the tools I am using will support quad core better - Visual Studio 2008 supposedly can make use of multi-core, and VMWare ESX can handle up to 4 virtual CPUs per VM, so I suppose it's only a matter of time until Fusion will handle that as well.

What I want [in a laptop ... with mobile CPU] is more battery life, less heat, less bulk, girth & weight.

On the 2.6GHz Penryn and LED MacBook Pro, I get 3.5 to 4 hours of battery life writing and compiling actual code using virtualized Visual Studio. I get 5+ hours surfing the web wirelessly, 4.5 hours if I also listen to music over the speakers. If that isn't amazing, I don't know what is. Of course there are ultra-portables with longer battery life, but they don't have anywhere near the performance of the MBP when I actually need it. Apple does a great job combining a powerful desktop replacement and a mobile computer in a single device. I bet they would be able to do that with four cores as well, especially if you consider that the current Intel quad-cores consist of two dual-core dies in a single package. If the OS determines that two cores have been mostly idle for some time, it could flush the shared cache and then switch off the entire die. Of course, you will not get 5 or more hours of battery life rendering movies, but your battery life will not be significantly harmed as long as you don't use the machine's full power. In terms of power consumption, you will only pay for what you use.


What I want is 14-15" MBA Pro. With 2.5Ghz & 9400mGT. And with 25W full speed CPU weeks away, this is much more feasible.


The first update to the MBA will very likely include Penryns, and they will likely be higher clocked than the current Meroms (not necessarily @2.5GHz though), so you might be lucky. Dedicated graphics hardware however is much less likely. A faster Intel chip, on the other hand - the upcoming X4500 - is not too unlikely though.


So I hope Apple ignores dreamers & pseudo-professionals, and passes on "mobile" Quad Core for now,


Right, everyone who doesn't do things your way, or sees the world your way, is a dreamer and pseudo-professional. Thank God we aren't arrogant, are we?


The only chance I see for a "Mobile" Quad, is if Apple decides on fourth family of books, along the lines of not really successful DTRs, which survived only as extreme gaming rigs for "gamers on the run".

You have seriously no clue about mobile power-saving technologies. The 35W TDP does not mean that a 45nm Quad will be as hot as a 65nm Duo most of the time. On the contrary, as for the 45nm Duos, the idle power consumption will likely be much less. The power consumption surfing the web will be much less. Only under full load will it be as hot as the Merom, but it will also be way more powerful. The gist is that a 45nm Quad will still use a lot less energy to perform the same amount of work. This is the point that you have been missing all along.

[alecgold]

I can see that having a laptop can be easy for some, but on the other hand, the mac pro is designed to do serious calculation, without big heat problems, where the MBPs are designed to do as good as possible both jobs. And as usual ending up as a bit heavy, a bit faster and for me being very usefull.
But as Apple is still a commercial company, they will tend to look at the largest group of users there is for a specific sollution. And the complaining about warm laps isn't little with the curent power comsumption, so there is a chanxe they will try to run it a bit cooler. If that is with a quad core or a dual core, I would know, but my bet is that they will try to improve the cooling as well the performance as well the battery life of the next MBP.
The history of MBP updates show that every update is one of a combination of little steps forward. If you come from a core duo, tue latest MBP with leds and all is a big improvement, but from the previous to the latest is always a modest update, and for 98% of thr users not worth the money to go out and buy the latest one.
Just my 0.02


P.s. For give me the typos, being a foreigner on an iphone doesnt make things easier :D

[BlizzardBomb]

Here is an example of what could make sense with the next Mac Pro revision:
- Single Quad Core 2.8GHz XEON $1499
- Single Quad Core 3.0GHz XEON $1999
- Double Quad Core 2.8GHz XEON $2499
- Double Quad Core 3.0GHz XEON $2799
- Double Quad Core 3.2GHz XEON $3299
- Double Quad Core 3.4GHz XEON $3699

For this to work out, Apple would also have to offer either a $999 or $1099 iMac.

The next Mac Pro revision is probably going to see Intel's Dunnington chips (3x dual-core Penryn dies), giving the possibility for 12-cores (or maybe even 24 cores?).

With the Mac Pro sitting pretty with 12-cores, it leaves plenty of room for the iMac (and not forgetting the MBP) to get quad-core configurations.

What I want is 14-15" MBA Pro. With 2.5Ghz & 9400mGT. And with 25W full speed CPU weeks away, this is much more feasible.

15"? Doesn't that defeat the purpose? The MBP is likely to get its dimensions shaved in the next revision so maybe that's what you're looking for.

[Coprolite]

Referring to a V20 Dodge.....

Given that many cars today can shutdown unused banks of cylinders, the V20 can be a V2 or V4 in traffic, but can pour on huge power when needed. To pull this analogy back to the Mac is quite easy. A Multicore processor where the software can shutdown the extra cores to conserve power would be quite useful. What is really needed is more software and OS work when it comes to creating a truly dynamic machine.

It would be great to have a machine that could sip the volts off of one core and the SSD and integrated graphics when on battery power, yet rip off 4 cores, graphics card 2nd 7200 rpm drive when "docked" or on external power. The currently available power schemes don't seem to do that. I understand that Apple likes to keep it simple, but as far as I know, the power management regime is a black box.

I realize that the reference to multi-graphics systems is pretty unrealistic and could be totally off-base, as I don't know comparative power consumptions. But I do understand that dual graphics for purely power reasons are not to be expected in a market economy. However the scalability dream is still there.

In these days where people often opt for a single, "fit all" solution, this scalability would greatly aid in the portability vs. power compromise.

**As the V20 is fantasy, the shutting down of cylinders (as done by other manufacturers) is extended into that fantasy world.

[RedTomato]

Another point that I see people missing:

Processors use more power per quantum of performance as they are pushed to their peak performance.

Put another way, compare two similar processors - one running at 100% and one running at 90%. The one running at 100% performance is using a lot more than 10% extra energy over the one running at 90%.

Heat output etc goes off the charts. Input voltage goes much higher as the voltage swings in the CPU cycle are pushed to extremes. See the desktop overclocking / laptop underclocking scenes for confirmation.

Thus, a dual core processor running both cores at 60% could well use less battery power to do the same job as a single core processor running at 100%.

Likewise (and I'm speculating here) a quad core laptop processor running all four cores at 60% might well use less battery power (and output less heat) than a dual core processor running both cores at 100%.

So it's not about shutting off unused cores, it's about running what you have at as low speeds as possible.

Thus, if I'm right, quad (and more) cores are the only existing way forwards for laptop makers to get more power with less battery consumption.

[Coprolite]

RedTomato, I completely agree. When it comes to the car analogy, the cylinder can be either on or off, but whatever is the most efficient for CPUs can be done. In any case, power consumption should not vary too much if someone is surfing on a quad or dual core, if the power management and cpu architechure doesn't specifically counter this...

[Bubba Satori]

I can't see them putting it in a MacBook for at least 5 years (considering there is no real need to it for the average MacBook user).

5 years ? :rolleyes: Just in time for an ACD update. :D Good grief. Talk about lowered expectations. Apple should spin off the computing division. :D

[roland.g]

Another point that I see people missing:

Processors use more power per quantum of performance as they are pushed to their peak performance.

Put another way, compare two similar processors - one running at 100% and one running at 90%. The one running at 100% performance is using a lot more than 10% extra energy over the one running at 90%.

Heat output etc goes off the charts. Input voltage goes much higher as the voltage swings in the CPU cycle are pushed to extremes. See the desktop overclocking / laptop underclocking scenes for confirmation.

Thus, a dual core processor running both cores at 60% could well use less battery power to do the same job as a single core processor running at 100%.

Likewise (and I'm speculating here) a quad core laptop processor running all four cores at 60% might well use less battery power (and output less heat) than a dual core processor running both cores at 100%.

So it's not about shutting off unused cores, it's about running what you have at as low speeds as possible.

Thus, if I'm right, quad (and more) cores are the only existing way forwards for laptop makers to get more power with less battery consumption.

RedTomato, I completely agree. When it comes to the car analogy, the cylinder can be either on or off, but whatever is the most efficient for CPUs can be done. In any case, power consumption should not vary too much if someone is surfing on a quad or dual core, if the power management and cpu architechure doesn't specifically counter this...

I see you power point. But you won't get four cores at 60% vs 2 at 100% if the OS and applications aren't written to utilize all four cores. And most Apps currently are not. I'm not sure with multiple apps running if it will run some apps off two cores and others off the other two. Somehow I doubt that. A quad core isn't exactly like having 2 dual cores.

[RedTomato]

I'm not sure with multiple apps running if it will run some apps off two cores and others off the other two. Somehow I doubt that.

Yes it will. Splitting several apps and the OS between different cores is trivially simple. Each app is an independent program in its own right, and isn't dependent on the outcome of other apps.

Don't confuse this with programming a single app to run on several cores, which can be very hard work to do properly. (as the outcome of one function could depend on the outcome of another function which could be running on another core).

Remember we're not looking for raw single-app speed here, just the ability to run several apps (itunes, quicktime, firefox, mail, msn, time machine, the os etc) at the same time and get the job done using as little power as possible.

[kaiwai]

Please don't drag up the "average user" argument. It turns quickly into a pointless hardware specification war.

Apple is very fond of using the fastest processors Intel has to offer while skimping on the remaining hardware.

It all depends on what the competition does and what Apple does in the future. For all we know, the dual core might end up being used in a 'value range'.

[RedTomato]

It all depends on what the competition does and what Apple does in the future. For all we know, the dual core might end up being used in a 'value range'.

It already is. Almost all of Intel's PC processors are now dual core, even the Celerons. Soon, you won't be able to buy a single core laptop / desktop processor.

It's not been possible to buy a single core Apple computer for quite some time now. I'm not including the Apple TV as that's a single use appliance not a general purpose computer. (last I checked, it ran a Pentium M, may have moved onto a core dual, if not now, then will do soon)

[Cheffy Dave]

I'd wet myself over a quad-core in a MacBook.

4 x 2.5GHZ equals 10GHZ of processing power in a budget laptop. Never thought I'd see the day.

Problemo is, what software is available to take advantage of all those cores:rolleyes:

[InLikeALion]

Problemo is, what software is available to take advantage of all those cores:rolleyes:

There already IS benefit without specially written apps. It's 'somewhat like' having 4 machines to run different apps on. As long as the OS knows how to evenly distribute the app processes to different cores, you will see benefit. See ReTomato's explanation:

Yes it will. Splitting several apps and the OS between different cores is trivially simple. Each app is an independent program in its own right, and isn't dependent on the outcome of other apps.

Don't confuse this with programming a single app to run on several cores, which can be very hard work to do properly. (as the outcome of one function could depend on the outcome of another function which could be running on another core).

Remember we're not looking for raw single-app speed here, just the ability to run several apps (itunes, quicktime, firefox, mail, msn, time machine, the os etc) at the same time and get the job done using as little power as possible.

[RichardI]

Damn! I knew I should have waited! :mad::(:confused::D:cool:;)

Rich :cool:

[CWallace]

Problemo is, what software is available to take advantage of all those cores? :rolleyes:

Some of the visual processing applications use them all.

[Trip.Tucker]

Please don't drag up the "average user" argument. It turns quickly into a pointless hardware specification war.

Apple is very fond of using the fastest processors Intel has to offer while skimping on the remaining hardware.

Completely untrue.

[Krevnik]

I see you power point. But you won't get four cores at 60% vs 2 at 100% if the OS and applications aren't written to utilize all four cores. And most Apps currently are not. I'm not sure with multiple apps running if it will run some apps off two cores and others off the other two. Somehow I doubt that. A quad core isn't exactly like having 2 dual cores.

You are right about one thing... a quad core isn't exactly like having 2 dual cores. Since they share a big cache, rather than splitting it, you get some performance gains in certain situations. You do have to deal with 4 cores sharing the same single pipe off the CPU, which may offset some of those gains though.

But overall, as RedTomato has also pointed out, OSes are pretty good about load-balancing across multiple cores and processors. OS X, Linux, and Windows all do a good enough job. Now, that means any one process is stuck taking no more than 1 core if it isn't multithreaded, but hey, that isn't a bad thing in a multitasking world where you run a dozen apps at once.

Current Core 2 chips can throttle the chip effectively based on load. So to get really good battery life, you want to spread your CPU load across as many cores as possible. Pegging 1 core at 100% and leaving the other at 5% will cause the whole chip to draw nearly peak power. But 52% on each means your CPU can throttle down, or be in a low power state for roughly half of every second. Both of which save power.

I believe Nehalem lets the CPU throttle each core independently, which will improve this even further when there is an imbalance. In general though, performance /and/ battery life improvements from software will be by making apps take little slices of time from every core in a system, rather than all of one. It will take time for APIs and application design to finish catching up though.

[mjteix]

Well, bad news and good news today:

According to Digitimes (http://www.digitimes.com/systems/a20080521PD204.html) and Reghardware (http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2008/05/21/intel_mobile_roadmap/), the first wave of Montevina chips will only be available late June instead of early June.
The mobile quad QX9300 is still planned for Q3 at $1,038.
But it seems that there will be another mobile quad in Q4. The Q9100 will have a lower TDP (35W?) and given the part number, it should be a 2.26GHz part.
9300 = 2.53, 9200 = 2.40, 9100 = 2.26?
This could be an option of the 15/17" MBP and maybe the 20" iMac for XMas or MWSF 2009.

[CWallace]

According to Digitimes (http://www.digitimes.com/systems/a20080521PD204.html) and Reghardware (http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2008/05/21/intel_mobile_roadmap/), the first wave of Montevina chips will only be available late June instead of early June.

FAB28 is running behind schedule for opening, which leaves FAB32 as the only fully 45nm facility (not counting the development fab). On the plus side, FAB11X should be converted to 45nm production before the end of the year, so that should allow Intel to start really pumping out 45nm Penryns and Atoms in time for the holiday sales.

[Shasterball]

Just in time for a new laptop purchase. :)

[Digital Skunk]

Completely untrue.

Why isn't it? I am using a 17" Penryn right now and from what I am reading it has the fastest mobile chip Intel offers (sans the 2.8 which needs much more cooling) and it has an under-clocked 512MB GFX card.

I kind of agree with Eidorian on this one. Even the MacBook has some light hardware when it comes to what Apple could put into it.

[jellomizer]

I can't see them putting it in a MacBook for at least 5 years (considering there is no real need to it for the average MacBook user).

Well if you look at all the processes that goes on at the same time with a normal mac setup having multible cores is useful Even with running non-multi-threaded applications.

Lets say you are using iTunes, Office 2008 with a rather complex spreadsheet, Photoshop a large image. Already 2 of those cores can be fully utilized at once a third one will at least be partially utalized. and the OS can still run on the last. Doing things like that on a single CPU is painful. Doing it on Duel CPU is workable having more cores will make doing more easier.

[EspressoLove]

Now I'm 99% certain Apple will use P9500 & P8600 in MBP (2.53 & 2.4 Ghz)
and P8600 & P8400 in MB (2.4 & 2.26 Ghz).

And as speeds remain virtually the same, big story will be about "real world" speed gains with faster FSB/RAM.
But even bigger will be power consumption decreases!

As to a BTO (2.6Ghz) option, I think they'll either quietly discontinue it (as 2.8Ghz T9600 is becoming too hot : 35W vs. 25W), or relegate only to a 17". Or there is always :rolleyes: option of a "special" processor, crafted exclusively for Apple ;):D:eek:


So ... I'm not saying that you quad-prophesying people won't ever see your day. But not before next spring I feel.
And I'm pretty happy this way as this clears the path for MB Air Pro.
Yeah no DVD/battery door for me.

Or if I couldn't hold my guns, rev.B MBAir with SL9400 (20W/1.86Ghz) will do. Anyone heard of Apple Edition SL9500(20W/2.26Ghz) ?! :p:D

[CWallace]

I wonder if Apple will want to put the P9500 in the MacBook or limit it to the MacBook Pro. In addition to the slight clock-speed boost over the P8600, the double-sized cache (6MB vs. 3MB) would help put the MacBook Pro on a higher performance level to help leverage the other features (discrete GPU, larger display, ExpressCard, FW800, Dual-DVI).

Then again, all of that does help explain the $650 difference in price, so it might not matter allowing the MacBook to have the P9500, as well.

I believe the T9600 will be a MacBook Pro option for both screen sizes since it has the same 35W TDP that the T7800 2.6GHz unit does in the current 15" and 17". If the MacBook Pro gets a new case design, we might see the 15" also get the X9100 and perhaps the QX9300. I expect the 17" will get both since the larger chassis size should be able to handle the 44 watt TDP.

[mjteix]

Now I'm 99% certain Apple will use P9500 & P8600 in MBP (2.53 & 2.4 Ghz)
and P8600 & P8400 in MB (2.4 & 2.26 Ghz).

And as speeds remain virtually the same, big story will be about "real world" speed gains with faster FSB/RAM.
But even bigger will be power consumption decreases!

As to a BTO (2.6Ghz) option, I think they'll either quietly discontinue it (as 2.8Ghz T9600 is becoming too hot : 35W vs. 25W), or relegate only to a 17". Or there is always :rolleyes: option of a "special" processor, crafted exclusively for Apple ;):D:eek:


So ... I'm not saying that you quad-prophesying people won't ever see your day. But not before next spring I feel.
And I'm pretty happy this way as this clears the path for MB Air Pro.
Yeah no DVD/battery door for me.

Or if I couldn't hold my guns, rev.B MBAir with SL9400 (20W/1.86Ghz) will do. Anyone heard of Apple Edition SL9500(20W/2.26Ghz) ?! :p:D

:confused:

Do you know that current cpus used in the MB/MBP ARE 35W parts?

Nothing prevents Apple from using:
- 2.26/2.40/2.53GHz parts in the MB/Mac mini,
- 2.53/2.80GHz parts in the MBP, along with a custom 2.66GHz (like the current iMac)
- all of those + the 3.06GHz and future quads in the iMac.

Intel has also a Q9100 (quad 2.26GHz @ 35W) forecasted for Q4, I certainly expect Apple to use it (as an option) in a january 2009 refresh of the MBP.

[CWallace]

American Technology Research analyst Doug Freedman asserts that Intel did not properly complete the certification for either the new mobile Penryns designed for use with the Montevina chipset or for the 802.11n part of the chipset and he claims means they cannot be sold in the US at this time.

It's a bit difficult to determine what he is talking about, since he mentions "CPUs", but then talks about a slower ramp-up of 802.11n-enabled devices. To my knowledge, Apple does not use Intel's wireless chipset so if it is an issue with that part of the chipset, then Apple could still use the Cantiga chipset with the new CPUs.

[EspressoLove]

:confused:

Do you know that current cpus used in the MB/MBP ARE 35W parts?



.... big story will be ....
But even bigger will be power consumption decreases!


So, yes I know what current Penryns are, and what Intel planned for them to be.

Point was with new chips you can continue in the old ways - using T9400/9600 (2.53/2.8) parts with the same TDP & even the prices.

Or they can ... innovate, and produce MBAir Pro ...
No internal DVD/removable battery, hence extremely slim & sturdy (I grew to love it in my iPhone, and I like the feel of MBA body).
With 25W parts, with even better (marginally but still) performance, they finally can pull this machine out.


... so what would you call an innovation, a 5% faster of the same ... with a bit bigger HDD .....
or a completely new body, a new paradigm (as if we didn't see it coming :p) for a portable computing, and a new sacrifices for the spirit of portability/Mac'iness ;):D)
What would you choose if you was Apple/SJ ?


I hate SJ for not seeing gaming, but I'd laud him for not seeing "quad-computing" for laptops ....
And I think he will : no other Mac has "pro" features of a Mac Pro (bays/expandability; interfaces; etc)


Think of it this way : Apple still doesn't want to use chips like everybody else (and they don't: it's only my fantasy that I have T7700 in my MBP, in "reality" it's: "2.4GHz Intel Core 2 Duo processor").
But they hate being behind in Ghz race ....

So, this P series gives them this chance ..... not only to produce less heated laptop ... (and that's what everybody will be doing - shoveling new parts in old machines) .... but use it as the building block for a something new .... pushing their new visions at the same time .... Air ?!


P.S. did you notice that they've changed keyboard layout & added multitouch to MBP ... but "forgot" to enlarge trackpad ....

[EspressoLove]

Bear in mind also, that P8600/8400, which is bound to MB eventually ... has exactly the same price as current T8300/8100, exact same 3MB cache, and only difference (8600vs8300) is power consumption (25W vs 35W)

With Intel's aggressive push for Centrino 2, we'll see rapidly diminishing shipments of gen.1 penryns.
That will push for 25W MB's by the back to school or bit later (if they decide to introduce new designs along with cooler CPUs)

[BenRoethig]

They're also slower than the current 35W CPUs. How exactly is Apple going to explain a drop in clock speed to 2.26 and 2.4ghz?

[EspressoLove]

Actually : black anodized Al MB, with 2,4Ghz T8600 & much more serious (still non-gaming) X4500, and "essential" 4Gb RAM,
slimmer with 45Wh battery & 4 pounds, but with 320GB "generic" HDD ....
could easily become my new darling :D:cool::apple:

and I believe with 45Wh battery I'd still manage 3 hours of starbucking, as I do now :p

[EspressoLove]

They're also slower than the current 35W CPUs. How exactly is Apple going to explain a drop in clock speed to 2.26 and 2.4ghz?

Are you just clueless, or simply too arrogant to research ?

MBP has 2.5/2.4 gets 2.53/2.4
MB has 2.4/2.1 gets 2.4/2.26
So NO drop in Ghz, and some gains in FSB/RAM departments.
All this with decrease in TDP from 35W to 25W.

The only missing from new lineup - MBP BTO 2.6.
Technically you can use 2.8 with the same as 2.6 TDP, but that will mess with new design based on significant decrease in heat generation.

The only possibility "Apple Exclusive" part around 2.66 with 25W.
But I guess they can easily just drop it, citing few orders of BTO etc.

[CWallace]

Technically you can use 2.8 with the same as 2.6 TDP, but that will mess with new design based on significant decrease in heat generation.

Unless the MBP is actually getting a new chassis to support the 45W TDP QX9300 and Q9100 in which case the 35w of the T9600 would be fine.

Worst case, you could underclock the T9600 to 2.6GHz which would likely save a few watts (though admittedly not likely 10). Or perhaps Intel will skim off the cream of the P9500's and clock them to 2.6GHz as P9600s if they can hit it at 27-28w or so which should not push the cooling system.

[twist2b]

could that not create overheat issues very easily? Or is it the graphics cards that are bad? either way, I think cooling technology should cetch up!!!! :P

That would be nice for future MBP

[EspressoLove]

Unless the MBP is actually getting a new chassis to support the 45W TDP QX9300 and Q9100 in which case the 35w of the T9600 would be fine.


There's no way they would support QX9300 as the BTO. Both because of cost (1038$) and TDP.
I mean choosing between a new chassis with 25W - which can be slender & support "Air" as a platform (thinnovative© & wireless), or beefing up whole system in order to accommodate 45W, which on the cost alone would be a choice of a too few for now, Apple would certainly choose the former.
(Apple/MBP is not very efficient at cooling systems, remember?)

Question is if they'll decide to "remain" in the middle of the road (i.e. still use 35W capable chassis, with primarily 25W parts).

Direction is pretty clear, as in fall 2007 Intel stated that all Penryns will be 25W. So if Apple was making design decisions back then, they already have no place for 35W parts, leave alone quad-monsters.

So I guess there's no point to use 35W parts in coming Montevina MBPs.
Unless they postpone case redesign until 2009 Nehalem launch.

[Aron Peterson]

Rock already makes a quad-core notebook based on Penryn and has dual 8800GTX graphics! I would love a MacBook Pro with those specs.

Sadly I have to sell all my computers and gadgets because of my new job. No time for computing any longer and have all I need at work.

[BenRoethig]

That rock is a specialized DTR/Moble workstation based on desktop parts. Its more than twice the thickness of a Macbook Pro and weighs almost twice as much.

[Manic Mouse]

Maybe if the MBP gets quad CPUs then the MB has a hope of getting a graphics card...

[CWallace]

Well not having the QX9300 is certainly not going to cripple the MacBook Pro sales against PCs that will (though you'd never know it from the hue and cry on this forum when it does. :p ).

So if Apple does want to move to a thinner new chassis designed around 25w Penryns and Nehalems, then the top-end chip will likely remain a tweaked P9500 or de-tuned T9600 running at 2.6GHz.

[mjteix]

Direction is pretty clear, as in fall 2007 Intel stated that all Penryns will be 25W. So if Apple was making design decisions back then, they already have no place for 35W parts, leave alone quad-monsters.


Intel NEVER said that "all Penryns will be 25W". Their improvement of the process has made 25W possible. That means that even smaller notebooks/desktops can use those parts and that the battery life will be better.

Don't even think that Nehalem will follow trend, 'cause from what I've seen so far the TDP of cpus will be going up again (integrated memory controller and/or gpu), the difference will be in the chipset: one chip (i/o hub) vs two (north+south bridges).

Some PC manufacturers are already releasing quad-core notebooks with desktop parts or even server parts. The MBP is very important to Apple, in terms of image as well as in revenue. I truly believe that it will remain a "35W" computer. I can't see Apple not offering it with up to 2.80GHz Montevina cpus this summer and with the Q9100 as a BTO option early next year.

The 25W parts will be very good for the MacBook as it will have a smaller enclosure than the MBP (and hopefully for the Mac mini if it is ever updated).

I don't think one second that the MBP will loose its ODD and removable battery anytime soon. I don't think Apple will "Airify" everything yet.

[mjteix]

As it is related to the subject, it looks like Montevina is being delayed (again):
ETA is now July 14th for most of the parts and late July for the remaining.

Intel delays Centrino 2 to July 14 (http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/37644/135/)

I don't think that this will change much the launch of the quad-core part that was already forecasted for late Q3 (September?).
But that may delay the rumored redesigned MBP and MB both to an August launch.

[EspressoLove]

Intel NEVER said that "all Penryns will be 25W". Their improvement of the process has made 25W possible.

Yes, they did. And no, it's not just process - we already have Penryns, on the same 65nm process, remember?


The MBP is very important to Apple, in terms of image as well as in revenue. I truly believe that it will remain a "35W" computer.


That's true, but I think innovation, especially for Apple, is not always top Ghz .....
They might just twist things a bit, so that you'd realize that you have plenty already :p:apple:
And it's more important to effectively running your V10 Dodge on V2 for most tasks/commuting, then craving for V20.

And wrap it with sleek & probably quite useful stuff, say advanced multi touch ;))) that comes only in bundle with new .... greener platform :rolleyes:

Instantly they have a winner, as nobody talks about "ghz deficiency", and fanboys even start to call 2.8Ghz CPUs obscene and irresponsible :eek::D

[EspressoLove]

Look at this tricks they pulled to market Air :
A really crippled and deficient machine .... if you look at it from experience with ... ordinary laptops you got used to.
It tries to makes up in few areas (Remote DVD, iTunes Rentals), but it's still awkward.
But they have made this making sense, and it's no longer stupid machine ....

Just think what they could do with MBP ....
and MBAirPro won't be that crippled :
it'll have double the ports (just two USB in total, but claim of doubling is still there :p)
it'll have "generic" HDD (up to 7K320Gb)
proper 2,53Ghz tops
NV9600G(S/T?) underclocked even more than ever?
2Gb soldered with one other slot behind "unremovable" battery?
And some "usual" integration trickery : more ways to synchronize with TV, or advanced .Mac making up ... or some USB trickery, that makes it work even better than FireWire(RIP) did.


Just think how brilliant this whole setup might turn out, and how much Different Thinking/Apple'ness it'll encompass :D;):apple:
Can you compare it with stuffing MBP with quad cpu, just like others will, and then pray it won't blow up or fry your manhood.

I was angry with Air for weeks, but then it gradually grew on me, and now I don't care what "experts" say - I get it now and I love it.
(Only waiting for Rev.B or MBAirPro whichever comes first)

[mjteix]

Yes, they did. And no, it's not just process - we already have Penryns, on the same 65nm process, remember?


EL, you're so wrong on so many levels that I don't know where to begin.
My advise to you is to do more research on Penryn and Intel's 45nm process in order to have a more accurate view on the subject.

In fact, I recommand learning more about Firewire and USB too, you may find out that: 1) FW is far from dying, 2) USB isn't even in the same league as FW.

There's nothing "brilliant" with your setup.

[EspressoLove]

EL, you're so wrong on so many levels that I don't know where to begin.
My advise to you is to do more research on Penryn and Intel's 45nm process

Yeah, thanks for hitting me on the head with my stuckiness with 65nm.
Still it's not that bad as SJ announcing 500Mb Time Capsule, eh?


I recommand learning more about Firewire and USB too, you may find out that: 1) FW is far from dying,

I'd take your recommanding, but maybe you'll review tech specs of MacBook Air? Or iPods? Big or small for that matter. Do you see any FW? It's gone? Oh, boy ....
Now do you get anything?

BTW I'll miss target mode, though used it only once. But are you seriously thinking Apple is not capable .... even with standard unmodified USB circuitry of recreating this functionality over USB?

2) USB isn't even in the same league as FW.
Why not? It can not do things FW can? It can not be improved/Apple'fied? As a standard, or as Apple exclusive :D implementation? That's more capable, and yet still compatible with the rest of the world?


There's nothing "brilliant" with your setup.

OK, I won't argue, to each his own ....
Anyway there's no point to defend my dream config ....
Only if I'd guesstimate Apple's intentions right :eek::D:cool::apple:

[BenRoethig]

EL, you're so wrong on so many levels that I don't know where to begin.
My advise to you is to do more research on Penryn and Intel's 45nm process in order to have a more accurate view on the subject.

In fact, I recommand learning more about Firewire and USB too, you may find out that: 1) FW is far from dying, 2) USB isn't even in the same league as FW.

There's nothing "brilliant" with your setup.

USB2.0 may not be in the same league as firewire, but its taking over for most consumer tasks. Unless you look really hard or shop at a smaller, Mac only retailer, its hard to find firewire devices. Camcorders don't even use it anymore.

[retroneo]

As it is related to the subject, it looks like Montevina is being delayed (again)

The delay affects the Intel WiFi chip and the GM45/GM47 northbridge with integrated graphics.

Apple doesn't use either in the MacBook Pro.

They will use the GM47 northbridge in the MacBook however - but the wait will be worth it with a huge improvement to integrated graphics performance:

3DMark06:
T8300+Geforce 8400M GS-1333
T9300+Geforce 8400M G-1044
X9100+GMA X4500-955
T9400+GMA X4500-949
T7700+GMA X3100-586
T7500+GMA X3100-555

http://www.notebookjournal.de/praxis/79/3

[mjteix]

USB2.0 may not be in the same league as firewire, but its taking over for most consumer tasks. Unless you look really hard or shop at a smaller, Mac only retailer, its hard to find firewire devices. Camcorders don't even use it anymore.

We are talking about the MacBook Pro, there's a world outside the consumer market. I can find firewire devices in my area of work pretty easily, in fact, for what I do, "similar" USB devices are considered toys.

It will take a couple of years for USB to reach 3.0 (I mean to get USB3 on computers and on devices), but by this time FW will reach the 3200 specs that have been ratified earlier this year. USB and FW are not intended for the same purpose. That consumer devices use USB, it's fine with me, those don't need the performance and reliability that some higher-end devices need. The MacBook Pro as the Mac Pro and, to some extent, the iMac are computers that address the professional market too and I believe they will all support FW for many more years.

[Bubba Satori]

Apple does NOT need a mini-tower as everyone keeps clamoring for.

All they really need to do is offer a couple Mac Pros with a single Quad Core Xeon chip with a price starting at $1499.

This is how Apple always used to handle the Power Mac G3's, G4's and G5's, why not go back to a system that worked and no one was screaming for a model between the iMac and the PowerMac.

Here is an example of what could make sense with the next Mac Pro revision:
- Single Quad Core 2.8GHz XEON $1499
- Single Quad Core 3.0GHz XEON $1999
- Double Quad Core 2.8GHz XEON $2499
- Double Quad Core 3.0GHz XEON $2799
- Double Quad Core 3.2GHz XEON $3299
- Double Quad Core 3.4GHz XEON $3699

For this to work out, Apple would also have to offer either a $999 or $1099 iMac.

For me personally at home I would pick up the lowest end Quad Core Mac Pro, while at work I would put in for the mid-high range Octo Core Mac Pro.

"Apple does NOT need..." Excuse me. It's not what Apple needs. It's what the customers need and have been clamoring for, for years.

Apple offers no monitor less desktop Mac between the mini and the Mac Pro and many people don't want the unexpandable mini or the overkill, for their needs, Mac Pro. Apple's refusal to build a $1k mac is extremely aggravating and arrogant. And it has nothing to do with cannabilizing iMac sales. The customers who are begging for a headless mac don't want their computer in the back of an lcd that's had all sorts of problems for the last two years. Or a computer that's restricted to slow and expensive laptop parts with cr*ap video cards that are not upgradeable. Pride goeth before a fall. Apple needs to remember who has made them as successful as they are. Their customers.

[Jonathanoee]

Need to say something from a pro-mac-user point of view.

The Mac Pro dual quad core has made a little revulotion for us working with 3D animation. I use my 2,8Ghz x 8 = 22,4Ghz, 24 hours a day. Yes!, due to smart programing in 3D applications the rendertime is as fast as in eight single core 2,8 Ghz machines.

But my mobility last year has been really limited. A regular dualcore Mac book pro is no good anymore due to low overall Ghz-power. The advantage of having 8 processors in the Mac Pro is so big that I find my self dragging the 20kg Mac Pro and a 24" inch screen in a taxi whereever I go and work theese days...

A quad-core Mac Book Pro would be a great thing to have as a secondary workstation. And yes, I as a professional user I need Firewire 400/800, I need a ethernet port, I need a dvd-burner. And it would be nice with a 12-13" version so I can have it with me all the time, and be able to take the bicycle. For me all those extras is crucial, lacking one of those things makes it a less professional workstation. As an example I think mac book air is a joke, a totaly worthless machine for my kind of work. I wont buy one for my spare time either since I can do the same things on my iphone, checking mail etc. So, yes I hope for a Mac book pro quad really soon....

[Digital Skunk]

....

WHOA!!!

You're a pro that wants a quad core MacBook Pro in a 12"-13" screen size?? :confused::confused:

That doesn't add up but to each his/her own.

Give me the quad core in the 17" hi def screen variant with dual FW800 and 400 ports and I am happy. After using a screen as immaculate as that there is no way I am going back to anything as tight as a 15" or even a 13" even if I have to ride a bike.

[CWallace]

WHOA!!!

You're a pro that wants a quad core MacBook Pro in a 12"-13" screen size?? :confused::confused:

That doesn't add up but to each his/her own.

Actually it does in that you can use the Mac Pro for the heavy lifting and have the MacBook Pro with the power necessary to do "edits on the fly", but not render the whole shebang.

Mind you, it will be a bit before Intel has ≤22mm package-size (not process size) quad-cores that draw the sub-20 watts to fit in such a small machine. :D

[bucky]

quad core iMac please.

Here Here. I will be buying an iMac sometime this year and I am really hoping apple will release a Quad Core version and an iMac with bluray built in.

[barijazz]

I want in my imac...
Quad Core
Blu Ray
Watercooling
Better GPU
Overclocking
Run Windows apps native (W/O wine/VM/parallels etc.)
Remote Detonation.

[DoFoT9]

Apple does NOT need a mini-tower as everyone keeps clamoring for.

All they really need to do is offer a couple Mac Pros with a single Quad Core Xeon chip with a price starting at $1499.

This is how Apple always used to handle the Power Mac G3's, G4's and G5's, why not go back to a system that worked and no one was screaming for a model between the iMac and the PowerMac.

Here is an example of what could make sense with the next Mac Pro revision:
- Single Quad Core 2.8GHz XEON $1499
- Single Quad Core 3.0GHz XEON $1999
- Double Quad Core 2.8GHz XEON $2499
- Double Quad Core 3.0GHz XEON $2799
- Double Quad Core 3.2GHz XEON $3299
- Double Quad Core 3.4GHz XEON $3699

For this to work out, Apple would also have to offer either a $999 or $1099 iMac.

For me personally at home I would pick up the lowest end Quad Core Mac Pro, while at work I would put in for the mid-high range Octo Core Mac Pro.

im sorry, but i just dont see this happeneing!!! no way...

ok yes i agree with your
- Single Quad Core 2.8GHz XEON $1499
- Single Quad Core 3.0GHz XEON $1999
- Double Quad Core 2.8GHz XEON $2499
options. but with the double quad core, what is the use of having the
- Double Quad Core 3.0GHz XEON $2799
- Double Quad Core 3.2GHz XEON $3299
- Double Quad Core 3.4GHz XEON $3699
?? they are all so close together, the cost isnt even worth it.

personally, i believe it should be something like this:
- Single Quad Core 2.8GHz XEON $1499
- Single Quad Core 3.0GHz XEON $1999
- Double Quad Core 2.8GHz XEON $2499
- Double Quad Core 3.0GHz XEON $2799
- Double Quad Core 3.4GHz XEON $3699
and even that is pushing it. i dont think the costs would be that low (i cant convert from my dollar so i dont really know...)

[DoFoT9]

I want in my imac...
Quad Core
Blu Ray
Watercooling
Better GPU
Overclocking
Run Windows apps native (W/O wine/VM/parallels etc.)
Remote Detonation.

seriously... GOODLUCK!

[Jonathanoee]

WHOA!!!

You're a pro that wants a quad core MacBook Pro in a 12"-13" screen size?? :confused::confused:


Yes I´m a pro user that wants a small computer, missing the 12" inch pro model...

I dont know if you are familiar with the possibility to connect a bigger screen to the laptop. A lot of times there is a possiblity of connect to another screen on most playses were i work. Then you have two! screens. At the same time! its amazing.

[DoFoT9]

Yes I´m a pro user that wants a small computer, missing the 12" inch pro model...

I dont know if you are familiar with the possibility to connect a bigger screen to the laptop. A lot of times there is a possiblity of connect to another screen on most playses were i work. Then you have two! screens. At the same time! its amazing.

i have to COMPLETELY agree with you.

i wonder if its possible to put HD into a 12"er.

[Mark.MBP.Quad]

It would be awesome to get a quad-core into the MBP but yes, it seems unlikely that would happen before 2009. As long as battery life keeps going up, I'm happy.

In the beginning of May I was informed by a reliably source that the MacBook Pro Quad Core is to be intoduced begin June.

[maccompaq]

In the beginning of May I was informed by a reliably source that the MacBook Pro Quad Core is to be intoduced begin June.
Be careful, don't believe everything you hear.

[CWallace]

In the beginning of May I was informed by a reliably source that the MacBook Pro Quad Core is to be intoduced begin June.

The problem with that is it would require a desktop-class CPU because the QX9300 mobile quad will not ship until later this year. And those chips have TDPs of 95W compared to the 35W of the current mobile CPUs.

[Eidorian]

The problem with that is it would require a desktop-class CPU because the QX9300 mobile quad will not ship until later this year. And those chips have TDPs of 95W compared to the 35W of the current mobile CPUs.PROTIP: TDP is a cooling suggestion not the law.

[CWallace]

PROTIP: TDP is a cooling suggestion not the law.

Understood. And I know the TDP figure is what that chip will generate when it is pegged at 100% for a sustained period of time. But it is still 2.7 times what the current CPUs being used put out at maximum load.

So while it is very unlikely that a Mac Pro using the Q9550, Q9450 or Q9300 would need triple the cooling, it is also unlikely that the current cooling would be sufficient to prevent those chips from throttling themselves to prevent overheating, if not downright performing a thermal-induced shut-down if the temperatures exceeded the safety margins.

[Mark.MBP.Quad]

Be careful, don't believe everything you hear.

Of course, I won't let my day be ruined if it's not June, then I'll just have to wait, simple as that.

Apple should introduce de Q4 Macbook Pro when either Intel or AMD introduces the first mobile Quad Core CPU, because they also know that if the fail to do so, customers will be tempted to buy maybe an Windows Q4 mobile laptop.

I also heard rumours that there will be an octo core mobile MBP, does anyone have more info on that?

[kgeier82]

my next mBP update will be a quad-core, nothing until then.

Of course, i do have a 2.4 penny, but thatll last for now.

:)

i would like the CPU for video encoding, something which still, IMO takes too long.

[maccompaq]

Of course, I won't let my day be ruined if it's not June, then I'll just have to wait, simple as that.

Apple should introduce de Q4 Macbook Pro when either Intel or AMD introduces the first mobile Quad Core CPU, because they also know that if the fail to do so, customers will be tempted to buy maybe an Windows Q4 mobile laptop.

I also heard rumours that there will be an octo core mobile MBP, does anyone have more info on that?
There is no need for 8 cores in a laptop. It would get so hot, it would set your clothes on fire or the desk it sat upon if it did not burn up the circuit board first.

[Digital Skunk]

Yes I´m a pro user that wants a small computer, missing the 12" inch pro model...

I dont know if you are familiar with the possibility to connect a bigger screen to the laptop. A lot of times there is a possiblity of connect to another screen on most playses were i work. Then you have two! screens. At the same time! its amazing.

Don't worry, I am just messing with you. But I doubt there will be a quad in a 12" for a very long time. I'd prefer Apple take on the uber large laptop market... give me a 19" MBP with quad core and dual HDDs to use as my mobile station and I will whip out the plastic, even if it is pushing $4000.

i have to COMPLETELY agree with you.

i wonder if its possible to put HD into a 12"er.

It may be, but I couldn't imagine trying to read anything on it. The 17" HD screen is amazing, since it has the same res as the 24" iMac or 23" ACD. The clarity is wonderful, but the text does come out smaller.

[rockinrocker]

hmm, i gotta say i'm going to be tempted to unload both of my current systems in favor of a quad MBP, whenever they come out.


what i'm wondering though, is how long we're going to be stuck at 4 gigs of ram. are paired 3 gig sticks going to come next? or straight to 2 X 4?

[Digital Skunk]

hmm, i gotta say i'm going to be tempted to unload both of my current systems in favor of a quad MBP, whenever they come out.

what i'm wondering though, is how long we're going to be stuck at 4 gigs of ram. are paired 3 gig sticks going to come next? or straight to 2 X 4?

It's going to be straight 2x4 GBs.

And no matter how fast the lappies get, I will still want to have that Mac Pro with 4TB, or greater at that time, of storage/8 cores/wicked GFX/16 or 32GB of RAM/ and dual link DVI at the office or home.

[DoFoT9]

It may be, but I couldn't imagine trying to read anything on it. The 17" HD screen is amazing, since it has the same res as the 24" iMac or 23" ACD. The clarity is wonderful, but the text does come out smaller.

hmm yes thats tru, youd have to use the good ol' :apple: - option - '+' to zoom in hahaha.

maybe thats a bad idea at the moment. they could at least put 1680xwhatever, that might be just bearable!

[Digital Skunk]

hmm yes thats tru, youd have to use the good ol' :apple: - option - '+' to zoom in hahaha.

maybe thats a bad idea at the moment. they could at least put 1680xwhatever, that might be just bearable!

Yeah, ever since using the 17" I have been comparing everything to it's resolution. If there was a widescreen 12" at 1440x900 or even 1280x800 it would be an improvement over the 12" PowerBook's.

[DoFoT9]

Yeah, ever since using the 17" I have been comparing everything to it's resolution. If there was a widescreen 12" at 1440x900 or even 1280x800 it would be an improvement over the 12" PowerBook's.

yup yup. the powerbooks are 1024x768?? i cant remember haha. what about the MBAs?? they must be 1280x800? for todays technology i think thats just too stingey, it has to be at least 1440x900 in a 12"er.

[Tensakun]

Don't worry, I am just messing with you. But I doubt there will be a quad in a 12" for a very long time.

Hope I'm wrong, but I doubt there'll be a 12" MB/MBP for a long time (ever), period. Seems like Apple's going to try to cover that market with a tablet-thingy/oversized iPhone. The masses will get the 13" moderately heavy and unsexy but dependable MB, maybe with some aluminum styling and a bit thinned down. Well-heeled biz travelers will get sexy but underpowered MBA. And whomever Apple views as PowerUsers will get increasingly powerful/fast big-footprinted zeppelins.

Again, hope I'm wrong, but seems like those of us who want the natural heir to the 12" PB (bless its aging heart) will be waiting for Godot.:(

[rockinrocker]

Hope I'm wrong, but I doubt there'll be a 12" MB/MBP for a long time (ever), period. Seems like Apple's going to try to cover that market with a tablet-thingy/oversized iPhone. The masses will get the 13" moderately heavy and unsexy but dependable MB, maybe with some aluminum styling and a bit thinned down. Well-heeled biz travelers will get sexy but underpowered MBA. And whomever Apple views as PowerUsers will get increasingly powerful/fast big-footprinted zeppelins.

Again, hope I'm wrong, but seems like those of us who want the natural heir to the 12" PB (bless its aging heart) will be waiting for Godot.:(

yeah, i'm afraid you're probably right. it's too bad, really, at least for me. (and probably other people like me, that use macs for music stuff and thusly don't need tons of screen real estate.)

[Mark.MBP.Quad]

My friend, you are just spewing garbage. There is no need for 8 cores in a laptop. It would get so hot, it would set your clothes on fire or the desk it sat upon if it did not burn up the circuit board first.

It was not my intention to spew garbage, I just read a rumor on one of the forums here, but first QuadCore mobile!

[mjteix]

It was not my intention to spew garbage, I just read a rumor on one of the forums here, but first QuadCore mobile!

Maybe what you read was 8 threads on a quad-core mobile cpu, this is coming with high-end nehalem mobile processors mid 2009, some of those may be cool enough, under 45W cpu+chipset, for a notebook.

Even high-end workstation cpus won't get 8 cores with Nehalem (quad+multi-threading). What is expected late 2009/early 2010 is 6 cores + multithreading on high-end workstation cpus on a 32nm process (westmere).

As far as mobile quad-core computing is concerned, the next step is Intel's Q9100 (quad 2.26GHz 35W) that should be available late 2008 and could come as a BTO option for the MBP at MWSF 2009.

[CWallace]

Apple should introduce de Q4 Macbook Pro when either Intel or AMD introduces the first mobile Quad Core CPU, because they also know that if the fail to do so, customers will be tempted to buy maybe an Windows Q4 mobile laptop.

Only a small sub-set of customers will be tempted. The QX9300 will allow system-builders to create smaller and lighter quad-core laptops then the ones now using desktop chips that need large cases for ventilation and the high-capacity batteries to get more then 90 minutes of life, which is a definite plus.

But putting a QX9300 in a MacBook Pro will result in a minimum price rise of $500. The latest Intel price sheet I have seen shows the QX9300 at $970 each (in quantities of 1000). The 2.8GHz T9600 will be $530, or almost half (and the same price as the T9500 2.6GHz is now).

So that means if you swapped the T9500 with the QX9300 today, the 15" MBP would be $3249 and the 17" would be $3449. Depending on how Apple updates the machines with HDD and GPU and FW and such, we might see the quad-core BTO 15" be $3499 and the 17" be $3799 - a $1000 premium over their current pricing.

That is a tremendous amount of money for a laptop - even a MacBook Pro. The market for that model is going to be a very small percentage of Apple's current market. So they may just say "no" and wait until WWDC 2009 when they can release dual-core Nehalems for the current price points ($2499/$2799) which will likely match or exceed the Penryn quad-cores in performance and will almost certainly exceed them in battery life.

[Concorde Rules]

I *highly* suspect if it comes in at 35W it'll be 17" only as that has a far bigger area to cool the chip and I again suspect it'll be a £200/300 extra option.


However, I shall be getting it when its released :D

[Mark.MBP.Quad]

However, I shall be getting it when its released :D

That makes two of us. I suspect Apple is well on its way to become the standard in computing.

I tried to introduce Apple at the office last week, but I got a lot of resistance from the ICT-manager, while my research on the subject of corporate implementation of Apple computers shows that on the long run all costs will decrease, who keeps hiding behind the walls of the known.

Of course the one and only counter argument I heard was that the initial costs of an Apple-computer is to high for budget.

[teksurv]

I could see mobile quad cores being useful for those who purchase systems like the Dell Precision series. Perhaps it could make sense in a 17" MBP, though in any case I wouldn't have need myself.

[Digital Skunk]

Hope I'm wrong, but I doubt there'll be a 12" MB/MBP for a long time (ever), period. Seems like Apple's going to try to cover that market with a tablet-thingy/oversized iPhone. The masses will get the 13" moderately heavy and unsexy but dependable MB, maybe with some aluminum styling and a bit thinned down. Well-heeled biz travelers will get sexy but underpowered MBA. And whomever Apple views as PowerUsers will get increasingly powerful/fast big-footprinted zeppelins.

Again, hope I'm wrong, but seems like those of us who want the natural heir to the 12" PB (bless its aging heart) will be waiting for Godot.:(

Agreed. I don't see them giving us a 12" PowerBook replacement anytime soon. Personally, you either have to choose the MB or the Air to get that kind of functionality.

I will stick with the 17" ers since the screen size and quality is so far unmatched. Put size and weight into the equation and there isn't a book on the market that compares. The 17" MBP is lighter than some 15" PCs out there.

I *highly* suspect if it comes in at 35W it'll be 17" only as that has a far bigger area to cool the chip and I again suspect it'll be a £200/300 extra option.


However, I shall be getting it when its released :D

Same here. That is my next book since this Penryn I have is doing far better than I could have ever planned for. It's a great upgrade from my Core 2 Duo 2.16 GHz. A few years of upgrading the HDD and RAM and I will be fine until the Quad books come, and Apple and Intel get done with the Beta testing.... I am expecting about a Quad 2.8 or 3.2GHz mobile chip as BTO by that time.

[chrisdee]

Back in the mid 1980's many taught there never would be need for more than 640 KB RAM.

Had it not been for development people would still be playing Donkey Kong and writing documents in Basic.

[Orlandooo]

Sorry to bring an old topic back to life, but does anyone have much of an idea when this is likely to happen, whether it's sometime this year, early next year or later than that?

I'm going to uni in September and have the classic "wait or not!?" situation, and I KNOW the answer is "buy it when/if you need it" but realistically its worth waiting a bit longer and making do with what you have for now (which for me is a not quite bottom end of the last white iMacs, 2.16 GHz + 2GB RAM) when its such a big jump rather than a slight speed boost, as long as its soon enough!

As you can guess I'm new here. I guess this will happen with the switch to Nehalem? Which I slightly understand. Slightly.

[iTeen]

that would be so nice in the macbook...
thats when i will upgrade.:D

[Orlandooo]

that would be so nice in the macbook...
thats when i will upgrade.:D

Yeah, that would be.
However just for clarification I personally am talking about a high end MBP.

[Genghis Khan]

i don't think you can realistically expect quad-core MBP until MacWorld '09 at least...but most likely WWDC '09 with the release (or announcement of release) of Snow Leopard.

[maccompaq]

With so little benefit from a quad core, it will be a long time before they appear in Apple laptops.

[Eidorian]

With so little benefit from a quad core, it will be a long time before they appear in Apple laptops.What little benefit from more cores?

And for everyone that missed the other threads...

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=440001

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=427650

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=424508

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=408209

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=369081

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=351838

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=305777

[maccompaq]

What little benefit from more cores?

And for everyone that missed the other threads...

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=440001

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=427650

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=424508

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=408209

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=369081

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=351838

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=305777
What is your point?
Apple lappies already have a problem with heat, so adding a quad core only multiplies that problem with so little benefit. After Leopard Snow, quad cores will be useful.

[Eidorian]

What is your point?
Apple lappies already have a problem with heat, so adding a quad core only multiplies that problem with so little benefit. After Leopard Snow, quad cores will be useful.Please tell me why this is true. What prevents current operating systems from taking advantage of a quad core?

[maccompaq]

Please tell me why this is true. What prevents current operating systems from taking advantage of a quad core?
How about you listing ALL the software that benefits from a quad core.
Currently, Photoshop takes advantage of dual core, but not yet quad core, but Adobe is working on that.

[Eidorian]

How about you listing ALL the software that benefits from a quad core.
Currently, Photoshop takes advantage of dual core, but not yet quad core, but Adobe is working on that.You never answered my question.

What prevents current operating systems from benefiting from more cores?

[maccompaq]

You never answered my question.

What prevents current operating systems from benefiting from more cores?

What good does it do if your OS recognizes 4 cores, but none of the regular software does?

[Eidorian]

What good does it do if your OS recognizes 4 cores, but none of the regular software does?I still haven't see anything that prevents the scaling to 4 cores of Windows XP/Vista and Mac OS X Tiger/Leopard.

What I have seen is a trend of users that believe that Snow Leopard will finally give these benefits.

[CWallace]

Sorry to bring an old topic back to life, but does anyone have much of an idea when this is likely to happen, whether it's sometime this year, early next year or later than that?

The chip will be available later this year, but it remains to be seen when, or even if, Apple will use it. It will be very expensive ($1000+) and newer technology will be available within 9-12 months.

[mjteix]

What good does it do if your OS recognizes 4 cores, but none of the regular software does?

Who cares about regular software? A quad-core MBP will be a Pro computer just like the Mac Pro is (do you believe that the 8 cores on most current Mac Pros are useless?). A quad-core option for the MBP will be huge (even without Snow Leopard) for those who use FCS, Logic Pro, Pro Tools and other apps on MBPs.

The dual-core 2.6GHz is currently a $250 option, the quad-core Q9100 would be a $300-350 option over it (that's about $600 over the reference prices): $3099 for the 15" and $3399 for the 17". We're in the Pro domain, nothing regular.

Snow Leopard will be the cherry on the cake, for those who already have quads and octo-core computers.

After this summer's Montevina update (2.53/2.66GHz at least and 2.80GHz BTO), there will be a Montevina speedbump from Intel late Q4:
2.26GHz -› 2.40GHz (25W) $209
2.40GHz -› 2.53GHz (25W) $241
2.53GHz -› 2.66GHz (25/35W) $348/316
2.80GHz -› 2.93GHz (35W) $530
3.06GHz (45W) & Q9100 2.26GHz (35W) $851
QX9300 2.53GHz (45W) $1,038
And the MBP line up could be DC2.66/2.80GHz standard and QC2.26GHz BTO for MWSF 2009.

[Spikeanator6982]

How about you listing ALL the software that benefits from a quad core.
Currently, Photoshop takes advantage of dual core, but not yet quad core, but Adobe is working on that.

hmm just some regular software that many "regualar" people use

Eyetv
Handbrake
Toast 8+
foldingathome:)
and..i think itunes does when encoding video for ipod/itv dont remember though and imovie does when making the movie i think and even if they "only" use 2 cores then with 4 you still have 2 cores to work with rather then having a slow/jerky experience.

just some normal nonpro software that uses 3-4 cores or 2 if ilife stuff only use 2, but i really do think they can use more than 2.

[Digital Skunk]

How about you listing ALL the software that benefits from a quad core.
Currently, Photoshop takes advantage of dual core, but not yet quad core, but Adobe is working on that.

Oh boy! The big one that I care about is Compressor, which utilizes all 8 cores in the Mac Pro, and is very core aware. To be able to compress HD content on the go, or on my already over worked Penryn MBP would be very welcomed.

[bobertoq]

Quad core iMac is now a given. Quad core MBP is a highly probable.That's good. Looks a little pricey, though.

[bobertoq]

I want in my imac...
Quad Core
Blu Ray
Watercooling
Better GPU
Overclocking
Run Windows apps native (W/O wine/VM/parallels etc.)
Remote Detonation.You could get that in a tower any day.... APPLE! Waaake up! I really would like some towers from Apple.

http://www.alienware.com/customize/area-51-desktop.aspx?SysCode=PC-AREA51-R6&SubCode=SKU-DEFAULT

See how cheap towers are?

[Wotan31]

If the new quad core chips are 45w, you'll surely see them in thicker, heavier, "desktop replacement" laptops from Clevo, Sager, etc. They're using desktop quad core chips today in these machines with 65w TDP...

But at 45w, you'll never see this chip in an Apple notebook, at least not in any of the current form factors. MBP's already get toasty with current chips, 45w will be an impossibility.

[Digital Skunk]

You could get that in a tower any day.... APPLE! Waaake up! I really would like some towers from Apple.

http://www.alienware.com/customize/area-51-desktop.aspx?SysCode=PC-AREA51-R6&SubCode=SKU-DEFAULT

See how cheap towers are?

And that is a rather expensive one at that. There are cheaper ones from other vendors.

I still think Alienware has some of the sexiest laptops (http://www.alienware.com/products/area-51-m17x-notebook.aspx?SysCode=PC-LT-AREA51M17X&SubCode=SKU-DEFAULT) you can find. The 17" MBP is the lightest one available still though, and is lighter than some 15" competitors.

[andiwm2003]

this thread convinces me even more that now is the time to buy a Macbook (after the montevina update). I can't imagine a 45W Quadcore in a MBP so my guess is that Quadcores arrive in q1 2010 earliest. That means I have about 2 years till I feel the need to update to a quadcore desktop replacement. In between is only the nehalem speedbump. that will be 25% speed increase.

[Digital Skunk]

this thread convinces me even more that now is the time to buy a Macbook (after the montevina update). I can't imagine a 45W Quadcore in a MBP so my guess is that Quadcores arrive in q1 2010 earliest. That means I have about 2 years till I feel the need to update to a quadcore desktop replacement. In between is only the nehalem speedbump. that will be 25% speed increase.

When the quadcores do come, they may only be in the MBPs. If the hardware only allows it to be in larger laptops, it may only be a BTO for the 17" models.

[Orlandooo]

I'm guessing that all this really means is that no one really has a clue when a quad core MBP (which is inevitable EVENTUALLY if not soon, you can't deny that) is likely to be available?

As usual, Sod's law, if I wait it'll come out in 2010, if I buy now quad core will come out a month later :| pah, such is life.

And no, I don't just want quad core for improving iTunes performance!? I can't see why the "regular" users sending email, using iPhoto and using word ETC would pay more for a feature like this, surely the only reason for them spending on a MBP is a larger screen than the MB...

[DoFoT9]

I'm guessing that all this really means is that no one really has a clue when a quad core MBP (which is inevitable EVENTUALLY if not soon, you can't deny that) is likely to be available?

As usual, Sod's law, if I wait it'll come out in 2010, if I buy now quad core will come out a month later :| pah, such is life.

And no, I don't just want quad core for improving iTunes performance!? I can't see why the "regular" users sending email, using iPhoto and using word ETC would pay more for a feature like this, surely the only reason for them spending on a MBP is a larger screen than the MB...

that annoys me a bit, but there are still plenty of users who need those extra cores, i.e. me. when i save enough i will buy it (whenever it comes out)

[Cheffy Dave]

Would it be possible to see both the iMac and Mac mini with quad core first, before the laptops?

Mini???? :D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

[jons]

Mini???? :D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

I think it's pretty obvious that Apple's biggest business on the computer side is in laptops, so it makes sense to bring the new features out there first.

[Full of Win]

I think it's pretty obvious that Apple's biggest business on the computer side is in laptops, so it makes sense to bring the new features out there first.

That would make sense - but many times they do not make sense. for example, the iMac was upgraded to the Core2Duo before the MacBookPro was, by a few months.

[Orlandooo]

that annoys me a bit, but there are still plenty of users who need those extra cores, i.e. me. when i save enough i will buy it (whenever it comes out)

OK, sorry. The point I was really trying to make is just that people on here shouldn't generalise and say things like that quad core isn't necessary as most people don't use the more demanding software. However, I shouldn't generalise and say only those who do use that software need quad core!

[DoFoT9]

OK, sorry. The point I was really trying to make is just that people on here shouldn't generalise and say things like that quad core isn't necessary as most people don't use the more demanding software. However, I shouldn't generalise and say only those who do use that software need quad core!

lol dont be sorry.

it probably is true, that there would be a LOT more basic users vs. professional users. we still need to address the fact that there will be many many pro users waiting for this upgrade, i know i am (im not a pro user, just an extremely heavy user who wants things done right there and then).

the way i see it is its not really just professional software, say.. i dont know, something that only utilises dual-core (cant think of anything). i see it as the whole system working together. this is where i think apple is making a good move with Snow Leopard (kinda bad name). Snow Leopard will enable the computer to better manage more programs running at once which is what i really need. i regularly find myself working on 3 assignments, with 3 pages in spaces running parallels, word, safari, etcetcetc and this all adds up. my system gets clogged extremely quickly. these programs are pretty basic using hardly any RAM and requiring not much CPU each. a better equipped OS would GREATLY help out the speeds of many laptops, newer and old.

[tompon1923]

At the time apple will release quad-core equipped notebooks, they won't be called Macbook Pro's any more, since they are almost 3 years around

[Tallest Skil]

At the time apple will release quad-core equipped notebooks, they won't be called Macbook Pro's any more, since they are almost 3 years around

Huh? They called the PowerBook G4 the PowerBook G4 for six years. What does your statement even mean?

[DeVizardofOZ]

lol dont be sorry.

it probably is true, that there would be a LOT more basic users vs. professional users. we still need to address the fact that there will be many many pro users waiting for this upgrade, i know i am (im not a pro user, just an extremely heavy user who wants things done right there and then).

the way i see it is its not really just professional software, say.. i dont know, something that only utilises dual-core (cant think of anything). i see it as the whole system working together. this is where i think apple is making a good move with Snow Leopard (kinda bad name). Snow Leopard will enable the computer to better manage more programs running at once which is what i really need. i regularly find myself working on 3 assignments, with 3 pages in spaces running parallels, word, safari, etcetcetc and this all adds up. my system gets clogged extremely quickly. these programs are pretty basic using hardly any RAM and requiring not much CPU each. a better equipped OS would GREATLY help out the speeds of many laptops, newer and old.

Maybe, just maybe Stevie will by now know about the new cooling technology, which can cool 1MegaWatt... At least the heat would not present a problem!

[jaduffy108]

quad core iMac please.

X2 !!!!!!!!

[dwmusic]

http://www.appletell.com/apple/comment/apple-to-introduce-quad-core-macbook-pro/

[kaiwai]

http://www.appletell.com/apple/comment/apple-to-introduce-quad-core-macbook-pro/

Maybe that is why the 17inch model wasn't spruced up - the 17inch model is going to be turned into the 'mother of all laptops' - borderline 'portable desktop'.

[iMacmatician]

http://www.appletell.com/apple/comment/apple-to-introduce-quad-core-macbook-pro/All the quad-cores I've seen are 45 W, which appears to be too hot for the MacBook Pro. But I can see Apple putting a better cooling system in the 17" to reduce the heat, as well as giving the option of shutting off two cores to conserve power, like the switchable graphics (but more discreet). But I'm skeptical...for now.

Given Apple's reluctance to put a dual-core of higher GHz than a quad-core, I can only see the 2.53 GHz dual-core (low price) and quad-core used.

[jbrenn]

Apple does NOT need a mini-tower as everyone keeps clamoring for.

All they really need to do is offer a couple Mac Pros with a single Quad Core Xeon chip with a price starting at $1499.

This is how Apple always used to handle the Power Mac G3's, G4's and G5's, why not go back to a system that worked and no one was screaming for a model between the iMac and the PowerMac.

Here is an example of what could make sense with the next Mac Pro revision:
- Single Quad Core 2.8GHz XEON $1499
- Single Quad Core 3.0GHz XEON $1999
- Double Quad Core 2.8GHz XEON $2499
- Double Quad Core 3.0GHz XEON $2799
- Double Quad Core 3.2GHz XEON $3299
- Double Quad Core 3.4GHz XEON $3699

For this to work out, Apple would also have to offer either a $999 or $1099 iMac.

For me personally at home I would pick up the lowest end Quad Core Mac Pro, while at work I would put in for the mid-high range Octo Core Mac Pro.

i think that would make everyone happy

[ecompuplus]

I think I will have to sell my car to get a laptop with that kind of CPU. :eek:

[sangosimo]

these quads are still too hot. 32nm is when the quads will start popping in mainstream laptops. nehalem is so awesome. X58 needs to go down in price so I can build a super computer!

[DoFoT9]

Maybe, just maybe Stevie will by now know about the new cooling technology, which can cool 1MegaWatt... At least the heat would not present a problem!

what does this have to do with my post??

nothing...

[bengal85]

(considering there is no real need to it for the average MacBook user).


Your right there is not a need but is faster better

[DeVizardofOZ]

what does this have to do with my post??

nothing...

...as speculations about a quadcore chipset go, together with the probability in handling large numbers of data, i.e. single, dual, probable quad core processor use in laptops, which require a different (more efficient and effective!) cooling system.

You can always ignore what I wrote, mon ami...