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

Roadmap to a quad core Macbook Pro

jer2eydevil88

jer2eydevil88

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Feb 6, 2004
254
2
USA
I am going to be in the market for a new notebook early next year and would like your opinions on when to expect a quad core Macbook Pro.

I know Apple is exactly following the Intel roadmap but if anyone knows when on that roadmap we can expect a Quad Core mobile chip please let me know.

Does anyone know if these chips are rumored to be supported by todays chipsets as the Core 2 Duo chips were compatible with the older Core Duo model boards.
 
Not anytime soon. As far as I know, there are no quad-core mobile chips anywhere on Intel's roadmap.
 
Quad core isn't even in any (released) desktops (as far as I know). It will take a while to get them into notebooks...:(
 
Don't expect them terribly soon. I'm guessing end of 2008 if they pull a fast one and yank it out of thin air. Intel doesn't do what they do with desktop dual/quad core chips when they make mobile versions.

With desktop and server chips, they first make a multi-chip module (2 chips on one module) then later they make a single chip version (x amount of cores on the same die.)

With notebooks, they always have it on one die for space and heat reasons.

I'm thinking this won't happen until the end of 45nm process, or possibly even 32nm process.
 
quad core laptops won't be that much of an improvement over dual core cos of space, heat and power constraints.

The 'next amazing thing' in the Apple laptop world are the santa rosa platform for the MBP, in around april 2007, and a rumoured possible Apple subnotebook a few months after.

Neither of these things will give a huge leap in raw computing performance, just better overall systems with better wireless, along with smaller form factor stuff.
 
With 45nm shrink we should see 65w quad cores (atleast low voltage). we should see desktop replacement notebooks having those chips. But apple would not use them unless intel releases a mobile quad core. Possibly note until Westmere (Nehalem 32nm shrink). Unless AMD forces Intel to release a quad core mobile once it releases Fusion?
 
I agree with the end of 45 or the beginning of 32 nm technologies.

Probably the very first chip that Intel releases that isn't on their detailed roadmap will be 4 core. We don't have much information about the 32nm stuff, so I reckon the first laptop chips made with 32nm technology will be quad core, at least. So that means mid 2009, at the latest, just when I'll be thinking about upgrading my Macbook (That I don't yet have :D)
I would imagine that it is entirely possible we get Quad Core chips at the design update of 45 nm sometime mid 2008, maybe a 2 die package, maybe not.

Hopefully they'll bring out the funky tri-gates in their 32nm process, and then they can really ramp up the number of cores! That with multi GPUs, and we'll have dozens of processors, maybe even hundreds, sitting in our laps in less than a decade.
 
Next thing you know we'll be waiting for the 22mm shrink... :rolleyes:

Seriously though, 4 cores won't give you any advantages unless the software uses it. So even if they come out in 2008 you'll still be waiting at least a year for the software to make full use of it.

The next two great things that you might want to wait for are:

- Santa Rosa platform with all its benefits including 802.11n, NAND, etc.
- 45mm Penryn (supposed to work at 29W as opposed to the 35 of Merom)

Both should be out 2007.

Everything else and you'll be playing the waiting game forever.
 
Diatribe said:
Next thing you know we'll be waiting for the 22mm shrink... :rolleyes:

Seriously though, 4 cores won't give you any advantages unless the software uses it. So even if they come out in 2008 you'll still be waiting at least a year for the software to make full use of it.

The next two great things that you might want to wait for are:

- Santa Rosa platform with all its benefits including 802.11n, NAND, etc.
- 45mm Penryn (supposed to work at 29W as opposed to the 35 of Merom)

Both should be out 2007.

Everything else and you'll be playing the waiting game forever.
Click to expand...

I kind of agree... I don't see any good reason to wait a year for Penryn.

Other computers, different story. I still retain that 130W for a processor is "way insane". If Apple can't put even a Conroe processor in the iMac, then processors aren't cool enough. Much worse with GPUs. What is it? like 225W for the new graphics cards? That's insane! My vote is to wait for the next gen G90/R700, where TDPs are likely to be much lower. Maybe then we can have decent graphics in laptops :rolleyes:. With our 16 core processors of course :D
 
Let's hope that Apple and Intel have better luck than AMD with their Quad Cores.

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2065493,00.asp

AMD's new dual-socket Quad FX platform abounds with ironies. Once the purveyor of "Cool 'n' Quiet," the company's reference system is one of the noisiest PCs we've had in our labs and that's with Cool 'n' Quiet and BIOS fan control enabled. Until Intel shipped its Core 2 line of processors, AMD touted its lower power capability, but the 4x4 (AMD's code-name for the platform) eats nearly 600W at full load—and that's with only one graphics card. AMD is launching new CPUs, including a new speed grade, but the underlying platform technology is more interesting than the processors. On top of that, AMD is touting Quad FX's capabilities under Windows Vista, for some good technical reasons. But those same reasons make it a somewhat anemic performer under Windows XP.
 
FFTT said:
Let's hope that Apple and Intel have better luck than AMD with their Quad Cores.
Click to expand...

Even Intel's MCM-type (2 dual cores packaged side by side) quad core chips are not the worst on heat, and they are likely to get better with time just like the Pentium Ds did. All of the Xeon 5300 series except the X5355 (4x2.66GHz 1333 FSB), or in other words all of the chips priced lower than or equal to the 3GHz dual core Xeon in the Mac Pro today have the same heat envelope as that 3GHz Woodcrest, including the 4x2.33GHz 1333 FSB version. The X5355 has a higher TDP of 120W, higher but lower I think than the engineering samples they had out earlier which had a 130W TDP and ran perfectly in the existing mac pro enclosure.
The first quad core desktop only chip will have the 130W TDP sadly, but I'm willing to bet the other versions to come will have significantly lower TDPs again, and future revisions to both lines may drop the TDPs like they did on the Pentium Ds, which dropped from 130W to 95W.
 
Erasmus said:
Other computers, different story. I still retain that 130W for a processor is "way insane". If Apple can't put even a Conroe processor in the iMac, then processors aren't cool enough.
Click to expand...
Let's see here...

Merom is socket compatible with Yonah. You can drop it in with no R&D.

Conroe is LGA775 so you'll have to redesign the internals for it.
 
Eidorian said:
Let's see here...

Merom is socket compatible with Yonah. You can drop it in with no R&D.

Conroe is LGA775 so you'll have to redesign the internals for it.
Click to expand...

OK, We don't have to have this argument again, but Conroe is like actually half the cost of Merom. Conroe is faster than Merom, Merom is the end of the line, while Conroe can be upgraded to Kentsfield. Conroe clocks all the way up to 3.2 Ghz while Merom maxes at 2.33 Ghz.

Apple took the easy way out, when they should have redesigned the iMac for Conroe, at least IMO. Let's hope the iMac doesn't continue to use mobile components, and the only reason they didn't redesign the iMac for Conroe is that they are busy redesigning it for next year's 45nm quad core chips.
 
Erasmus said:
OK, We don't have to have this argument again, but Conroe is like actually half the cost of Merom. Conroe is faster than Merom, Merom is the end of the line, while Conroe can be upgraded to Kentsfield. Conroe clocks all the way up to 3.2 Ghz while Merom maxes at 2.33 Ghz.

Apple took the easy way out, when they should have redesigned the iMac for Conroe, at least IMO. Let's hope the iMac doesn't continue to use mobile components, and the only reason they didn't redesign the iMac for Conroe is that they are busy redesigning it for next year's 45nm quad core chips.
Click to expand...
Oh I agree that Apple should have designed the iMac for Conroe too. I remember massive threads speculating about Merom or Conroe in the iMac.

Kentsfield is even LESS practical (130w TDP) then Conroe or Merom. There aren't any low TDP quad-core processors in the pipeline from Intel. (At least ones that WE know about.)

Edit: Apple seems to be willing to spend $230-600 for the processor. Once a quad-core PC around the iMac's price comes along THEN it's time to worry about the iMac.
 
Eidorian said:
Oh I agree that Apple should have designed the iMac for Conroe too. I remember massive threads speculating about Merom or Conroe in the iMac.

Kentsfield is even LESS practical (130w TDP) then Conroe or Merom. There aren't any low TDP quad-core processors in the pipeline from Intel. (At least ones that WE know about.)

Edit: Apple seems to be willing to spend $230-600 for the processor. Once a quad-core PC around the iMac's price comes along THEN it's time to worry about the iMac.
Click to expand...

Isn't the next die shrink supposed to put quad core desktop chips into the 65W TDP ballpark? Obviously it's not low, but trying to bring as few recycled arguments out as possible, the iMac that used to have a G5 processor in it should be able to handle 65W. That's when I think we might see our quad core iMacs, sometime at the end of next year, or maybe MWSF2008, but that's just my opinion.
 
Penryn

Mac Rumours Guide to Penryn

Penryn is a mobile chip developed by Intel. Intel has completed the design phase and promises to get the product to the market in the second half of 2007. It is a die shrink from 65nm (Core Duo, Core 2 Duo) to 45nm, which allows more transistors to fit on the same piece of silicon increasing performance per watt.
The processor features four processing cores and will be built on the Core Microarchitecture and will also feature an expanded instruction set to make it more efficient at handling media files. Penryn has a 3 MB and a 6 MB L2 cache (up from 2 MB and 4 MB of Merom).

sounds pretty tasty to me, but I think Nehalem will be the better option in 2008
 
More precisely, I think you're asking for the road map to a quad core Macbook Pro that doesn't catch fire. I say 6 months after every other manufacturer gets it down pat, Q1 ~ Q2 '08.
 
MacBook

What do you guys think? it is realistic to expect a macbook with a quad core in july 08?
 
Yes I Believe Too, A Summer '08 Quad Core MacBook Pro Is Likely

rufman said:
What do you guys think? it is realistic to expect a macbook with a quad core in july 08?
Click to expand...
Yes although I think it may always be a few months later. But according to the Intel road map they are due next Summer '08 for sure.

NOT a MacBook no. That won't happen before '09 sometime.
 
Note the original post date Nov 2006.

I stumbled on this thread when doing a google search. Beyond reading the interesting predictions of more than a year and a half ago and knowing now what actually happened I'm curious in what changed:

When would you say that the first quad-core macbook (pro?) will be available?
and what software will it utilize for both the pro user and the not-so pro user such as me?

thank you for your answers, I am very interested in reading them.

Haha... I can just imagine someone digging this thread up again in 2 years and reading these and the older responses.
 
Laco said:
When would you say that the first quad-core macbook (pro?) will be available?
and what software will it utilize for both the pro user and the not-so pro user such as me?

thank you for your answers, I am very interested in reading them.

Haha... I can just imagine someone digging this thread up again in 2 years and reading these and the older responses.
Click to expand...
Page 1 has some answers.

I'm a little surprised that you didn't turn up any of these threads if you were searching. :confused:

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/440001/

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/427650/

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/424508/

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/408209/

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/369081/

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/351838/

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/305777/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back