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

Discussion in 'Mac Blog Discussion' started by MacRumors, May 15, 2008.

  1. macrumors bot

    MacRumors

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2001
    #1
    [​IMG]

    In March we reported that Intel's upcoming Core 2 Extreme QX9300 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, 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
     
  2. macrumors Penryn

    Eidorian

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Location:
    Cuidad de México
    #2
    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. ;)
     
  3. macrumors G4

    flopticalcube

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Location:
    In the velcro closure of America's Hat
    #3
    Quad core iMac is now a given. Quad core MBP is a highly probable.
     
  4. macrumors Core

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    #4
    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.
     
  5. macrumors 68000

    hvfsl

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2001
    Location:
    London, UK
    #5
    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).
     
  6. macrumors Penryn

    Eidorian

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Location:
    Cuidad de México
    #6
    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.
     
  7. macrumors Core

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    #7
    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.
     
  8. macrumors G4

    flopticalcube

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Location:
    In the velcro closure of America's Hat
    #8
    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.
     
  9. macrumors 6502a

    vendettabass

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Location:
    Seoul, South Korea
    #9
    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)

    octo core MacBooks at least! in 5 years!
     
  10. macrumors 601

    Yvan256

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2004
    Location:
    Canada
    #10
    Would it be possible to see both the iMac and Mac mini with quad core first, before the laptops?
     
  11. macrumors Core

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    #11
    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.
     
  12. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2006
    #12
    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).
     
  13. macrumors 68000

    vansouza

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2006
    Location:
    West Plains, MO USA Earth
    #13
    quad core iMac please.
     
  14. macrumors 6502a

    KindredMAC

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2003
    #14
    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.​
     
  15. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2004
    #15
    This is good news. Hopefully they get announced at WWDC. Even if we dont see them until Q3... I can live with that.
     
  16. macrumors Penryn

    Eidorian

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Location:
    Cuidad de México
    #16
    I'm more concerned about the tri and quad core offerings that are found in SFF and minitowers for $500 - 1,000.
     
  17. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2005
    #17
    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).
     
  18. macrumors 65816

    kjs862

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2004
    #18
    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!
     
  19. macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Location:
    Knoxville, TN (USA)
    #19
    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.
     
  20. macrumors 68030

    CmdrLaForge

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2003
    Location:
    around the world
    #20
    I will wait for quad core MBP to buy a new one. So I keep my fingers crossed.
     
  21. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2006
    #21
    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.
     
  22. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2008
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    #22
    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.
     
  23. macrumors 6502a

    KindredMAC

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2003
    #23
    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.
     
  24. macrumors P6

    twoodcc

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2005
    Location:
    Right side of wrong
    #24
    great news! looking forward to 4 cores in a laptop
     
  25. Editor emeritus

    longofest

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2003
    Location:
    Falls Church, VA
    #25
    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)
     

Share This Page