Quad-core 13 inch MacBook Pro?

[koyoot]

Wow, i definitely dont know half the knowledge of hardware like you guys,

I've just been waiting for a Quad-Core 13" because of work mainly.

i have to run parallel desktop for work, since i work with Apps (Xcode) and our back end software (windows based)

My MBP (mid 2010) acts up at the worst possible times (meetings, customer's office/warehouse) and works fine (lol which is now) when well it's not that relevant.

But its still slow at times and its really irritating when i want to get something down quick. I want to avoid getting a 15" because i travel a lot by plane couple multiple times a year. (bunch of cables, chargers, linea pro sleeves, iPad, external hard drives, folder filled with papers, headphones, external/battery sleeves batteries old iPhone for international use, power outlet converters etc etc)

can the current 13" rMBP handle my requirements? or should i wait for the quad-core whenever it does come out.

last resort, id be forced to get a 15" rMBP. any suggestions would be great =]

----------

Wow, i definitely dont know half the knowledge of hardware like you guys,

I've just been waiting for a Quad-Core 13" because of work mainly.

i have to run parallel desktop for work, since i work with Apps (Xcode) and our back end software (windows based)

My MBP (mid 2010) acts up at the worst possible times (meetings, customer's office/warehouse) and works fine (lol which is now) when well it's not that relevant.

But its still slow at times and its really irritating when i want to get something down quick. I want to avoid getting a 15" because i travel a lot by plane couple multiple times a year. (bunch of cables, chargers, linea pro sleeves, iPad, external hard drives, folder filled with papers, headphones, external/battery sleeves batteries old iPhone for international use, power outlet converters etc etc)

can the current 13" rMBP handle my requirements? or should i wait for the quad-core whenever it does come out.

last resort, id be forced to get a 15" rMBP. any suggestions would be great =]


edit: and in terms of price too, because its imperative i get 16 GB of ram and 500GB of SSD space, because I'm going to at least partition 200 GB to the windows side. so my rMBP is going to be $1,999.

and i want to use it for more than 5 years, ill prob play a few games maybe D3 and Dota 2, but for everything else i got a gaming rig so gaming isn't really an issue either.

Its funny, because, rMBP 13 is quite faster in terms of performance than your MBP 15 . Both on CPU, and GPU side. Hard to believe, but thats the case .

16 GB of RAM, and a 512 or more storage, and you have very good machine.

Enjoy!

 

[cube]

You can buy a fast 13" quad core with discrete graphics in a classic format today. Just not from Apple.

 

[Cloudsurfer]

can the current 13" rMBP handle my requirements? or should i wait for the quad-core whenever it does come out.

Based on what you said, I don't see why the 13" wouldn't be able to do that. You are not doing any heavy rendering so the 13" will be fine.

The 16GB will be much more helpful running Parallels than a quad core.

 

[loon3y]

cool thanks guys, I'm definitely heading towards the 13" rMBP side.


one more thing how long do you guys think it'll last before i need to replace it?


edit: also would the post from the 2.6 GHz i5 to the 2.8 Ghz i7 worth it?


my heart says no, but i just want to make sure if it can possibly extend my macbook's life.

 

[Cloudsurfer]

There is hardly any difference between the 2.6 i5 and the 2.8 i7. On paper it is slightly faster, but in real world usage I don't think you'll notice much difference. IMO it is not worth the extra 200 bucks. The jump from the 2.4 to the 2.6 is much bigger and well worth the 100 bucks.

I don't see any reason why the 13" will not last as long as any other Mac. My 2010 MBP, using an even by then outdated Core 2 Duo, is still fine for most tasks.

 

[loon3y]

There is hardly any difference between the 2.6 i5 and the 2.8 i7. On paper it is slightly faster, but in real world usage I don't think you'll notice much difference. IMO it is not worth the extra 200 bucks. The jump from the 2.4 to the 2.6 is much bigger and well worth the 100 bucks.

I don't see any reason why the 13" will not last as long as any other Mac. My 2010 MBP, using an even by then outdated Core 2 Duo, is still fine for most tasks.

hmm well i do a lot of file transfers, run parallel, power builder, SQL, Xcode.


right now my 2010 does lag and at the worst possible times. Never when I'm at home or one of our offices, but at customer sites


but i was told i should just get the i7 Processor, I'm just really at odds. i rather not spend that extra 200 if i don't have to.

but if it does help than i wont to. but if there isn't going to be much difference than i wouldn't but, if its going to speed up start up time or just cut down a couple minutes of whatever than I'm for it.

because if I'm at a customers its just kind of embarrassing

 

[Cloudsurfer]

See my attachment. The difference in processing power is negligible. For reference, the base 2.4 model comes in at 6100.

Startup times have little to do with CPU and much more with storage access speeds. Any SSD Mac you'll pick up will be much, much more responsive than your 2010.

If there's an Apple Store nearby where you live, I'd check all three models out. I did just that and was surprised how much power they packed for a dual core machine.

 

[loon3y]

See my attachment. The difference in processing power is negligible. For reference, the base 2.4 model comes in at 6100.

Startup times have little to do with CPU and much more with storage access speeds. Any SSD Mac you'll pick up will be much, much more responsive than your 2010.

If there's an Apple Store nearby where you live, I'd check all three models out. I did just that and was surprised how much power they packed for a dual core machine.

thanks a lot, What do you think about just replacing my CD drive with an SSD and booting my OS off of that?

or do you think its better off getting a new rMBP than investing more into my old one?

 

[Cloudsurfer]

Depends on how long you're going to keep it, you're looking at a 300-400 dollar investment, which is fine if you're going to keep it for several years.

Personally I think Haswell, and soon Broadwell, are worth the upgrade due to power, weight and battery life. So if you can afford it I would definitely consider a full upgrade.

 

[loon3y]

Depends on how long you're going to keep it, you're looking at a 300-400 dollar investment, which is fine if you're going to keep it for several years.

Personally I think Haswell, and soon Broadwell, are worth the upgrade due to power, weight and battery life. So if you can afford it I would definitely consider a full upgrade.

ok thanks, going to upgrade as soon as the new ones come out.

 

[TechGod]

Indeed, one could even ask - is a 13" truly a "pro" machine having only dual core, compared to a 15" machine with quad core.

Add me to the list of quad core 13" dreamers. Would be the perfect machine for me.

What do you think "pro" work is? Coding? photo editing? Video editing? Writing? recordings for youtube? Simulations? Not every "pro" needs quad cores.

----------

You can buy a fast 13" quad core with discrete graphics in a classic format today. Just not from Apple.

With an inferior display, inferior battery, inferior build quality, thicker, heavier... want me to go on?

 

[cube]

With an inferior display, inferior battery, inferior build quality, thicker, heavier... want me to go on?

Actually, with a "retina" IPS display, rated for 5.5 hours battery, and weighing the same as the 13" cMBP.

 

[TechGod]

Actually, with a "retina" IPS display, rated for 5.5 hours battery, and weighing the same as the 13" cMBP.

Yeah. The cMBP. And 5 hours vs the 11 I actually get on my rMBP with light load. IPS doesn't automatically mean high resolution display either if its 1080P then sure its good. What's the keyboard like? What's the track pad like? What materials is it made out of? Is it light?

Do you know that not every pro requires 10 billion gigabytes of RAM and millions of storage right? I have an idea for you, instead of bashing the MBP's , how about you buy that Windows computer and be happy? I see you everywhere just to bash Apple because you have insane expections from a 13" laptop.

 

[cube]

Yeah. The cMBP. And 5 hours vs the 11 I actually get on my rMBP with light load. IPS doesn't automatically mean high resolution display either if its 1080P then sure its good. What's the keyboard like? What's the track pad like? What materials is it made out of? Is it light?

Do you know that not every pro requires 10 billion gigabytes of RAM and millions of storage right? I have an idea for you, instead of bashing the MBP's , how about you buy that Windows computer and be happy? I see you everywhere just to bash Apple because you have insane expections from a 13" laptop.

Those thin laptops are useless to me. The comparison with the cMBP is the proper one.

You can choose a FullHD IPS screen or a QHD+ IPS screen.

You already asked about the build, and I did not contest this.

If Microsoft were OK, I would have abandoned the Mac years ago.

 

[The Mercurian]

What do you think "pro" work is? Coding? photo editing? Video editing? Writing? recordings for youtube? Simulations? Not every "pro" needs quad cores.

To my mind "pro" work is whatever someone pays you to do - even if thats just entered data in a spreadsheet. If someone is paying you to do it then its "pro" work. My point above is that Apple is labelling two very different beasts with the same marketing term of "pro". Its covering dual cores and quad cores. It is as if a car manufacturer gave its very different straight-4 and V8 engined cars the same model number. That's all. You can define "pro" however you want - the point is very different machines are given the same label.

 

[TechGod]

Those thin laptops are useless to me. The comparison with the cMBP is the proper one.

You can choose a FullHD IPS screen or a QHD+ IPS screen.

You already asked about the build, and I did not contest this.

If Microsoft were OK, I would have abandoned the Mac years ago.

Yeah useless to you. But I love how powerful they are while being thin.

But Apple has made the nMP for you. The rMBP however is not

 

[cube]

Yeah useless to you. But I love how powerful they are while being thin.

But Apple has made the nMP for you. The rMBP however is not

The nMP is not portable. And a Supermicro tower is better and cheaper.

 

[exizeo]

Well the RB14 '14 has a quad i7 and a GTX 850M shoved into what looks a lot like a rMBP at 0.71 inches thick. And the screen is beautiful.

Pity it's on Windows.

No reason Apple can't do the same, theoretically, if they could actually reduce the bevel a bit.

 

[TechGod]

Well the RB14 '14 has a quad i7 and a GTX 850M shoved into what looks a lot like a rMBP at 0.71 inches thick. And the screen is beautiful.

Pity it's on Windows.

No reason Apple can't do the same, theoretically, if they could actually reduce the bevel a bit.

But battery is very bad. It actually is. Every thing else about it is amazing though(besides Windows 8)

 

[shieldswest]

Quad core 13"?

Will there ever (soon!) be a four core 13" MacBook Pro? I like the idea of the power of the 15" but want the size of the 13". I guess there isn't one today due to space or thermal limitations imposed by the smaller body size?

FWIW I'm looking to replace a mid 2010 15" matt screen 2.66 i7 (maxed out the ram and added SSD). I'm processing large raw photo files and want to transfer them from the SD cards more quickly (USB3) and generally speed up my workflow which includes working with Aperture, Lightroom and Photoshop etc.

I find the 15" a bit too big in coffee shops etc. I did originally buy a 13" in 2010 but returned it for the 15" as I hated the glossy screen. (I think the Retina is a little less glossy...).

I've also considered the Air 13" with i7 but on paper it seems a lot less power and only a few ounces lighter.

 

[jedics]

13 inch quadcore

It does seem that apple isnt giving us a 13 inch quad because they think it will cannibalize sales of the 15 because they dont think there will be enough of a difference between them.

I dont agree it will though, take me for instance, I was looking at getting another machine after spilling wine on my 15inch sandy bridge. I went into the mac store to see if I could be tempted to buy new and was for the first time ever interest in the 13 inch. Its lightness was the biggest reason as I carry it with me to work everyday and do gigs at night but after some research on low audio latency with ableton and how it uses the cores it was clear that only a quadcore would be guaranteed to handle my current and growing needs. (my experience with how much my old core2 struggled also affirmed this)

So I just went and bought a 15 inch ivy bridge for less than half the money which got me %90 of the power of the current models, once I put in my 500 gig ssd in that is

I think the size and weight is easily a big enough difference to separate the 13 from the 15 especially if the 15's go back to having dedicated graphics in the entire line up. A quadcore could be a premium built to order option to help with this issue to.

I write this in the hope apple is listening, if I end up giging more and travelling through it I would consider an upgrade if a 13 inch quad was available. Otherwise I will just stick with my 2.6 ivy for another 2-3 years at least.

So how bout it apple, do you want my money?

 

[leman]

It does seem that apple isnt giving us a 13 inch quad because they think it will cannibalize sales of the 15 because they dont think there will be enough of a difference between them.

There isn't a single quad core Haswell mobile CPU which would fit the 13" thermal envelope. The 13" is using 28W CPUs, and quad core CPUs are much hotter. The quad core on 13" will arrive once Intel releases suitable CPUs. Its as simple as that.

 

[MagicBoy]

It does seem that apple isnt giving us a 13 inch quad because they think it will cannibalize sales of the 15 because they dont think there will be enough of a difference between them.

No, it's the 47W TDP of the CPU. Not enough space in the 13" for the cooling system required to dissipate the additional 20W.

 

[x3n0n1c]

At the moment, the only chip that would be usable would be the Intel Core i7-4702EC @ 27w.

The issue is that this isn't a mobile class chip, it is designed for embedded devices. It is likely apple will never include this class of chip in it's laptops mainly due to the fact that it does not contain an integrated GPU.

Powerful integrated graphics is very important to Apple at the moment, and in order to use this chip they would have to use some low power dedicated solution, which would require more power and additional mainboard area. I highly doubt they would ever do this. You can clearly see apples requirement of GPU performance by looking at apples use of one of the HD5000, HD5100, and HD5200 variants in all of their new laptops. There are slower options they could have chosen, HD4400 Macbook Air anyone?

Another issue I see here is that the single core performance of this chip will be rather low, which will hurt the day to day performance of the machine. The single core performance difference between a macbook air, 13" rmbp, and 15" rmbp is very small. You will only see a real benefit with quad core when you are heavily (and I mean very heavily) multitasking or in cases where parallel processing is required for encoding or calculations etc.

There is no evidence at this time that Apple is saving them for their 15" line as there just isn't a workable option from Intel. Apples form factor is really the limiting factor as they refuse to sacrifice battery volume or device thinness for the additional cooling required.

If Intel can pack a quad core chip, with very similar single core performance and high end integrated graphics into a 25-30w TPD, then we very well might see a quad core 13".

The ball is in Intel's court.

 

[CmdrLaForge]

Do you think Apple will ever put a Quad-core Intel processor in the 13" MacBook Pro's?

Yes but when is the big question.