Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Why Sandy Bridge Quad Cores ARE possible in the next MBP
- Thread starter asdf542
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Decent CPU + GPU > Great CPU, Intel GPU
Truth is, not many people are going to notice the difference between a Sandy Bridge 2-Core processor and a Sandy Bridge 4-Core processor, but they will notice the difference between the Intel GMA HD 3000 and the AMD Radeon 6630HD.
A Quad-Core in the 17" makes sense. Anything else is just a waste.
Truth is, not many people are going to notice the difference between a Sandy Bridge 2-Core processor and a Sandy Bridge 4-Core processor, but they will notice the difference between the Intel GMA HD 3000 and the AMD Radeon 6630HD.
A Quad-Core in the 17" makes sense. Anything else is just a waste.
The Sandy Bridge IGP is supposed to come close to the current 320m in performance. The 320m is way better than the 9400m. Thus, a quad-core CPU in the MBPs would make a HUGE difference.
Calling it a waste is another thing. Speak for yourself please. I do a lot of video encoding, and the 17" is way too big for me. I plan to pick up a 15" 2011 MBP if it has a quad core. It will make my life so much easier, especially since I'm upgrading from a C2D. The 15" and 17" have always had very similar guts with the 17" just having a bigger screen. I like it that way, and I hope it stays that way.
As NVIDIA have stopped designing chipsets, we can't even hope for a Core 2 Duo and 520M for an increase in graphics performance.
The facts are, that if the 13" MBP moves to Sandy Bridge, the CPU power will increase dramatically, battery life and heat will improve significantly, and RAM will be much faster too. All this for a SMALL decrease in graphics performance?
Anyone who hopes Apple keeps the Core 2 Duo processor simply to keep the 320M must therefore be a gamer, and should just get the 15".
The facts are, that if the 13" MBP moves to Sandy Bridge, the CPU power will increase dramatically, battery life and heat will improve significantly, and RAM will be much faster too. All this for a SMALL decrease in graphics performance?
Anyone who hopes Apple keeps the Core 2 Duo processor simply to keep the 320M must therefore be a gamer, and should just get the 15".
If they remove the optical disc drive, they can fit in a better graphics card! I'm hoping Apple does this!
Whatever floats their boat
Would be very interesting to see what happens if Apple does. And how many people are disappointed that their optical drive got replaced with a large extra battery and a moderate GPU.
You forgot the Sandy Bridge chipset.
Also, the second gen penryns run cooler than their TDP suggests. The TDP was kept the same as the original penryns while optimisations were made to make them run cooler and more efficient. AnandTech seems to indicate that the more intelligent power management in the SB CPUs make them run cooler and more efficient so maybe it is still possible, I really hope so.
I think the greatest thing in the way of us getting quad cores are Apple's profit margins.
Also, the second gen penryns run cooler than their TDP suggests. The TDP was kept the same as the original penryns while optimisations were made to make them run cooler and more efficient. AnandTech seems to indicate that the more intelligent power management in the SB CPUs make them run cooler and more efficient so maybe it is still possible, I really hope so.
I think the greatest thing in the way of us getting quad cores are Apple's profit margins.
The Intel IGP comes close the the nvidia 320m in benchmarks, but in performance and quality isn't as close.
The reviews have stated that for it to be "comparable" to the AMD 5450, which was a terrible card to begin with, the Intel GMA scaled down the graphics quality and could only be comparable at 800x600 resolutions with the 3D games.
The reviews have stated that for it to be "comparable" to the AMD 5450, which was a terrible card to begin with, the Intel GMA scaled down the graphics quality and could only be comparable at 800x600 resolutions with the 3D games.
who cares if the intel IGP is AS good as the 320m. the 320m is terrible and that wouldnt be an improvement (except for battery, but if with optimus already enabled, maybe not). having a "pro" laptop with no discrete graphics is an atrocity.
Yeah but hasn't Apple been making battery life better and better throughout each upgrade? If that's the max, I'm sure they'd rather use something lower than that.
With the screen, graphics, RAM, and everything else, the 35W vs 45W CPU difference won't actually make that much difference to battery life, but will provide a lot more processing power.
And considering TDP is related to the maximum power draw (minus about 20%) I wouldn't be surprised at all if the dual core and quad core CPUs had similar idle and close-to-idle power draw.
Also, four cores operating at half power will use significantly less juice than two cores operating at full power, as power consumption vs clock speed is not linear.
Who buys the most over the top PC's made? Gamers, Think about the $$$ they are missing out on by not having at least one macbook pro with high end graphics (No, the 330 or 9600GT are NOT high end...)
I know I'm holding out for one with a good GFX processor, I can deal with either a 2 or 4 core i7 but for me, Its all about what GFX chip the mid to high end MBP's use next.
Cmon apple, Don't force me to buy Asus again, They are starting to suck these days!
EDIT: Side note, BTW, all computers are PC's Including Apple, "Personal Computer" That is unless apple stopped calling their units "Computers"...
I love ragging on people for splitting hairs like that... all in good fun!
Very little - the high end gaming market is a very small specialized market that is driven by software, not hardware. Without games to drive hardware there is no reason to believe Apple would make nay kind of dent in that market so the costs to enter are simply not worth it. The people who are into the high end game machine market simply are not a target market.
In addition, many high end systems seem to focus on desktop, not laptop machines in the PC world; where it's easy for a manufacturer to keep up with the latest hardware by simply dropping in the latest video card. Apple is simply not interested in messing up their supply chain simply to ensure they have the latest and greatest hardware every few months.
Apple is not interested in being on the bleeding edge of hardware because that is not where the money is; to them the Mac is as much about delivering content as it is a computer. As a result, they focus on the entire eco-system around content and high end games are not even noticed from that perspective.