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.
13" MBP with quad core?
- Thread starter Gman021
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
No. Not with Haswell, at least. Forget it. Not going to happen.
Apple uses 35W processors in its 13-inch laptops. And 35W Haswell processors are going to be dual-core. They will have much better battery life, but thermal requirements are not likely to improve.
So Intel is going to discontinue its 35W quad core processors with Haswell? Do you have a source for that?
There already is a 35Watt Ivy Bridy Quad Core available. Has nothing to do with Haswell and everything to do with Apple's Marketing decision.
Edit : http://ark.intel.com/products/64901
Last edited:
Yes, there is one quad-core Ivy Bridge processor with a TDP of 35W. I have never seen a laptop powered by it, though. There will also be a similar Haswell quad-core processor.
But the quad-core 35W Haswell is not the successor of the ones used in the current 13-inch models. It will probably not fit into Apple's pricing strategy.
The Sony Vaio Z uses the 35W Quad Core Ivy Bridge (2.1 Ghz):
http://store.sony.com/p/13.1-inch,-...SSD,-Business/en/p/SVZ13114GXX#specifications
That's different than the 35W Haswell desktop-class CPU.
As far as I know Intel hasn't revealed the whole range of mobile Haswell CPUs yet. I would be surprised if they don't have a similar quad core 35W that's suitable for mobile use.
I looked into this for the past couple of months as I wanted a 13" rMBP with quad core and 16GB ram.
Looking at the haswell roadmap, it's seems really unlikely that we'll see a 13" quad core MBP this year. I could be proven wrong but I don't think so.
Just looking at the 15" rMBP internals shows how tight everything has been squeezed in. To get that into a 13" model would mean battery life would take a hit which is a compromise Apple is unlikely to make.
In the meantime, I opted for a 15" rMBP (haswell is unlikely to bring anything groundbreaking to the 15" model, so no need to wait...) the larger screen is definitely a plus and I can see myself getting used to the size quite easily.
Maybe in 18-24 months if a 13" quad core retina MBP turns up that offers compelling performance improvements, I'll shift back to a 13" model.
Pro is only a monicker given to the model by the marketing department, and has nothing to do with usage of the machine.
Most people that buy the 13" machine buy it because it's a mac, and it's one of the cheapest macs, and have no idea what the numbers on the sticker beside the computer on the table mean.
The 15" rMBP has a high end quad core mobile CPU as well as a dedicated GPU.
A 35W quad core (like the 2.1Ghz i7 quad in the Vaio Z) should work just fine in the 13" rMBP because it's already using a 35W class CPU.
One thing to keep in mind is that for many tasks a higher clocked dual core CPU will be faster than a lower clocked quad core, unless it's something that can really take advantage of all the cores at once.
The TurboBoost feature helps somewhat with that, but the max Turbo frequency on the 35W quad cores is still lower than on the fastest 35W dual cores.
Last edited:
A quad-core isn't going to affect battery life in a negative way. Intel has core parking so are parked in no-power state while not in use. Also I recall reading that more cores give greater efficiency. In that running threads over 4 cores at a lower multiplier (and voltage) will get the work done using less energy than running 2 cores at a higher multiplier.
BGA soldering on a 35W i7-3612QM
Anybody wanting a quad-core in a 13" MBP now could acquire a 35W i7-3612QM and have it BGA soldered in place of the Apple-delivered i5/i7 dual-core by a technician. Say goodbye to your warranty if you do that.
Other quad-core ~13" alternatives
* 13" Sony SVZ with a i7-3612QM CTO option. This unit is ultrabook (or MBA) thin-and-light.
* 12.5" HP 2570P. I believe one of the last remaining ultraportables with a socketted CPU. Replace it's dual i5/i7 CPU with up to a 45W i7-quad (note: warranty implications). These systems can be had for relatively low $$ on ebay. Weighs about the same as a 13" cMBP, sharing the same primary + optical drive storage arrangement. It is however thicker than a cMBP.
Last edited:
i think that apple can definitely add a quad-core chip into the 13" line, but they have to add dual-core to maintain low costs, thus offering it cheaper than the 15". i also think its a marketing strategy.
I reckon Apple will start using quads in the 13" MBP line once Intel start making at least 3 35W quad CPUs. I don't think Apple likes large differences in performance within the one computer sub-category, which would happen if there were dual and quad 13" MBPs released at the same time. I think they will wait until they can put a slow one in the entry level model, a faster one in the top end, and offer an upgrade to an even faster CPU for those willing to dish the dough.
Whether this happens this year or next, I don't know. But I doubt it will be much longer. On the same note, hopefully Intel releases some 8 core 45W CPUs in the next couple of years for the 15".
Whether this happens this year or next, I don't know. But I doubt it will be much longer. On the same note, hopefully Intel releases some 8 core 45W CPUs in the next couple of years for the 15".
There are several pcs using the 35w quads from ivy, sony, clevo, asus and several other OEMs use that. The real problem here is the price of the cpu, its much higher than the 45w quads. Anand hinted that when he reviewed the rmbp 13
So the only people that are pro, are the ones that need to have a dgpu and a quad core? You guys really dont know how so many people work in the world. a thinkpad x230 is not a pro computer, followed by other 13, 14, 15 that are actually built to witstand work, in their enterprise class, poor people, how misguided are them in their needs and their pursuit of those
Everybody knows the word 'pro' means nothing. The point is your paying $1,200+ for a computer with a duel core processor (and other things) whereas every other computer company includes quad core at anywhere near those prices.
That's why it's bush league.
I think anyone who considers a 15" too big is pretty Bush league myself, but to each their own.
For the same reason(s) they will not offer a mac Mini with another other than a HD4600 for it's GPU -
1) Apple does not want to take sales away from it's more expensive machines. Period, end of story. This is the most likely answer, IMHO.
2) Cost prohibitive - Does the $200+ BTO option still yield the same margin with a much higher cost haswell CPU chip?
3) CPU TDP - Too much heat to dissipate.
Given what Apple has historically done to the mini and the 13" MBP, it has to be #1. They don't want cheaper alternative to compete with higher priced options.
again, talk to other enterprise class hardware or take a look at the sony vaio z13 that is currently EOL
I believe you misunderstood me. So I'l reiterate, the "pro" monicker is nothing but marketing. Your usage of the machine is what makes it "pro" or not.
If you are out to buy a spec sheet instead of a computer, you're not looking at buying a Mac anyway. The fact is and always was, the 13" machines were and still are nothing more than a consumer laptop in a pretty shell with a high price tag for their specs.
The use of the dual core in the 13" machines can be explain by two very simple things: cost and heat. If they wanted to stick a quad core in there, they'd have higher cost, so to keep their margins, they'd have to raise the price, eating away into their potential sales.
A quad core would also generate more heat, and don't you think enough people come on here complaining about heat in their machines already? The cooling system is pretty much already at maximum capacity in there, adding more heat would require a bigger one. If you make the cooling system bigger, something's got to make way, because there's no room, so where do you save space? The battery. Another way of losing sales by reducing battery life.
So no, the only people that are "pro" are not people that have a quad core and dGPU, the "pro" are those that actually work on their computer. Sitting in a starbucks on facebook with a Mac is not "pro".
Your answer is convoluted.
Its simple, you said yourself that what we do defines if its pro or not. There the argument is gone.
Being for several years the cheapest mac, made it an entry point machine, that place is going to be taken over by the mba. That is also not an argument, wether this machine is pro or not, since that was defined by the usage.
The mbp 15 has also been a very consumer model, but because it packs a dgpu it has been deigned as pro, and not have been contested. However dgpu machines are for the pros, usually in the workstation class territory, apple has never been there. Not to mention they are used as mainstream machines as well.
the rmbp 13 has a very good cooling system, and given that the cmbp in all probability is gone this year, the cooling is of no concern, the price on the other hand is. This is where the argument of the margin makes sense, but in the end, ivy only introduced 2 35w quads, there were 6 45w and 2 55w, you can guess which ones are the more expensive parts due to binning.
All in all, what I said was that if the machine meets your needs, buy it. And do what you have to do with it. if you are working on it or not.
BTW I used to work when I was drinking coffee in the morning at starbucks, afterall, when you need the data that is provided by the internet to use as a trader, doesnt matter where you are.
On the other hand apple should really fix final cut and throw some AMD firepro gpus in there for people that actually need a dgpu to work.
With that logic there wouldn't be a netbook or ultrabook market.
Too big varies on application. Everyone has different applications for their equipment.