6 Core Macbook Pro

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by MacMorgan, Mar 13, 2012.

  1. MacMorgan macrumors newbie

    Nov 6, 2011
    I was wondering if the introduction of Haswell in 2013 will bring about 6 core mobile computing devices like the MBP and MBA?

    I have a late 2009 15" MBP with 8GB of RAM and am debating upgrading to the 2012 MBP when it comes out with Ivy Bridge although I easily could wait another year for Haswell.

    Just wondering if it would be worth it.

    What kind of improvements for programs like photoshop, motion, and 3D programs like Strata would one see from Ivy Bridge vs. Haswell chipsets?

    Thanks a lot
  2. yusukeaoki macrumors 68030


    Mar 22, 2011
    Tokyo, Japan
    We honestly don't know.
    I mean the 2012 ver hasn't come out yet :p

    Haswell is reported to have major power saving function so it should be power efficient. However, without the ivy bridge, we still cant say anything.
  3. MacMorgan thread starter macrumors newbie

    Nov 6, 2011
    I understand that and am not expecting anything concrete but simply predictions based on intels previous statements or announcements about Haswell.

    From what I've read there is a lot of literature about what you have just mentioned, it's power saving capabilities (which do not matter much to me because my current MBP gets about 2hrs of battery life due to a faulty battery but I barely use it anywhere without easy access to a power cable so it doesn't bother me)

    I'm wondering more about Haswell's improvements in CPU or GPU performance and the potentiality of a 6 core chip.

    I know its all speculation at this point but I figure since intel is releasing small details about Haswell, someone might have something to run with that would indicate if that would be true or not even if of course it just being a rumor.
  4. yusukeaoki macrumors 68030


    Mar 22, 2011
    Tokyo, Japan
    Not much has been reported from Intel about the Haswell chips yet.
    We are still standing by for the Ivy's to come out.

    We still dont know the clock speed, GPU that is going to be on there, nothing.

    All I can say is that there would be a 30% better power consumption compared to the current CPU.

    However, the multitasking and usage of CPU should be significant compared to the Quad cores.
    Currently, 4 core CPUs have 4 physical, 4 virtual cores.
    Which means w/ 6 cores, 6 physical, 6 virtual cores should be seen.
    Im not truly sure of how hyperthreading technology is in 2014~2015.
    But we can wish to see a 12 core CPU.
  5. ShoG macrumors member

    Dec 6, 2011
    I think alienware has a sandy bridge i7 extreme thats a 6 core in their top of the line 18" notebooks.
  6. MacMorgan, Mar 13, 2012
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2012

    MacMorgan thread starter macrumors newbie

    Nov 6, 2011
    wait so yusukeaoki when you say there will be improvements over quad cores do you mean in the Ivy Bridge or Haswell lineup?

    I just don't want to buy the 2012 Ivy Bridge setup when a year later in 2013 the tock cycle will blow away Ivy Bridge as I felt when I got my current computer and Sandy Bridge came out with Quad Cores.

    i understand it will still be a great machine but I could really use 6 cores and am just trying to think logistically how long that would mean I would have to wait to get a new computer
  7. that1guyy macrumors 6502

    Nov 11, 2011
    Bump this thread in a year so we can actually answer your questions. you have a computer that works. Stop worrying about what technology is coming in the future. There will always be newer and greater things on the horizon.
  8. MacMorgan thread starter macrumors newbie

    Nov 6, 2011
    Very true I know that, but if apple does release a retina display in the 2012 refresh I will probably pull the trigger on that. I just don't want to do it and than a year later be disappointed with a 6 core option.

    I know there is always greater on the horizon i just want to time my purchase correctly to maximize the potential benefits.

    ALSO: Does anyone know if this would have any bearing on this issue - http://www.cpu-world.com/news_2011/..._Intel_Haswell_microarchitecture_surface.html

    From my reading (which I admit could very well be incorrect) it seems that Haswell will be just quad-core as well?
  9. MacForum55 macrumors newbie

    Mar 16, 2012

    Seeing the recent release of Ivy Bridge is making me think about next year already :rolleyes:

    I'd be interested to see if anyone has any more information considering there was even a workable demo of Haswell last year.

    And for that matter, I wonder if they will introduce 6 core options into the base 21" or 27" iMac or quad core will stay around much longer
  10. Boe11 macrumors 6502a

    Sep 12, 2010
    Then, yes. Lasers too.
  11. macmastersam macrumors 6502a

    Sep 14, 2011
    Essex, england
    Seems likely, because they are based off the same architecture and size as ivy bridge, so if there aren't any mobile 6-cores for that, then there can't be for haswell...

    But maybe broadwell will have 6-core mobile variants, as they will have a smaller, 14nm process than the 22nm ones of haswell and ivy bridge.

    Heck, we have only got the quad core ivy bridge processors yet, and haswell and broadwell are like at least 1-2 years from now.
  12. dusk007 macrumors 68040


    Dec 5, 2009
    I think they would probably go straight for 8 cores. The problem really is power consumption and already IB is not great so it depends what more they can squeeze out. If they can hardly keep 4 cores within 45W and they want to lower the TDP classes it seems likely they will stick with 2 or 4 cores.
    An 8 core would make sense for workstation class notebooks but 6 cores would hardly be worth it. That would be a new lower volume CPU seems doubtful that just 2 more cores really does it. 4 more will help with highly parallel workload. The die space can take it currently the 4 cores + LLC take about 50% die space. 150% would be only slightly bigger than Sandy Bridge.
    I am not sure if a highend mobile CPU line will show at all but if so I think they will aim straight for 8 cores not just 6.
  13. squeakr macrumors 68000


    Apr 22, 2010
    This is too far in advance to know accurately. With Apple making the OS more IOS like with each revision, we just may seems them release their own versions of the A5 or it's predecessor for their MacBook lines which is specifically designed to bring out the best of its OS?? Hey anything is possible (as we don't know what they have in development, as something like this could have been in development for the past 2-3 years and be ready in another year).
  14. PeterJP, Apr 25, 2012
    Last edited: Apr 25, 2012

    PeterJP macrumors regular


    Feb 2, 2012
    Leuven, Belgium

    good question. I was actually wondering about Skylake. It's rumoured to be the tock after the Haswell ticks into 14nm. Since I'm in doubt whether to wait for Ivy Bridge or to order right now, Skylake should be just in time to refresh my mac after that.

    Any info ? With process technology at 14nm mature at that stage, it should bring quite good architectural advances, no ? Or would it be better to wait for Skymont and the dip into 10nm technology after that ?

    Not looking for anything concrete, just predictions :rolleyes:

  15. dusk007 macrumors 68040


    Dec 5, 2009
    a) you'd need to recompile so many OSX apps that currently only support Intel Binaries.
    b) An A5 or A6 would still be far far away from the performance of a Ivy Bridge CPU. Just web rendering is a big task for an ARM. It cannot handle a Desktop workload yet. Even if it would suffice for some few people it would be such a huge step down, I cannot see them do it.
    Software optimization can only do so much, also it is doubtful anybody can truly compete with the compiler whizzes at Intel.

    ARM will stay iOS devices. If they ever move together on one platform that will be something like Win8 that supports both and be still 3-5 years in the future.
  16. Bubba Satori Suspended

    Bubba Satori

    Feb 15, 2008
    Yeah and all the Clevo vendors have them too.
    I think I even saw a Sager 15" with an i7 extreme in it.
    Would be cool to have OSX on one of those.
    Latest Kepler GPU, two raid 0 SSDs, BD burner and a bunch of USB3 ports
    for around $2,200. Oh well.
  17. dusk007 macrumors 68040


    Dec 5, 2009
    You guys to realize that those 6 core Sandy Bridge were E-Series CPUs. This are the ones with even higher TDP (130W) than normal Desktop class.
    Not comparable to a 2960XM or well any M series CPU. Not even the 55W top M series ever found its way into a MBP.
  18. theSeb macrumors 604


    Aug 10, 2010
    Poole, England
    Yes. Those "laptops" have desktop CPUs in them and the battery is more like a UPS since it lasts about 20 minutes. Have you ever seen the power supply for one of these "laptops"?
  19. dusk007 macrumors 68040


    Dec 5, 2009
    Not in person but considering 130W CPU+ 2x 100W GPU means you need a 330W AC Adapter. High efficiency just to keep heat in check and that thing is probably heavy like a stone, a big stone.
  20. theSeb macrumors 604


    Aug 10, 2010
    Poole, England
    The adaptor is 300W and weighs about 3 pounds. Now the problem is that in certain configurations the "laptop" actually needs more than 300W otherwise it will shut down under stress so you get two power packs...

  21. MagicBoy macrumors 68040


    May 28, 2006
    Manchester, UK
    Ask me again in 2013. I left my Crystal ball at home.
  22. squeakr macrumors 68000


    Apr 22, 2010
    Never say Never!!!

    a) ....Or just drop support for them without explanation (except to say that we don't need it) as they did with rosetta, adobe flash, and spaces implementations, and just let people suck it up (Apple has never been one to really bend to the demands of the customer. It was always, this is it, take it or leave it. Maybe with Steve gone this attitude has changed some??).

    b) The performance may be less, but if it is a chip of their design and manufacturer it could possibly lower costs and thus make them more affordable (thus putting them into a newer category, as they did with the iPad, a place where performance didn't matter in the beginning as there was nothing to measure against. You are assuming as well that they have just developed this processor within the last year. Do you think that Intel just recently developed the IvyBridge? It has been in the works for years in a lab somewhere, as most technology making it to current market is 4-5 or greater years old when it hits the market , just look at Thunderbolt/ Lightspeed. Apple hasn't always been about performance, in the early days they sacrificed performance for the slower chip and lower price of Motorola chips so they have a history of making choices on a cost basis. As to the compiler whizzes at Intel, they said the same thing about early search engine pioneers, until the Google engineers appeared out of nowhere and optimized their functionality like no one dreamed was possible.

    As for the merging of OS/IOS, once again we are not sure that this has not already been in the works for the last 5 years (the roadmap set) and Apple is just now on the first leg of actual implementation.

    I know lots of people that have gone away from their desktops to lower powered laptops and are just waiting for the day in the near future where they can move entirely to their iPad. These same people are entirely in the cloud as we speak. With cloud based processing (my company is currently rolling out a cloud based sharing system where one can purchase time on a cloud based network for the short times that they need the processing power increases). WIth such development as this, the need for high power portable processing is greatly reduced, and a higher powered A5/A6 chip logging into a powered server farm somewhere would be sufficient for the majority of users needs. Heck even parallels and VMWare have applications that allow one to log into a remote system for the heavier processing power needed. Imagine this on a larger scale implementation, and you can see the reduced need for high powered laptops, and many people will sacrifice power for battery life and weight, hence the success of the iPad and Air.
  23. pandamonia macrumors 6502a

    Nov 15, 2009
  24. dusk007 macrumors 68040


    Dec 5, 2009
    I am currently working on a VM Cloud based project. Data services like siri work good enough but for actual work Latency kills. That is a terrible user experience.
    Don't forget we are talking about MacBook Pros here. People edit pictures/movies on there. They browse the web with 40+ tabs open and suck in 4+GB RAM. Even something as simple as Word is a big challenge for a current Cortex A9 dual core.

    Apple can drop rosetta but how many still used that. A move to ARM would kill of iMovie, Photoshop, FCP, ... that stuff would be unusable on an ARM. To recompile something such as Photoshop is not as simple as for some simple textediting software.
    FCP would perform miserably.

    Don't forget those chips perform fairly well because most stuff on Tablets is not really heavy load and you usually only have one thing in focus. A couple browser windows with maybe 4 youtube windows loading simultaneously would bring an Cortex A9 Quad core to its knees. That would be a slideshow.

    Apple never was after the lower cost. It wouldn't save all that much money either at least not enough to make a new category. A 15" might be 300 bucks cheaper but that is still more expensive than normal Windows notebooks which would be actually useable fast.

    Developing an Cortex A15 isn't quite the same as an Ivy Bridge. I know they start about 5 years in they also have working silicon 1 year before release. There is already a Haswell ES. I don't say it cannot be done but the ARM designs are not fast enough.

    Even if they only switch the lowend 13",11.6" Airs to smartphone grade chips it would be the much smarter decision to use the 22nm Intel Medfield next gen. That would enable them to run all the normal Apps. It would just be a slower notebook. Their own AX wouldn't be that much cheaper to make all the downsides worth it.
    The whole move is somewhat doubtful. Considering how big of a step down in performance it is and how much of the total power draw goes to the display anyway in all the 13" and up displays. The battery could probably only shrink by 30% but the speed goes down too something less than what IB manages in the lowest active clock state.

    They won't do it because it would be a stupid idea.
  25. The Mercurian, Apr 27, 2012
    Last edited: Apr 27, 2012

    The Mercurian macrumors 65816

    Mar 17, 2012
    OP similar to you I would love more cores.
    I do stats and plan to do alot heavier statistics work, but I move around alot so desktops not suitable for me. I got fed up waitign for new models however and just invested in a MBP 15" quad core 2.5Ghz and got crucial 16Gb ram. Will put an SSd drive in eventually when they get cheaper.

    My thinking pretty much was - I want what best power I can get now. I don' expect Ivy bridge to be all the much more powerful than current models. Certainly not YET. Towards the end of Ivy bridge line you might see clock speeds rising and who knows they may have 6 core chips in their magic hat somewhere. But now entry level ivy bridge won't be soooo much faster than end of line sandybridge (maybe 30% tops). So anyhow I'm happy with the power I got now - come Haswell time - if I still do the same kind of work and feel this machine is old and I need more processing grunt I'll take a look again at whats available.

    Edit: to give you some idea of how powerful the current high end sandybridge is. I run BOINC on my old and new machine (old one is 2009 cored2 duo 2.26Ghz 4 Gb ram). The old one will churn out two average sized units in about 7 hours (one for each core). The new one, with 4 actual cores (and8 virtual cores), will churn out 8 average sized units in approx 3 hours. That's a HUUUUGGEEEE speed jump.

Share This Page