Apple Releases Updated MacBook Pros With Core i5 and i7 Processors

[Zadillo]

So does anyone actually know why they didn't implement 4 physical cores I have been waiting since September 2006 for this.... sad

The quad-core mobile i7 has a considerably higher TDP (45W compared to 35W for the dual core ones). Also note that the quad core ones have a base clockspeed of 1.6 or 1.73 GHz as opposed to 2.66GHz for the Core i6-620M. Heat and battery life are both major issues with this processor, which is why it is generally best suited for larger and thicker machines:

http://www.intel.com/products/processor/corei7/mobile/specifications.htm

If you absolutely need a machine with 4 physical cores, there are options available - and if you want something in a MBP-like form factor, there's the HP Envy 15 - although that machine is notorious for both incredible heat and very poor battery life (which is essentially what you get when you try and put a quad-core mobile i7 in a form factor like this).

I'd take a close look though at the actual performance differences between the dual core i7 and quad core, and see how much of a difference it really makes to you.

 

[iCreate]

So does anyone actually know why they didn't implement 4 physical cores I have been waiting since September 2006 for this.... sad

Me too. The culprit is heat! The 17" Core i7 MBP is already gets very hot. I suppose a case redesign for better airflow is required on the 17" and the 15" is a no go until they figure something out. Check out the thermals on tests run at PCAuthority.

 

[Zadillo]

Me too. The culprit is heat! The 17" Core i7 MBP is already gets very hot. I suppose a case redesign for better airflow is required on the 17" and the 15" is a no go until they figure something out. Check out the thermals on tests run at PCAuthority.

I'd like to point out again that there might be something wrong with their tests - look at their screenshot and note the fanspeeds are at 2000RPM - it's no wonder it's getting that hot. I personally run my Santa Rosa 15" MBP at 4000RPM pretty much all the time (using smcFanControl), and with the CPU that hot they should be ramping up to max speed.

My question is still primarily why the fans aren't running faster in their test unit (and I find it odd they didn't even notice/mention it).

 

[iCreate]

I'd like to point out again that there might be something wrong with their tests - look at their screenshot and note the fanspeeds are at 2000RPM - it's no wonder it's getting that hot. I personally run my Santa Rosa 15" MBP at 4000RPM pretty much all the time (using smcFanControl), and with the CPU that hot they should be ramping up to max speed.

My question is still primarily why the fans aren't running faster in their test unit (and I find it odd they didn't even notice/mention it).

4000RPM is extremely high. 2000RPM or there abouts is normal for MBPs.
That has to sound horribly loud.

 

[Zadillo]

4000RPM is extremely high. 2000RPM or there abouts is normal for MBPs.
That has to sound horribly loud.

2000 RPM is normal, yes. But when the CPU is being maxed out, and certainly when it's reaching a temp like 100 degrees C, they shouldn't still be running at 2000 RPM. The max fanspeed is 6000 RPM, and in the scenario they were running at, they probably should have been at that level. Again, this is why I say there seems to be something wrong that the fans would remain at 2000 (and from the screenshot, the fans never went higher than 3000).

For what it's worth, 4000 RPM on the MBP doesn't sound loud at all - as I said, I use smcFanControl to run my fans at that speed all the time. It's only at 6000 RPM that it's really "horribly loud".

Either way though, again - I agree, under normal load and idling, 2000 RPM should be fine. But the fact that their MBP's fans were staying at 2000 RPM with the CPU at full load and reaching 100 degrees C indicates some sort of issue (either with the unit, or some more general problem with the MBP and fanspeed).

The problem so far is that everyone is still just pointing to this one test - i haven't seen much in the way of other people running the same load tests and reaching the same CPU temps they did, and if they did, if their fans were also stuck at 2000 RPM or not.

 

[manneca]

I've had my i7 17 inch 8 GB Ram 2.66 GHz since last Wednesday. It is blazing fast. No heat problem whatever. I love it, love it, love it.

I upgraded from a 2007 MacBookPro 15 inch with 3GB Ram. That baby would get so hot my legs would be red for hours after it had been sitting on my lap.

 

[djasterix]

I've had my i7 17 inch 8 GB Ram 2.66 GHz since last Wednesday. It is blazing fast. No heat problem whatever. I love it, love it, love it.

I upgraded from a 2007 MacBookPro 15 inch with 3GB Ram. That baby would get so hot my legs would be red for hours after it had been sitting on my lap.

Same here with my entry model 15" i5 MBP, upgraded from my beloved Santa Rosa MacBook, you can really tell the difference in performance, I just love this beauty...

 

[daze]

I've had my i7 17 inch 8 GB Ram 2.66 GHz since last Wednesday. It is blazing fast. No heat problem whatever. I love it, love it, love it.

I upgraded from a 2007 MacBookPro 15 inch with 3GB Ram. That baby would get so hot my legs would be red for hours after it had been sitting on my lap.

I concur. The SantaRosa laptop was extremely hot but this i7 beauty seems to be chugging away at mock speed with almost no heat. Though it may be early to tell.

 

[djasterix]

I concur. The SantaRosa laptop was extremely hot but this i7 beauty seems to be chugging away at mock speed with almost no heat. Though it may be early to tell.

Hope this babies stay just like that, fast and warm...

 

[SeaFox]

I concur. The SantaRosa laptop was extremely hot but this i7 beauty seems to be chugging away at mock speed with almost no heat. Though it may be early to tell.

Mock speed?

So it only appears to be running fast, but it's not really?

 

[jcotteri]

The quad-core mobile i7 has a considerably higher TDP (45W compared to 35W for the dual core ones). Also note that the quad core ones have a base clockspeed of 1.6 or 1.73 GHz as opposed to 2.66GHz for the Core i6-620M. Heat and battery life are both major issues with this processor, which is why it is generally best suited for larger and thicker machines:

http://www.intel.com/products/processor/corei7/mobile/specifications.htm

If you absolutely need a machine with 4 physical cores, there are options available - and if you want something in a MBP-like form factor, there's the HP Envy 15 - although that machine is notorious for both incredible heat and very poor battery life (which is essentially what you get when you try and put a quad-core mobile i7 in a form factor like this).

I'd take a close look though at the actual performance differences between the dual core i7 and quad core, and see how much of a difference it really makes to you.

Thank you Zadillo as I expected... After much reading I have given this real thought, I guess the next major overhaul will be the one, in the meantime I will update anyway