Are you waiting for Arrandale or Clarksfield? Dual or Quad Core?

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by hundert, Feb 18, 2010.


So, do you want a Dual or Quad Core in the upcoming MBP?

  1. Quad Core! Clarksfield

    9 vote(s)
  2. Dual Core! Arrandale

    40 vote(s)
  1. hundert macrumors regular


    Jan 24, 2010

    I never knew until yesterday, that Arrandale does not have a Quad version. Freaking sweet Jesus Christ. My laptop is on eBay since yesterday, because I want a quad Macbook Pro.

    Now I am disappointed a little. A little too much. What if Apple won't put quads in their models AT ALL?
    Anyone has any predictions?

    Please, don't merge this thread into Arrandale. Thank you!
  2. Dekimasu macrumors regular

    Jan 17, 2008
    I have not seen anyone who thinks Apple will be putting a quad core in any of the laptops, even the 17" MacBook Pro. Sorry.
  3. ronjon10 macrumors regular

    Dec 9, 2009
    Who knows what they'll do, but I doubt it very much. The Clarksdale chips are battery eaters and would get about 2 hours per charge. I don't see Apple doing that.
  4. FoxDavis macrumors regular

    Feb 16, 2010
    Puyallup, WA.
    If Apple puts it in, then I don't care. I trust in that Apple makes good hardware choices.
  5. hundert thread starter macrumors regular


    Jan 24, 2010
    If people care about battery life in 17 inch, they bought a wrong laptop.

    I need it for Final Cut, some 3D modeling and Photoshop.

    I dont know who's gonna buy the 17 if not those who need the most power out of it.
  6. Jeeg macrumors member

    Feb 12, 2010
    Quad cores? don't those have like 55W TDP and last a maximum of 4 hours?

    Arrandale all the way!
  7. MacDawg macrumors Core


    Mar 20, 2004
    "Between the Hedges"
    People who buy a laptop with no battery life bought the wrong machine
    They should have bought a desktop
  8. cmChimera macrumors 68040


    Feb 12, 2010
    I'm waiting for the end of useless threads....
  9. bananaboi macrumors member

    Feb 1, 2010
    If I'm not mistaken, most core i5s run faster than core i7s on battery cuz of throttling issues.
  10. hundert thread starter macrumors regular


    Jan 24, 2010
    Desktop is not portable.
    Portable does not mean, that it has a battery built in.

    You guys render on battery?

    And why should I have a desktop if I have a desktop? Your point?

       /ˈpɔrtəbəl, ˈpoʊr-/ Show Spelled[pawr-tuh-buhl, pohr-] Show IPA
    capable of being transported or conveyed: a portable stage.
    easily carried or conveyed by hand: a portable typewriter.
    Computers. (of data sets, software, etc.) capable of being used on different computer systems.

    I want a portable computer. Something I can take with me to beverly hilton and work from there, understood?

    17 inch has always been THAT computer.
  11. Sneakz macrumors 65816


    Jul 17, 2008
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Its funny isn't it. You and Apple think the opposite when it comes to battery life on a 17" notebook. Well, I guess it doesn't really matter, cause Apple is gonna make high capacity battery and there isn't much you can do about it.
  12. Tricksy101 macrumors newbie

    Feb 5, 2010
    I hope they do. Seeing as the cheapest core i7 is a Quad :)
  13. hundert thread starter macrumors regular


    Jan 24, 2010
    I dont care whether it is there or not. But I care about performance.

    17 MBP has always been a Desktop Replacement. It always had good performance for a laptop.
  14. cloroxbleach4 macrumors 6502a


    Dec 28, 2007
    There has to be a balance between power and portability. In a laptop it should be more about portability, if you want power, Mac Pro.
  15. SecretAsianMan macrumors member

    Jul 9, 2008
    I'll buy quad core if I can. Battery life is for ... other people. I don't need it.
  16. Quicksilver867 macrumors regular

    Jun 25, 2007
    Quad core @ 1.xx GHz < Dual core @ 2.xx GHz **

    **in the vast majority of cases, at least :apple:

    I'm waiting for Arrandale, because I'd prefer to have to wait four days rather than the next 8/9 months.
  17. jawa12083 macrumors member

    Feb 9, 2010
    Wirelessly posted (iPod Touch 2G 8GB: Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_1_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7D11 Safari/528.16)

    If you really want super great performance, the HP envy should suit you well. Until it breaks. The next day.

    Since when did apple start releasig super beefed up laptops? Last time I checked, they were only beefed up. Laptops are made to be portable. To be movable. Most professionals who want the most the can get for their money, go with a desktop. If you really want that kind of power in a laptop, you're not going to get it. Plus, arrandales aren't pieces of ****.

    In the current iMacs, the high end model has an intel i7 860 processor. Most people have a 920, but the 860 is faster, when turbo boost is used. Why? Cuz it's newer. It supposed to be like a kid brother, but it's actually a kid brother with a rocket launcher while you're holding a pistol.

    If I'm not mistaken, arrandales are newer than clarkdales
  18. hypermog macrumors regular

    Nov 17, 2009
    With Hyper-Threading, Arrandale processors will have 4 logical cores. That good enough for you?
  19. hundert thread starter macrumors regular


    Jan 24, 2010
    You don't have to wait, CF is already out.

    And yeah, go to then select all arrandale and clarksfield CPUs and compare and see that only i7 Arrandale 2.6 makes any competition to the 1.6 CF and loses of course in cinebench All Cores.

    2.6 Arrandale vs 1.6 CF is fair comparison and while you gain a little of performance, you deal with hotter laptop. So, I could live with both. But dont you forget this was the fastest Arrandale to this time. There are slower models, some of which performing worse than C2D.

    While some other Arans have fair performance boost over C2Duo, 6000-6500 score in CineB10 is not a reason to upgrade, it is too close to the 2.8Penryn.

    Clarksfield is a real boost.

    The end performance is what matters, I dont care about number of cores or what color the die is. So far, the performance only of the highest Arrandale is good. But that one will be expensive.
  20. Cali3350 macrumors regular

    Feb 16, 2009
    Arrandale is only 2 core, true, but it supports Hyperthreading so the its essentially a 4 thread product.

    For non multi-threaded apps its a good ~20% improvement clock for clock. In heavily threaded apps its a solid ~40%. You wont be disappointed sir :)
  21. hundert thread starter macrumors regular


    Jan 24, 2010
    But looking at performance, they suck! Those number are true for Desktop reviews. I like the desktop version. But mobile benchmarks are horrible! No improvement!
  22. hellric macrumors member

    Feb 8, 2010
    If there was a quad available, I'd take this one, 4 hours of battery is enough for me.
    But there won't, Clarksfield i7 mobile quads were released in october !
    I hope I can get an i7 Arrandale.
  23. Tyrion macrumors 6502a

    Oct 15, 2002
    Clarksfield should simply be a BTO-option. That way, everyone's happy: people who want performance get the Clarksfield, everyone else is happy with Arrandale.
    I for one don't care about battery life, so bring on Clarksfield. Dual-core in 2010 is a no-go.
  24. hundert thread starter macrumors regular


    Jan 24, 2010
    That's of course the best what could happen :D But I am afraid, there will be not even an option.
  25. niuniu macrumors 68020


    Mar 29, 2009
    A man of the people. The right sort of people.
    Well Arrandale is a pretty big upgrade for me so I can't complain at that. Haven't seen any indication that Clarksfield is a possibility. Though if they take out the optical and replace it with an extra battery maybe that'd make more sense. Not sure how pleased a lot of users would be with that, and can't see it happening personally.

Share This Page