CES - Every man and his dog is using Sandybridge Quad core

[Inconsequential]

Unfortunately the day and age of the hardcore Apple users being the dominant forces in Apple's profit are LONG gone.

95% of purchases now are general users who don't know their cores from their threads, so if it's a Core i7 2600k or a Core i7 820UM they really don't know, or even care.

People like myself who have been using macs for years and years have all the software, filesystems and productivity sorted out that changing to Windows to save a few quid or get a few more cores isn't really an option worth considering.

The MBPs will get a refresh, and soon i'd imagine. It won't be as long as the i5's took tho.

 

[Erasmus]

95% of purchases now are general users who don't know their cores from their threads...

There's also a 98% chance that both my and your statistics were made up on the spot.

Apple computers are always great. The present MBPs are great (although way overpriced, but only because Apple doesn't lower prices over time) and the next generation will be great too. They just might not be great enough for us few heavy, demanding, cynical and pessimistic users to be impressed.

But, Apple know that if they disappoint, and rely on pure marketing to get sales, they will lose out in the long run, as people will stop buying products. People trust Apple to make decisions for them based on what they need, instead of what they want.

 

[NickZac]

How many programs can run multi-core tasks other than video editing? To my understanding not too many; and many are still single core. For some programs, a higher speed CPU will run faster than a lower speed quad core CPU. Should the quad core be an option? It would be a good idea on the 15/17 if possible, but even if the MBP stays dual core, it theoretically will not be substantially slower.

 

[Erasmus]

How many programs can run multi-core tasks other than video editing? To my understanding not too many; and many are still single core. For some programs, a higher speed CPU will run faster than a lower speed quad core CPU. Should the quad core be an option? It would be a good idea on the 15/17 if possible, but even if the MBP stays dual core, it theoretically will not be substantially slower.

Intel's turbo boost technology nullifies this argument. By shutting down 2 or even 3 cores, the remaining core/s can be overclocked by around 50%, whereas the duals don't overclock as much. This means that both quads and duals will perform similarly on single thread apps, but the quads will destroy the duals for:

- Video editing and encoding
- Ray tracing
- Computational fluid dynamics
- Finite element analysis
- Maths (PDE/ODE) solvers

and pretty much anything else that's actually useful for work.

 

[Mr. Wonderful]

How many programs can run multi-core tasks other than video editing? To my understanding not too many; and many are still single core. For some programs, a higher speed CPU will run faster than a lower speed quad core CPU. Should the quad core be an option? It would be a good idea on the 15/17 if possible, but even if the MBP stays dual core, it theoretically will not be substantially slower.

In many cases this is caused by developers not taking advantage of the CPUs, not because the programs don't need to.

And I know this is a tired argument, and I apologize for bringing it in to this thread, but HP just updated their laptop lines online from CES, and I can configure a 15" Quad-Core 2630QM machine with an AMD 6550 GPU for $999. It's really going to look pathetic if Apple compete with a $999 machine with their $1699 15" MacBook Pro. Usually Apple machines are actually semi-close to their competitors in similar product groups, and there really isn't that much of the legendary "Apple Tax."

But a $700 of a difference, and if Dual Core, a much less powerful machine would be really bad.

 

[NickZac]

Okay, so you see 2.7/3.6GHz for instance, the 2.7 is all four cores where as the 3.6 is only one operating core which overclocks?

But a $700 of a difference, and if Dual Core, a much less powerful machine would be really bad.

That is true; the 13 not so much as it is less expensive, but the 15/17 which for the 'starter' config is about 2 grand, well it should have numerous features which make it stand taller than the crowd

 

[pricej636]

I for one could care less about having the fastest computer on the block although I am pretty sure I already do I bought my MBP for overall design, functionality and stability. This machine far exceeds my expectations. There is definitely more than to a computer than raw processing power.

Hell, if I wanted a faster processor I could still sell my nearly year old MBP and have enough for a decent i5 windows machine. But then Id have to reboot it every day or so, an charge it 6 times a day to get through a normal days business. No thank you.

 

[Erasmus]

I for one could care less about having the fastest computer on the block although I am pretty sure I already do I bought my MBP for overall design, functionality and stability. This machine far exceeds my expectations. There is definitely more than to a computer than raw processing power.

Hell, if I wanted a faster processor I could still sell my nearly year old MBP and have enough for a decent i5 windows machine. But then Id have to reboot it every day or so, an charge it 6 times a day to get through a normal days business. No thank you.

Yes, there is more to a computer than raw performance, but if it's not fast enough to do what you want from it, then it's not good enough. Some other computer manufacturers do create fantastic computers (ie HP Envy) which Apple should take more note of.

I was about to flame you for your post, but then realised I was being a bit harsh. I'm sick of people defending the low performance of MBPs because of the battery life and thinness, and especially the OS. Apple computers are far from perfect.

On the other hand, I'm also sick of people trolling about how some other computer is so much faster than a MBP but so much cheaper. The present MBPs ARE overpriced and slow, but they will be refreshed soon, and that will change. But that doesn't mean Apple shouldn't be trying to improve their performance significantly.

So, instead of flaming you, I'll just leave this here for a note to all Apple and non-Apple blind fans out there:

Thank you for your completely useless post. I was just beginning to gain faith in my fellow internet community, but you just reminded me why I hate people on the internet so much.

 

[TuffLuffJimmy]

Yes, there is more to a computer than raw performance, but if it's not fast enough to do what you want from it, then it's not good enough. Some other computer manufacturers do create fantastic computers (ie HP Envy) which Apple should take more note of.

What are you doing on your computer that you need even an i3 processor? The vast majority of Mac computer users (most spend over a thousand I'm sure) use their computers for nothing more than iTunes, email, web browsing, and probably photo viewing.

 

[Erasmus]

What are you doing on your computer that you need even an i3 processor? The vast majority of Mac computer users (most spend over a thousand I'm sure) use their computers for nothing more than iTunes, email, web browsing, and probably photo viewing.

Well, I like playing games, but even more than that on the CPU side, I'm an engineering post-grad, which means heavy MATLAB and C++ code. And as I'm writing it, it will be multithreaded, and I'll be using all available cores.

I'm sure a lot of mac users don't need a fast computer, which is why the 13"ers are so popular. But I'm confident that a large number of mac users, especially 15" and 17" users like me, need all the CPU they can get.

The MBA is for people who do iTunes, internet and iPhoto only. MBP should be for people who should probably get a Mac Pro or iMac (scientific/engineering computing), but who need portability too.

 

[Aatos.1]

My dog has better things to do...

 

[jetblk328i]

Given my history with PC laptops, I'll stick with my 13" C2D and OSX.

 

[NT1440]

If Apple don't at least offer the i7 2630qm (or higher) in their 17" they will be a real laughing stock with everyone else is putting them in compact 15" laptops.

You joined in 2008, far long enough to realize that every CPU revision tons of people post this same type of stupid comment.

Apple is a real laughing stock eating up enormous profits in the computer industry.

 

[Erasmus]

You joined in 2008, far long enough to realize that every CPU revision tons of people post this same type of stupid comment.

Apple is a real laughing stock eating up enormous profits in the computer industry.

Every other revision mobile quad core has been for the enthusiast market only. Starting from now, it's performance and mainstream market. Starting next year, it will be entry level market.

So it's not a stupid comment. This is the first time that quad core MBPs are likely, and if Apple don't go quad MBPs now, and quad MBAs next year, Apple computers will be significantly slower than their competition from the moment they are released, which will be a problem.

If the MBPs don't have quad core, or a REALLY good mobile graphics card to temper my disappointment, I won't be investing until Apple releases something actually worth buying.

 

[Mal67]

What are you doing on your computer that you need even an i3 processor? The vast majority of Mac computer users (most spend over a thousand I'm sure) use their computers for nothing more than iTunes, email, web browsing, and probably photo viewing.

It's interesting just how few C2d notebooks are left out there for sale at the retailers now. Whereas they're full of i3 and i5 models from the different manufacturers quite often with 1 gig vid cards all for sale at prices less than would have got a reasonable c2 machine two years ago. Sure people might just be using them for itunes, email, web and photo viewing but at least they've got the choice to be able to purchase the latest processors in their notebooks regardless of use. Imo I expect Apple to run the latest stuff in all their machines

 

[DudeMartin]

Yeah I think the Apple consumer has a right to demand hardware that is up to par, especially when they are paying quite a bit more than an equivalent PC (yes I know you get the other 'perks' with a Mac, but I still don't think that's worth half of its price).

 

[NT1440]

Every other revision mobile quad core has been for the enthusiast market only. Starting from now, it's performance and mainstream market. Starting next year, it will be entry level market.

So it's not a stupid comment. This is the first time that quad core MBPs are likely, and if Apple don't go quad MBPs now, and quad MBAs next year, Apple computers will be significantly slower than their competition from the moment they are released, which will be a problem.

If the MBPs don't have quad core, or a REALLY good mobile graphics card to temper my disappointment, I won't be investing until Apple releases something actually worth buying.

I meant stupid in the sense that Apple will be seen as a joke to anyone other than the spec nerds. The rest of the industry sees Apple as nothing but a threat, seeing as they make profits hand over fist offering such "inferior" specs.

I do like that you made the point of voting with your wallet, which is the right thing to do as a consumer.

 

[munkery]

I won't be surprised if Apple goes for the lower wattage Core i7 (dual core) 2620M over the 2630QM due to the 2620M producing better battery life and having a faster turbo clock rate (1300MHz for 2620M vs 1100MHz for 2630QM) for the integrated graphics. The cost difference for manufacturers between these two chips is not huge (highest end dual vs lowest end quad) and general computer users won't notice a difference in performance while getting a noticeable increase in battery life. This is what Apple did in the previous generation of MacBook Pro. Speculations around the web are hinting that some models will no longer have dedicated graphics so the faster graphics clock rate will be a factor in Apple's decision. Most likely the models with dedicated graphics will not have graphic cards as fast as comparable PCs due to battery life considerations as well.

 

[grahamnp]

There are many reasons for this

1. They only have quad-cores to use even if they wanted to use a dual core, they couldn't. Not yet.

2. Their laptops handle heat better than Apple's do.

3. Battery life is not as much of a concern for them.

4. Their profit margins are not as fat as Apple's.

The Sandy Bridge QC processor's have a TDP of 45w, the i7 DC is 35w and the i5s will be 25w

The MBP can barely handle the thermal output of the current 35W i7 so even if there was a QC on offer, I'm not sure many would want it.

 

[wywern209]

the newer 45tdp W quadcores don't always use 45W. They scalably use power. this results with better battery life than last year's QCs.

 

[munkery]

the newer 45tdp W quadcores don't always use 45W. They scalably use power. this results with better battery life than last year's QCs.

From what I understand the scalability includes overclocking each core in use to maximize TDP usage. For example (actual numbers may be wrong): 1 core at 45 with three idle, 2 cores at 22.5 with 2 idle, 3 cores at 15 with 1 idle, & 4 cores at 11.25.

Some overall overclocking can also occur where TDP is surpassed (>45) for short bursts if needed.

This feature is not limited to quad core Sandy Bridge but is available for the architecture in general.

This will lead to reduced battery life if anything. Most likely another reason Apple will only have quad as an option if at all.

It is actually some of the dual core i7s that are 25 W while the i5s are 35W. A few 17W versions of both. At least according to Wikipedia.

Given the rumoured February release date of the new MacBook Pros corresponds with the release of dual core Sandy Bridge, I think it is a possibility that quad cores won't be the default config of the new machines.

 

[Erasmus]

From what I understand the scalability includes overclocking each core in use to maximize TDP usage. For example (actual numbers may be wrong): 1 core at 45 with three idle, 2 cores at 22.5 with 2 idle, 3 cores at 15 with 1 idle, & 4 cores at 11.25. Some overall overclocking can also occur where TDP is surpassed (>45) for short bursts if needed.

Indeed this is true, but so what? It's not like it always uses at least 45W. If you're not doing much, it underclocks itself to around 800MHz, I believe, and uses a very small amount of power. The TDP is just a recommendation from Intel that cooling systems should be able to dissipate that much heat to be able to use turbo effectively. If Apple were to use a lower performance cooling solution, it would just mean the CPU would turbo lower, and for less time. Still be faster than a dual

Furthermore, a quad CPU (as you can surmise from the TDPs) will get more done in much less time, and due to the power drain being only slightly higher than a dual, will use less total energy. Hence a quad should actually save battery life. The only real reason Apple may not use a quad is cost.

Given the rumoured February release date of the new MacBook Pros corresponds with the release of dual core Sandy Bridge, I think it is a possibility that quad cores won't be the default config of the new machines.

The rumored/expected February release date is simply due to the fact that Apple very rarely release things in January. Less of an effect is that the 13" are unlikely to get quads to keep their price down, and heat management constraints, and Apple will want to release all MBPs at once. Hence after duals have been released as well.

 

[gorjan]

I think that for most part Mac users like the "it just works" part. It like this for me at least. I don't actually care all that much about what's underneath the keyboard anymore (to a degree at least). When I used Windows (and when I had the time to care) it was all specs, specs, specs, but that gets tiring. Now I just want a Mac that does what I want it to do, reasonably fast. When it gets too slow, I'll buy a new one and I'm sure it will do what I want it to do at that time, reasonably fast, being quad, hex or mega core.

windows --> violent anger "this program has performed an illegal operation and will be shut down"
what the &$%@ does that mean?! Did it deal some smack to a cop? Perhaps it went streaking in public?

 

[WelshBluebird]

It's interesting just how few C2d notebooks are left out there for sale at the retailers now. Whereas they're full of i3 and i5 models from the different manufacturers quite often with 1 gig vid cards all for sale at prices less than would have got a reasonable c2 machine two years ago. Sure people might just be using them for itunes, email, web and photo viewing but at least they've got the choice to be able to purchase the latest processors in their notebooks regardless of use. Imo I expect Apple to run the latest stuff in all their machines

I don't see the point of that argument. Especially considering the old i3's (from last year) are no better than the Core 2 Duos. Its really a pointless argument. Especially in the 13" as apple essentially had the choice of an i3 + intel graphics, or a C2D with the 320M. As both CPU's are about the same, it was obvious for apple for choose the option with the better GPU.

Of course, for the 15" and 17" models where an i5 (or i7) is possible then it is a different story (and will be a different story for the 13" with sandy bridge).

 

[Inconsequential]

There's also a 98% chance that both my and your statistics were made up on the spot.

Do you really think that I'm really far from the truth when I said 95%?