Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

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

quads are pretty much guaranteed to make it to MBPs when Ivy Bridge comes out in 2012, but with all these advances in power efficiency, Apple's running out of excuses to not offer a quad-core.


NickZac said:
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.
Click to expand...

video editing, 3D, and scientific applications are the few that can take advantage of 8 or more cores. there are plenty of programs (including design and photography) that can take advantage of 4. it's games and "normal" apps that rarely use more than two. Turbo Boost has made a big impact, though, especially with the more aggressive single-core Turbo and introduction of dual-core Turbo in SB. the answer to faster dual vs slower quad isn't so clear anymore.

the average consumer won't be running anything that requires a quad...but the average consumer won't be dropping $2200 (which quads would probably start at) for a laptop.

DudeMartin said:
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).
Click to expand...

then don't buy Macs until Apple puts in what you think they should put in. companies change their course based on profits, not consumers' opinions.
 
skiltrip said:
Hopefully this will be a driving factor for them, but Apple doesn't exactly cave to peer pressure. Most mac users are dedicated mac users, and would rather be 2 cores shy of the norm in orde to keep using mac osx.
Click to expand...

i think the thing is that apple always sells its products from a "user" perspective - touting how that machine will change your user experience. so like, they tend to present a more "wrapped up" product if you know what i mean. for example, the day before sandy bridge was released toshiba and hp already had their sandy bridge notebooks out. but like, all it was was the same previous design with the new processor. and im willing to bet that an ordinary user (like me...and...well i dont know you ;) would probably not tell a huge diff

where apple comes in on the other hand, is changing the user epxerience with its products. hence i dont think they will mind waiting a couple of months to really get the processor working by, for example, coming up with new photo editing apps, or enhancing key note or whatever. so the user really sees the benefit.

in fact, its probably a good marketing technique - wait for the initial "hype" around sandy bridge to fade out and then wow the market instead of trying to compete with every manufacturer that changed their processor and risk getting lost in the noise.

it anoys me though - how long will it be till the upgrade!!! plus im from south africa so have to wait like an extra month after the release for them to actually ship the thing down here.
 
I'll be buying whatever the newest top of the line MBP is, whether it be 2 or 4 core. The reason for me is I'm moving to a laptop platform for my main computer, and need to use it for developing iPhone apps. So it's a no brainier for me.

But many of the arguments here defending Apple against potentially not offering a quad core are delusional. I agree with an earlier poster saying Steve Jobs must be a genius, looking at some of the sentiment here.

If the industry standard is 4 cores, then surely the people forking out a huge price premium for these machines (us) better be getting 4 cores as well. It's one thing to pay a large price premium for comparable machines, but it is disgraceful to be paying a large price premium for lessor machines.

Some people here claim that this is justified by the wonders of OSX. That may have been true a few years ago, but the reality is that Windows 7 is every bit as stable and refined as OSX is now. The software advantage just does not exist like it used to - so Apple's hardware at least better catch up.
 
Last edited:
I'm actually happy this post exists. I keep debating whether to pull the trigger on a refurb i7 now. But I really just think I owe it to myself to see what Apple does with this next update. At the very least, a Quad at the top of the chain or as an upgrade option would be promising. I can see them sticking one at the top of the chain the way they did last year with the iMac.

Is there actually a Sandy Bridge mobile quad that would work? (based on the spreadsheets that were released listing all the SB cpu's). It seems like the lowest wattage on a mobile quad is 45watts. Can the MacBook Pro 15 and 17 do that currently, or is there something keeping a cap at 35watts?
 
laser71 said:
Some people here claim that this is justified by the wonders of OSX. That may have been true a few years ago, but the reality is that Windows 7 is every bit as stable and refined as OSX is now. The software advantage just does not exist like it used to - so Apple's hardware at least better catch up.
Click to expand...

I am forced to use Windows 7 at work
I'll be damned if I am going to use it when I go home

Say all you want about how stable and refined Windows 7 is now
I use it every.single.day.for.my.job.
I would never willing choose Windows over OS X regardless of specs

Choice is good, and those that want the uber performance of the latest and greatest liquid nitrogen cooled rocket processor... have at it
There will be a new one come along at the next computer sideshow

The bottom line, if you don't mind the Windows experience, pick one

What I have never understood is why folks want to force the Mac to be more PC like in specs and more Windows like in function
You have a choice
If that's what you want... buy a PC and leave the Mac alone

Same goes for wanting the iPhone to be more Droid like in function and appearance and on Verizon
You have a choice
If that's what you want... buy a Droid on Verizon, Sprint or whatever

Why do people buy a Mac and Bootcamp to make it run Windows all the time? (not just the occasional necessary program)
Why do people buy an iPhone to unlock and JB it to make it a Droid?

Look at the threads about Bootcamp... my drivers don't work, I can't connect to anything, I can't print, my bluetooth doesn't work, my games aren't fast... buy a PC

Look at the threads about JB... I lost my JB, my Cydia is screwed, help I bricked my iPhone, I can't restore, when is the next JB... buy a Droid

The Mac is not a Windows PC and the iPhone is not a Droid
And I thank God for that every day
 
laser71 said:
Some people here claim that this is justified by the wonders of OSX. That may have been true a few years ago, but the reality is that Windows 7 is every bit as stable and refined as OSX is now. The software advantage just does not exist like it used to - so Apple's hardware at least better catch up.
Click to expand...

I call BS. While Windows 7 is light years ahead of Vista, is nowhere near stable and efficient and OSX. I use Windows 7 on both my work machine and my wife's Dell and constantly have issues with either. My wife's Dell doesn't even play nice with her iPhone because of some chipset incompatibility. How lame is that? Windows machines are great if you want a hodge-podge of components and a choice of colors.

I for one will never buy another windows machine for my personal use, as long as Apple computers do what I need them to do. If the day comes that they are so far behind spec wise that I can't get my stuff done then obviously I will have to look in a different direction. That certainly isn't today or next month regardless if they go with a quad core or not.
 
toxic said:
quads are pretty much guaranteed to make it to MBPs when Ivy Bridge comes out in 2012, but with all these advances in power efficiency, Apple's running out of excuses to not offer a quad-core.




video editing, 3D, and scientific applications are the few that can take advantage of 8 or more cores. there are plenty of programs (including design and photography) that can take advantage of 4. it's games and "normal" apps that rarely use more than two. Turbo Boost has made a big impact, though, especially with the more aggressive single-core Turbo and introduction of dual-core Turbo in SB. the answer to faster dual vs slower quad isn't so clear anymore.

the average consumer won't be running anything that requires a quad...but the average consumer won't be dropping $2200 (which quads would probably start at) for a laptop.
Click to expand...

I agree it will be Ivy Bridge when quads will surely hit the MBP, as Intel has seemed to have implied that the Ivy Bridge will make quad cores standard in portables in the fashion that Core 2 Duo made dual cores the standard, and the supposed figures make Ivy Bridge look extremely energy efficient, making it more realistic to use in a portable.

Also, with dual core i7s which will run at 17 watts, companies would be foolish not to use them given the blend of capability and energy (and probably heat) efficiency. Finally, we all need to keep in mind that the primary purpose of having a portable computer is to be, well, portable. Capability has ALWAYS taken a backseat to mobility as laptops have never had the power of desktops. If a quad core MBP came out with the SB Extreme Quad i7 but also a 2 hour battery, it would be an utter and complete failure and you would have 'every man and his dog' complaining on this forum that the battery life sucks. I've heard hundreds of people talk how they take their MBP everywhere, including places without electricity (I do too)...how many people are going to drop 2 grand on crappy battery life (which really is the primary difference between a desktop)? I am not the best in science, but if we look at power consumption of current quad cores and also consider that they will need substantially different cooling mechanisms with higher power needs, it is NOT practical to put a quad core into the current MBP without increasing the size (look at the size of other quad laptops), and given that Ivy Bridge will be released soon with the same capability of SB but far better (energy and cost) efficiency and smaller size, does making a quad core with SB in the MBP really make that much sense? Does it really make that much sense to buy one knowing Ivy Bridge is close?
 
NickZac said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes it will. The clock speed of the Quad cores and Dual cores are pretty much the same. So the Quad cores are much faster.

Games, audio software and scientific software are also multicore.

Even if programs were all single core, it's still going to be alot better. You can run more programs at the same time.

I think only the 17" MBP will get a Quad core option imo.
 
mark28 said:
Yes it will. The clock speed of the Quad cores and Dual cores are pretty much the same. So the Quad cores are much faster.

Games, audio software and scientific software are also multicore.

Even if programs were all single core, it's still going to be alot better. You can run more programs at the same time.

I think only the 17" MBP will get a Quad core option imo.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with the 17" only thing. Anything the 17" gets the 15" will have as well. That's how it is now, and that's how it will be. A good chunk of users have no need for a laptop screen as big as the 17". When they are mobile, they want mobility, and when they are at their desk, they can plug it into a monitor. That's what I do , even with my 13".
 
skiltrip said:
I don't agree with the 17" only thing. Anything the 17" gets the 15" will have as well. That's how it is now, and that's how it will be. A good chunk of users have no need for a laptop screen as big as the 17". When they are mobile, they want mobility, and when they are at their desk, they can plug it into a monitor. That's what I do , even with my 13".
Click to expand...

I am in the market right now for a new MacBook Pro. I've looked at all of the current offerings, and I've really decided that the 15" high-resolution antiglare is the best form-factor and display option of all worlds. It provides plenty of workspace, the laptop is not too massive and bulky like the mammoth 17", and it is easier on the eyes than the high-ppi 17" display. The 15" seems to be my best option for a new MacBook Pro.

I'm holding out for Sandy Bridge, but not really sure if I should take the plunge now and get the current i7 2.8GHz model. It seems like a very fast machine, but the benefits of having a quad-core model would be even better, if Apple decides to go that route or use the 2630m (or better) in a laptop. It would be a big investment, I might even get it configured with an SSD or add an SSD later. I just don't want to be faced with selling a current model on eBay in 3-4 months to get a Sandy Bridge model if Apple decides to release these in April-May of this year.

I currently have two laptops, an 11" and a 13" MacBook Air. I originally purchased the 11" but decided I would like to have a 13" too to have a larger-sized, higher resolution display option for when I now need to do that kind of work. Now I have decided that a MacBook Pro 15" would better suit my needs for my larger-sized laptop. I will probably sell the 13" MacBook Air, keep the 11.6" model, and then buy the 15" MacBook Pro.

So, right now I am just looking everything over and deciding whether my best option would be to buy the 2.8GHz model in about a month, or to just wait until the Sandy Bridge is released and use my MacBook Air for now until the new models come out. It would be nice to have a MacBook Pro right now (I used to have a 2.4GHz Santa Rosa 15"), but I can probably do without one for a few months. The question is, how long will the wait really be, and is it worth it just to hold out and WAIT? Or will it be 6 months to 1 year before the new models are released? Any advice would be much helpful.

Thanks
-Ward
 
pricej636 said:
I call BS. While Windows 7 is light years ahead of Vista, is nowhere near stable and efficient and OSX. I use Windows 7 on both my work machine and my wife's Dell and constantly have issues with either. My wife's Dell doesn't even play nice with her iPhone because of some chipset incompatibility. How lame is that? Windows machines are great if you want a hodge-podge of components and a choice of colors.

I for one will never buy another windows machine for my personal use, as long as Apple computers do what I need them to do. If the day comes that they are so far behind spec wise that I can't get my stuff done then obviously I will have to look in a different direction. That certainly isn't today or next month regardless if they go with a quad core or not.
Click to expand...

Agree. I would still take OSX 10.2 over Windows 7 any day.
 
WardC said:
I would take System 7 over Windows 7 anyday. LOL.
Click to expand...


I honestly don't know if I would go that far, but if there was not an OSX option then I would run Linux/BSD/Haiku/Plan9/some-other-obscure-platform for my main box. I might have a Windows 7 machine as a secondary box or a dual boot for things like World of Warcraft, but that's about it.

I never had a particular fondness for System 7. It was nice. Better than Windows of the day, for sure. But at that time I was more obsessed with NeXTstep and BeOS.
 
MacDawg said:
I am forced to use Windows 7 at work
I'll be damned if I am going to use it when I go home

Say all you want about how stable and refined Windows 7 is now
I use it every.single.day.for.my.job.
I would never willing choose Windows over OS X regardless of specs

Choice is good, and those that want the uber performance of the latest and greatest liquid nitrogen cooled rocket processor... have at it
There will be a new one come along at the next computer sideshow

The bottom line, if you don't mind the Windows experience, pick one

What I have never understood is why folks want to force the Mac to be more PC like in specs and more Windows like in function
You have a choice
If that's what you want... buy a PC and leave the Mac alone

Same goes for wanting the iPhone to be more Droid like in function and appearance and on Verizon
You have a choice
If that's what you want... buy a Droid on Verizon, Sprint or whatever

Why do people buy a Mac and Bootcamp to make it run Windows all the time? (not just the occasional necessary program)
Why do people buy an iPhone to unlock and JB it to make it a Droid?

Look at the threads about Bootcamp... my drivers don't work, I can't connect to anything, I can't print, my bluetooth doesn't work, my games aren't fast... buy a PC

Look at the threads about JB... I lost my JB, my Cydia is screwed, help I bricked my iPhone, I can't restore, when is the next JB... buy a Droid

The Mac is not a Windows PC and the iPhone is not a Droid
And I thank God for that every day
Click to expand...

The mere fact that you are using Windows 7 (and not OS/X) for business every day is a testament to the quality of Windows OS. Businesses are not known for choosing inferior products. The problems with Bootcamp are obviously caused by Apple design. Apple is a hardware company first. Their software often has questionable quality.
 
while quad cores would be awesome, most people who buy MBP (and drop 2200+ on a sweet laptop) are not pros...in the sense that they make money off the laptop.

Maybe its where I live, but I see LOTS of students and professionals who use 15 and 17in MBPs mostly for office work and occasional photo/video as needed. Not hardcore design. True Quad-core would be awesome for the people that need it...but most don't, at least not yet. And honestly, I think most pros still get more work done just by virtue of OSX vs 2 more cores (I know which I would rather have......). And I think the ones that need real horsepower use a desktop. Correct me if I am wrong.

IMO Apple has far more to gain by promoting their MBPs as cheaper, cooler (not running hot) and with longer battery life. The number of true cores may be secondary in their POV. It may not be worth it for them to cram a quad core in their flagship line at a compromise of "experience" and/or portability

If I was Apple, I would milk the dual core i7 for all it was worth and work on adding features like SSD or cutting the ODD (needs to gain broad market acceptance somehow). These changes help all target demographics of the MBP, except for people who need to burn discs on the go. When the next pro is redesigned from the ground up (unibody or not), THEN they can add SSD standard, cut the ODD and put a lot of focus on having to cool a quad or hex processor in a laptop (which should be easier with SSDs and more space). I don't think the current design was really made to cool a quad core.

I think a quad or hex processor is never really NEEDED in a laptop anyways. Do people really do video rendering at the coffeeshop? Photo editing is ok with "just" 4 virtual cores. While the MBP is aimed at pros, some professional work just cannot be easily done on a laptop from which the market demands more portability from than performance.

I am in the market for a MBP 15" myself. A top of the line 15 with a monitor costs the same as an entry level mac pro with a monitor and a hell of a lot more than an imac. And granted, I am a "professional"...but I do office work essentially with photography as a serious hobby. So I honestly, I do not know what it is like to truly need 4-6 cores (but I DO understand want! ;-) )

From Apples POV in the current lineup, If you REALLY, TRULY need to do super multicore apps, why would you pay 2500+ for a top end MBP when you can pay 2000-2500 for a top end imac that runs faster, or 2500 for a Mac Pro? Most portable work can be done on an ipad or used MBP. Things like showing clients projects can likely be done on an ipad, using a combo of video and screen caps...and its more portable.

True, this screws a small segment of pros...programmers, people who really need to do hardcore stuff on the go, and pros who can only afford one machine. But I think Apples market is portable professionals AND general consumers...unfortunately, that means they may have to compromise on performance for a portion of one group in order to improve aspects for most of both groups.
 
Last edited:
lilo777 said:
The mere fact that you are using Windows 7 (and not OS/X) for business every day is a testament to the quality of Windows OS. Businesses are not known for choosing inferior products. The problems with Bootcamp are obviously caused by Apple design. Apple is a hardware company first. Their software often has questionable quality.
Click to expand...

Windows is cheaper, and most software is written for Windows in the business world. It really has nothing to do with the quality of OS IMO.
 
MacDawg said:
I am forced to use Windows 7 at work
I'll be damned if I am going to use it when I go home

Say all you want about how stable and refined Windows 7 is now
I use it every.single.day.for.my.job.
I would never willing choose Windows over OS X regardless of specs

Choice is good, and those that want the uber performance of the latest and greatest liquid nitrogen cooled rocket processor... have at it
There will be a new one come along at the next computer sideshow

The bottom line, if you don't mind the Windows experience, pick one

What I have never understood is why folks want to force the Mac to be more PC like in specs and more Windows like in function
You have a choice
If that's what you want... buy a PC and leave the Mac alone

Same goes for wanting the iPhone to be more Droid like in function and appearance and on Verizon
You have a choice
If that's what you want... buy a Droid on Verizon, Sprint or whatever

Why do people buy a Mac and Bootcamp to make it run Windows all the time? (not just the occasional necessary program)
Why do people buy an iPhone to unlock and JB it to make it a Droid?

Look at the threads about Bootcamp... my drivers don't work, I can't connect to anything, I can't print, my bluetooth doesn't work, my games aren't fast... buy a PC

Look at the threads about JB... I lost my JB, my Cydia is screwed, help I bricked my iPhone, I can't restore, when is the next JB... buy a Droid

The Mac is not a Windows PC and the iPhone is not a Droid
And I thank God for that every day
Click to expand...

first of all, no. clearly the reason people want features from both Os's or iphone and android is because they both good features to offer that the other doesnt. if you havent noticed, OS's have become more and more similar because users want the best of both worlds, so Microsoft and Apple would be foolish not to copy each other. It doesnt have to be a black and white decision.

Also, i am planning to buy a new MBP and I actually prefer windows 7 to OSX (i have a 4 year old computer and have upgraded from xp>vista>7 and it never crashes)
 
pricej636 said:
Windows is cheaper, and most software is written for Windows in the business world. It really has nothing to do with the quality of OS IMO.
Click to expand...

Mac OS X v10.6 Snow Leopard + iLIfe '11 - $114.99 (Amazon)
Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate - $269.99 (Amazon)
 
bossmanjunior said:
clearly the reason people want features from both Os's or iphone and android is because they both good features to offer that the other doesnt. if you havent noticed, OS's have become more and more similar because users want the best of both worlds, so Microsoft and Apple would be foolish not to copy each other. It doesnt have to be a black and white decision.
Click to expand...

I agree with this about 85%. Indeed, compatibility of both Microsoft and Unix based products have gotten much closer than it has say 10 years ago and because of this I can use my OSX Mac for my work which is a Windows world. Furthermore, Macs would not have the ability to easily run Windows provided their was no reason and indeed, most Mac users will at some point need to use Windows. It is also worth noting that in MS Office, the business standard of normal processing, new features have been used and tested on OS X platforms BEFORE Windows.

Going back to the quad core argument, there are many features that are more important than quad core processors that should be addressed in the upcoming MBP, ESPECIALLY the addition of USB3 and HDMI which supports A/V, which are both going to be (and largely are) the new standard. Personally, the lack of USB3 and HDMI on the upcoming MBP would be more likely to discourage me than dual v. quad core processing.

On the flipside, you could say quad cores are critical for Macs as Mac has historically used newer technologies earlier and that with the versatility of Unix that theoretically, once quad cores 'pop up' in Macs, programs designed around quad core processing will follow very quickly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back