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

[munkery]

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.

I see your point but unless your a Pro user the benefits are negligible. Most people with MacBook Pros could get by with low-end new MacBook Air or Macbook given how they use their computer. But, this definitely impacts Pro consumers that I do not think are the majority of MacBook Pro buyers anymore?

Previous generations underclock below max as well so for new generation with same idle usage with greater max usage equals reduced battery life for similar design chips across generations. Producing heat from energy is very inefficient so a more effective cooling system (45W vs 35W) is a more efficient energy wasting system. Better battery life comes from lower "overall" clock speed with less efficient heat dissipation when a machine is run at max. At max with turbo, quads have greater overall clock and greater TDP.

True, you may get less done over the same time period with dual but if your battery runs out then you got less done anyway with quad. I do not know the specifics about that cost benefit analysis. Plus, I suspect many users would run off the power adapter during sustained and intensive computing tasks that benefit from a quad so really even battery life considerations may be just for marketing?

Maybe this thread is really about differences in marketing strategy, horse power (PC) vs. battery consumption (Mac)?

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.

Good point. But, it is rumoured the 13 inch will no longer have dedicated graphics (EDIT: already has only integrated; meant switch from Nvidia to Intel) so another factor is the dual core i7 2620M has a faster turbo clock rate for its integrated graphics. This would allow an i7 in the 13" as no cost for dedicated graphics. But, it would be strange for a Pro machine to not have dedicated graphics. Maybe the rumours are about the non-pro Macbook getting an iX cpu?

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?

From what I understand the slim MacBook Pro form factor limits the TDP that are usable due to heat limitations. If the unibody for the next gen is the same, I don't think you will see 45W chips in the MacBook Pros. But, that is just my opinion.

 

[skiltrip]

I see your point but unless your a Pro user the benefits are negligible. Most people with MacBook Pros could get by with low-end new MacBook Air or Macbook given how they use their computer. But, this definitely impacts Pro consumers that I do not think are the majority of MacBook Pro buyers anymore?

Previous generations underclock below max as well so for new generation with same idle usage with greater max usage equals reduced battery life for similar design chips across generations. Producing heat from energy is very inefficient so a more effective cooling system (45W vs 35W) is a more efficient energy wasting system. Better battery life comes from lower "overall" clock speed with less efficient heat dissipation when a machine is run at max. At max with turbo, quads have greater overall clock and greater TDP.

True, you may get less done over the same time period with dual but if your battery runs out then you got less done anyway with quad. I do not know the specifics about that cost benefit analysis. Plus, I suspect many users would run off the power adapter during sustained and intensive computing tasks that benefit from a quad so really even battery life considerations may be just for marketing?

Maybe this thread is really about differences in marketing strategy, horse power (PC) vs. battery consumption (Mac)?



Good point. But, it is rumoured the 13 inch will no longer have dedicated graphics so another factor is the dual core i7 2620M has a faster turbo clock rate for its integrated graphics. This would allow an i7 in the 13" as no cost for dedicated graphics. But, it would be strange for a Pro machine to not have dedicated graphics. Maybe the rumours are about the non-pro Macbook getting an iX cpu?



From what I understand the slim MacBook Pro form factor limits the TDP that are usable due to heat limitations. If the unibody for the next gen is the same, I don't think you will see 45W chips in the MacBook Pros. But, that is just my opinion.

So as they are now, the max wattage is 35watts?

 

[munkery]

So as they are now, the max wattage is 35watts?

I do believe so? https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Nehalem_(microarchitecture)#32_nm_Arrandale. But, that is wikipedia so it could be wrong?

The limit was in the cpus that were available not in the MBP design. But, if Apple made the form factor around the that heat output that could be the limit for the MBP.

 

[MacDawg]

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.

I actually LOL'ed

 

[whitedragon101]

This is in no way productive but it made me laugh when I thought of it.

It seems a lot of people posting are in the I just browse the web and use iTunes and don't need decent specs and will buy a ham sandwhich if its sold by apple and runs OSX. If only there were an Apple notebook product designed for the professional user who does need professional specs.

Hmm what would you call a Macbook with the specs to satisfy professional needs.... a Macbook something...... hmmmm.......

 

[munkery]

This is in no way productive but it made me laugh when I thought of it.

It seems a lot of people posting are in the I just browse the web and use iTunes and don't need decent specs and will buy a ham sandwhich if its sold by apple and runs OSX. If only there were an Apple notebook product designed for the professional user who does need professional specs.

Hmm what would you call a Macbook with the specs to satisfy professional needs.... a Macbook something...... hmmmm.......

Exactly, how many people do you see using MacBook Pros that are the average consumer?

The product is beginning to fit the needs of the demographic that is buying it the most. Which is a shame for those that legitimately need a "Pro" machine but marketing to the largest buyer demographic leads to more profit and that is the goal in business.

There may be a demographic of "Pro" users that benefit from Apples paradigm as well, such as photographers, that need a portable with more manageable dimensions and battery life over horse power for the tasks that they need to accomplish. Much of the tasks stated to benefit from Quad core systems, such as video work, I see being completed on Mac Pros?

 

[Erasmus]

I see your point but unless your a Pro user the benefits are negligible. Most people with MacBook Pros could get by with low-end new MacBook Air or Macbook given how they use their computer. But, this definitely impacts Pro consumers that I do not think are the majority of MacBook Pro buyers anymore?

Apple shouldn't be catering for the silly people who buy MBPs when they should be buying MBAs. Firstly, it will end up ruining their computers, and secondly those silly people will buy MBPs regardless of how powerful and expensive they are.

True, you may get less done over the same time period with dual but if your battery runs out then you got less done anyway with quad. I do not know the specifics about that cost benefit analysis.

I'm just thinking that 4 cores * 2.0 GHz / 45 W is still a bigger number than 2 * 2.5 / 35. Which suggests that any high performance applications will get more done on a single battery charge with the quads.

Good point. But, it is rumoured the 13 inch will no longer have dedicated graphics so another factor is the dual core i7 2620M has a faster turbo clock rate for its integrated graphics. This would allow an i7 in the 13" as no cost for dedicated graphics. But, it would be strange for a Pro machine to not have dedicated graphics. Maybe the rumours are about the non-pro Macbook getting an iX cpu?

I read that rumor, and found it thoroughly unconvincing. It suggested new MBPs in April at the earliest, which is just BS. It also just said no discrete graphics for low end Apple notebooks. Which at the moment includes the 13" MBP, but it shouldn't. I'm sure most people would prefer the optical drive was removed in order to allow both a Core i5 and a discrete AMD GPU.

From what I understand the slim MacBook Pro form factor limits the TDP that are usable due to heat limitations. If the unibody for the next gen is the same, I don't think you will see 45W chips in the MacBook Pros. But, that is just my opinion.

I have to mention again that the TDP is just a recommendation from Intel as to the abilities of the cooling system required. The quads have the capability of drawing more power, but that doesn't mean they have to. These CPUs will scale themselves up and down to fit whatever cooling system they are given.

 

[munkery]

Apple shouldn't be catering for the silly people who buy MBPs when they should be buying MBAs. Firstly, it will end up ruining their computers, and secondly those silly people will buy MBPs regardless of how powerful and expensive they are.

I totally agree (Edit: Apple should make a broader range of average consumer products and fewer "Pro" models, but the name "Pro" has marketing value so really what is the difference? Also, what are consumers supposed to do if they want a Mac with a screen that is bigger than 13"). My next purchase would be a MBA. I do think cost is factor making people decide whether or not to purchase the more expensive "Pro" so make the gap smaller get more jumpers.

I'm just thinking that 4 cores * 2.0 GHz / 45 W is still a bigger number than 2 * 2.5 / 35. Which suggests that any high performance applications will get more done on a single battery charge with the quads.

Energy usage is not linearly efficient when heat is a factor. Heat is a fundamental variable in that equation.

I'm sure most people would prefer the optical drive was removed in order to allow both a Core i5 and a discrete AMD GPU.

No discrete graphics in a "Pro" machine does seem pointless but if the market trends are moving in that direction then that could occur. (EDIT: for example, the 13" Pro only has integrated graphics. Switch from Nvidia to Intel?)

I have to mention again that the TDP is just a recommendation from Intel as to the abilities of the cooling system required. The quads have the capability of drawing more power, but that doesn't mean they have to. These CPUs will scale themselves up and down to fit whatever cooling system they are given.

Recommendations are a minimum not a maximum. To get a quad to work with TDP of 35W requires underclocking the cpu or as you suggested the quad limiting its output (same thing).

What is the point of the manufacturer putting in a more expensive underclocked quad cpu to get not much benefit over the dual? The benefit of the quad over the dual is already debatable for most users.

Other than being able to market the fact that "hey, we gotta quad," it doesn't make sense because that cost will then have to be transferred to the consumer. Although, that may be a possibility if the market demands that product. I wouldn't be surprised if the top model 15" and 17" have quads if heat is not an issue.

I hope the MacBook Pros see a cost correction with the upcoming update much like occurred with the MacBook Airs given that the cost of hardware similar to what is predicted for the next Pros is much lower than the typical cost of a Pro. Usually this differential is not bad right after the Mac hardware update but near the end of the refresh cycle, as in right now, the gap starts to appear ridiculous.

 

[NickZac]

The problems with Bootcamp are obviously caused by Apple design. Apple is a hardware company first. Their software often has questionable quality.

RLY?

Perhaps the questionable quality of Apple software is the main reason that OSX has so many repeat customers that will pay more for a Mac than a PC; that makes perfect sense.

And yes, there will be some questionable software for OSX because end users make lots of software and programs, many which are free, and not everything will be equal. Free programs for the Unix based Apples are abundant; try to find that with Windows.

As far as Apple's software, Office Mac 08 and 11 are great, statistics programs run great, utilities work very well, video editing is second to none, iTunes is the best music management system on the market, Chrome/FF/IE/Safari all run great and many of Apple's software has been out for long periods of time and are still widely used. If you feel OSX has questionable reliability, then Windows must be pure garbage as Unix based programs like OSX are more 'stable' as people call it.

 

[trip1ex]

IT's all a tradeoff. Apple trades pure power for lighter weight, smaller sleeker form factor and better battery life among other things. They trade pure power for the better experience.

If they wanted to they could turn the MBP into a 2lb heavier creaky black plastic rig that is 1" thicker, with a flakey trackpad and 40 extra keys that gets 3 hrs of battery life at best unless you add the bigger battery which sticks out and weights an extra 1 lb.


Got a lot of folks here that only care about pure cpu power. That's left over thinking from the 90s and 80s when horsepower actually mattered for everyone.

When a new cpu made everything you did 50% faster. Not just reduced video encoding from 1 hr to 30 minutes.

 

[blue22]

spot on...

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

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?

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

Brilliant. and +1.

 

[Krafty]

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

+1

Somebody had to say it.

Again.

 

[redkamel]

Apple shouldn't be catering for the silly people who buy MBPs when they should be buying MBAs. Firstly, it will end up ruining their computers, and secondly those silly people will buy MBPs regardless of how powerful and expensive they are.

I agree. But I think the trade off is obvious...an extra hour of battery life for everyone, or save 1-2 seconds on a repetitive task, a few seconds on a task a pro does a few times a day and then minutes on something I do at most once a day. That might add up to....15-30 minutes on a busy work day....and the loss of an hour on the other days.

What I mean is true quad core actually even only benifits a very small part of the "true pro" category. Geez, I feel like an apologist right now.

I'm not trying to say what Apple is doing is right, but it does make sense. think the best route is to make the true quad core an option. THAT they should definitely do.

 

[pricej636]

Mac OS X v10.6 Snow Leopard + iLIfe '11 - $114.99 (Amazon)
Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate - $269.99 (Amazon)

Hardware too. Would cost thousands more to furnish an office with Apple machines than it would PCs.

 

[thejadedmonkey]

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.

That's very true. I have a thin and light, that runs word, chrome, zune, and mail quite well. In fact, I've even used it to program a life counter app for my Windows Phone 7, and it's a 1.4ghz Celeron!

I'd hate to use it for my video editing or anything you listed, but for 90% of what I need to do on the go, it works wonderfully... and it was less than $500. It's all about knowing what tool you need, not what tool you might want. one day, 5 years from now.

 

[applebook]

lol ... Guess the OP was wrong when stating every Dawg is using Sandybridge

speak for yourself. My dog has a Sandy Bridge strapped to her back.

 

[BrutalSpoon]

Aimed at pretty much anybody mentioning the maximum TDP that the MBPs are able to handle:

According to the rumour a while back the new MBPs are allegedly going to drop the optical drive and use "blade" SSDs either instead of or in conjunction with a magnetic hard drive.

Assuming this rumour turns out to be accurate and assuming that Apple maintains a similar thickness (although far be it from Apple to ever turn down a chance to make their laptops thinner whenever possible), that leaves some free space in the chassis.

This space could be used for even more battery capacity, but I think I speak for most people in saying that an 8-9 hour battery life for a powerful machine like the MBP is sufficient. Is it so farfetched to believe, then, that this space could just as easily be filled by a large heatsink which would allow for a more powerful processor and/or graphics card?

I'm really looking forward to seeing what the MBP refresh has to offer, whenever it is (fingers crossed for April; mid-late February would be amazing but seems highly unlikely)!

 

[wct097]

Hardware too. Would cost thousands more to furnish an office with Apple machines than it would PCs.

Not to mention still having to buy the Windows license so you can run typical business software....

 

[stevemiller]

i have a late '08 mbp that i push pretty hard doing motion graphics/video/3d work. we do have beastly machines at the office for doing the long final renders, but i don't think i can ever go back to being tethered to a desktop for my day-to-day operations.

after 2 years and change its getting a little long in the tooth, though. 4gb (6 unofficial) can get a little constraining in a big after effects project, etc.

i certainly don't want some sort of energy hogging lap-furnace just to get quad core, but i am trying to hold out on upgrading till they do become available. specs aren't everything, but when you already have an ok system, the re-investment in a new one only becomes worthwhile when its a decent jump in performance/productivity!

ivy bridge may be the most realistic timeframe, but i still wouldn't mind being surprised with a good solution sooner!