Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by blairbeckwith, Aug 4, 2010.
What do you think?
I need* quad-core.
*read as: really, really want.
If Apple waits for Sandy Bridge, then I'm going to say yes as there will be more quads and with more reasonable price tags.
I don't think so. I think we won't see any changes to chip sets other than a small speed bump. The current i7 has 4 cores (2 real and 2 virtual).
I don't see quad-cores coming to the MBP for quite a while. The main problems are heat, power consumption, and lack of an integrated graphics solution (this should be solved by Sandy Bridge).
Maybe after two die shrinks? I just really don't see Clarksfield's successor coming to the MBP.
Real =/= virtual
The i7 has two cores and each core can handle two threads. HT does not add cores. The new Mac Pro ain't 24 core even though it can handle 24 threads
Clarksfield has no place in a macbook pro. Hell, it really has no place in any laptop that's meant to be used away from the outlet. They eat up like twice the energy and generate retarded amount of heat for a nominal gain in most situation. And when off the outlet they become low clocked c2ds.
....can you tell I'm a little bias
i actually smiled at that
I am not sure if Sandy bridge will bring quad core CPU into MPB or not, as quad core Sandy bridge will remain to have a TDP of 45 W (the same as the Clarkesfiled Core i7 720Q which appeared on other laptops but not MBPs). However, the dual core version will go down to 20 W comparing to 35 W of current Arrandale i7/i5 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Bridge_(microarchitecture)). The TDP of 45 W seems still quite high and may decrease the battery life which Apple is proud of, but again apple may redesign MBPs to higher battery capacity? So to me, I can easily imagine the scenario that Apple sticks to the dual core version again and boost their battery life a little bit like what they did with the current 13 MBP, but again the competition and demand in the market for quad core laptops may push them to come out with a Quad core MBP.
Apple won't put a CPU with a 45W TDP in the next MBP, even with a bigger battery. Those dual-core CPUs with 20W TDPs will offer better battery life and less heat.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_0_1 like Mac OS X; fi-fi) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8A306 Safari/6531.22.7)
Oh please dont rely on WIKIPEDIA, those tdps are just guesses
who said he used wiki???
check intel's site for the datasheet ot the cpu
there is a 45watt QUAD CORE cpu called i7-720qm and it 45nm
which hase 8 THREADS
wheather apple will put a quad core in the next rev is anyone guess but i dont think they will yet.
apple wil wait for a 32nm in line with their current cpu they are using.
It was reply to killer bear who used Wikipedia as his source for Sandy Bridge TDPs. I know Clarksfield is 45W (55W for 9xxXM) but there is no guarantee that Sandy Bridge will be. Clarksfield has been available for ages so Apple would have used it already plus SB is due to be released late this year so it's unlikely that Apple will even update MBPs before SB is out.
Those numbers in Wikipedia have no reliable proofs plus I would be surprised if ALL duals were 20W and ALL quads were 45W. We don't know TDPs before SB is actually out
But those quad cores will literally be twice as powerful ( 45W vs 20 W )
And it's no problem actually. The CPU can shut down cores which will turn it into a dual-core CPU. ( or a single core CPU )
In light tasks, the quad core will offer the same battery life probably. But under heavy loads when it will use all it's 4 cores, then it will eat alot of battery life.
TDP doesn't determine how powerful a chip will be. If that were the case, all mainstream dual core chips would offer the same performance.
You can't fully turn off the cores. The power draw is still there. The battery life will always be lower on the quad cores, even if there are integrated graphics solutions in the next revision of the quads.
Forget Sandy Bridge, I'm waiting for Ivy Bridge. Or maybe even Haswell. The i7 is quicker than C2D.,.. but not THAT much quicker. Not worth upgrading from my C2D model IMO.
The i7-620m uses more power than the i5.
Same is also true for the clarksfield, the highest end Quad core also have the highest Watt consumption.
So there is definetly a relation between power consumption and performance.
I think for many occasions Wikipedia is not bad especially the sandy bridge article is well referenced. Anyway there are more details has been leaked recently as this website shows: http://www.computerbase.de/news/hardware/prozessoren/intel/2010/august/neue_roadmap_sandy_bridge/.
It turned out that the quad (i7 2720QM) and duo core (i6 2620M) remained 45W and 35W unchanged, this is probably not that surprising because the frequency and the complexity of CPU increased. I would be interesting to see if apple will bring out quad MBP in the next rev or not as many other manufactures now offers quad laptops at competitive prices against MBP.
i say next update: 50/50, and the update after next update: definitely
Wikipedia ain't bad but in things like TDPs, I would not trust it. At least look at the sources to see is there anything that backs up the statements.
100% if the MBPs go AMD (Llano).
33% if the MBPs stay with Intel (Sandy Bridge).
I never believed that 20 W number anyway (although I believed 45 W).
Mobile Sandy Bridge so far looks the same as mobile Nehalem/Westmere in TDP, the only difference (that brings a chance of quad-core) being the addition of integrated graphics in quad-core chips.