How soon until we will see quad cores in the MBP?

pianodude123

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Mar 1, 2005
697
0
in the internet
I am quite fuzzy about this, but I have been told that a processor with quad cores, kentsfield? will be coming out later 2007. Do you think they will make a mobile version of this processor to fit laptops like the MBP? I think they would upgrade the 17 inch first, because most people use that as a desktop replacement anyway.
 

Mac Rules

macrumors 6502
Jul 15, 2006
489
333
Switzerland
It's dodgy, a quad-core system would drink electricity like god knows! Would be awesome to see it, but like I said, you're gonna need some major advances in battery and heat-dissapation technology...

Cheers
 

M. Malone

macrumors 6502a
Mar 11, 2004
670
0
tipdrill407 said:
Probably not in our lifetime, imagine all the fans required for a quad core MBP.
I'm 23, and in my lifetime I'v owned a "top of the line Packard Bell" equipped with a 500MB harddrive! you never know, technology develops so fast :)
 

jaxstate

macrumors 6502a
Apr 13, 2006
542
0
A quad core is pretty powerful. Most people lay off the power for battery life for portability. I say in about about 10 years. I octal core workstations and quad core laptops/notebooks.
 

dukebound85

macrumors P6
Jul 17, 2005
18,111
1,319
5045 feet above sea level
Jericho2550 said:
I'm 23, and in my lifetime I'v owned a "top of the line Packard Bell" equipped with a 500MB harddrive! you never know, technology develops so fast :)
Oh you remember those computers that required floppy discs to save and for apps? What was that like about 12 years ago??? lol
 

dukebound85

macrumors P6
Jul 17, 2005
18,111
1,319
5045 feet above sea level
jaxstate said:
A quad core is pretty powerful. Most people lay off the power for battery life for portability. I say in about about 10 years. I octal core workstations and quad core laptops/notebooks.
Prediction: Much sooner than that if we are still using multi core chops at the time

Give it 3 years

Heck 10 years ago or about the first imac came out at a whopping 233mhz single core chip and look at where we are now
 

bep207

macrumors 6502
Jul 20, 2006
259
0
i thought oregon trail and number munchers were the most innovative and creative ideas ever... then again i was in 2nd grade
 

daveL

macrumors 68020
Jun 18, 2003
2,425
0
Montana
pianodude123 said:
I am quite fuzzy about this, but I have been told that a processor with quad cores, kentsfield? will be coming out later 2007. Do you think they will make a mobile version of this processor to fit laptops like the MBP? I think they would upgrade the 17 inch first, because most people use that as a desktop replacement anyway.
Quad core from Intel is due by the end of this year. AMD by Q2 2007. Mobile? Not soon, and I wouldn't bother for a couple years. As said above, battery is the issue - plus getting Apps that are written (multi-threaded) well enough to actually make use of 4 cores. A lot of the Mac Pro benchmarks are not showing much performance gain between a single dual core and dual dual cores.
 

tipdrill407

macrumors 6502
May 26, 2006
373
0
Jericho2550 said:
I'm 23, and in my lifetime I'v owned a "top of the line Packard Bell" equipped with a 500MB harddrive! you never know, technology develops so fast :)
Alright, maybe 'not in our lifetime' is a little over the top but i think it's still a VERYY long ways away. I'm sure apple still wants to make a thin and powerful laptop so it's going to take many many many many many many years to develop a quad core chip that is cool enough and doesn't use battery power like it's toilet paper. Also we're having problems now with having long lasting laptop batteries that don't explode or catch on fire so it's a variety of factors that are going to slow down the introduction of quad core notebooks (at least notebooks that are as thin as the MBP).
 

spencecb

macrumors 6502a
Nov 20, 2003
962
17
daveL said:
Quad core from Intel is due by the end of this year. AMD by Q2 2007. Mobile? Not soon, and I wouldn't bother for a couple years. As said above, battery is the issue - plus getting Apps that are written (multi-threaded) well enough to actually make use of 4 cores. A lot of the Mac Pro benchmarks are not showing much performance gain between a single dual core and dual dual cores.
Makinng sure apps are multi-threaded isn't as big of a deal when talking about your everyday apps. This is much more important when talking about apps like Final Cut Sutdio, Adobe Creative Suite, Mathematica, etc.

Since OS X is quite good at allocating processor time across multiple processors/cores, inidividual application support becomes less important.
 

dukebound85

macrumors P6
Jul 17, 2005
18,111
1,319
5045 feet above sea level
miles01110 said:
Bringing back 800 lbs of buffalo meat from Oregon trail was MUCH more rewarding than winning number munchers...

Haha no kidding. I always shot like 3000 lbs of buffalo,deer,elk and those awesome squirrles and could only bring back 800 jeeze
 
F

freakonguitar

Guest
I totally agree. From some of the recent benchmarks that have been posted on the mermon core 2 duo (quad core )that is supposed to be 20% faster and have even better battery life. The benchmarks show that it really only averages around a 10-12% increase and sucks WAY more power. Making it virtually useless in a notebook cause it sucks more power and gives off more heat. Not something that would market well in Apples top of the line notebooks. :p Give it a few years and they will hopefully work out the kinks
 

bucho

macrumors newbie
Aug 11, 2006
27
0
Canada
freakonguitar said:
I totally agree. From some of the recent benchmarks that have been posted on the mermon core 2 duo (quad core )that is supposed to be 20% faster and have even better battery life. The benchmarks show that it really only averages around a 10-12% increase and sucks WAY more power. Making it virtually useless in a notebook cause it sucks more power and gives off more heat. Not something that would market well in Apples top of the line notebooks. :p Give it a few years and they will hopefully work out the kinks
I'm not sure what you're speaking of. If you meant the dual core merom chip, clock for clock it is essentially on par in terms of power consumption (source: http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2808&p=14). The fact that it's the same price and performs better (depending on what you're doing it is no worse than yonah and substantially faster for video encoding) makes it quite useful in a notebook.

If I misunderstood you and you are indeed speaking of a 4 core 'mermon', oops (and link please).
 

adamyoshida

macrumors regular
Jul 10, 2006
162
0
Given Apple's track record, probably too soon.

I had to give up on the MacBook because, frankly, it was just too damned hot for my purposes.

I already have a damned workstation type desktop, for a laptop (especially a consumer one), I want something that I can set with on my lap in bed, etc.

I'll go with Christmas 2007 too.
 

spencecb

macrumors 6502a
Nov 20, 2003
962
17
freakonguitar said:
I totally agree. From some of the recent benchmarks that have been posted on the mermon core 2 duo (quad core )that is supposed to be 20% faster and have even better battery life. The benchmarks show that it really only averages around a 10-12% increase and sucks WAY more power. Making it virtually useless in a notebook cause it sucks more power and gives off more heat. Not something that would market well in Apples top of the line notebooks. :p Give it a few years and they will hopefully work out the kinks
The Merom Core 2 Duo is not a quad core processor. The term "Core 2 Duo) simply means it is the second iteration of the original Core Duo.
 

Unspeaked

macrumors 68020
Dec 29, 2003
2,448
1
West Coast
miles01110 said:
Bringing back 800 lbs of buffalo meat from Oregon trail was MUCH more rewarding than winning number munchers...
I thought once you hit, like, 200 lbs, it said there was more than you can carry and you had to leave the rest behind?