i5/i7 MBP Dual or Quad-core?

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by singhy44, Apr 14, 2010.

  1. singhy44 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2008
    Location:
    Manchester, UK
    #1
    Hi guys, I've been confused by the new MBP article here on macrumors. It says there is hyperthreading for the new dual-core processor. I presume the Core 2 Duo isn't the one with hyperthreading, so this leads me to believe atleast the i5 if not i7 is dual-core. Can someone please tell me whether they are dual or quad-core? I failed to find any information from Apple.
     
  2. vasuba macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2010
    #2
    All MBP models are dual core
     
  3. Hellhammer Moderator

    Hellhammer

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Location:
    Finland
    #3
    Core i5 and i7 in MBPs are dual-core but quad threaded due Hyper-Threading (2 physical cores, 4 virtual cores)
     
  4. singhy44 thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2008
    Location:
    Manchester, UK
    #4
    Well well, a bit of disappointment there :( I had a suspicion, I didn't realise there was a dual-core i7. Am I the only one finding their categorization difficult? Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Quad. Simple. But now with dual-core and quad-core both being branded i5/i7, consumers will have to beware I guess. More of my disappointment for my friend, who wants an MBP better than my iMac, and I personally don't think he's got one, even in the i7 15", as he was desperate to show off his quad-core, which isn't happening :)
     
  5. Hellhammer Moderator

    Hellhammer

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Location:
    Finland
    #5
    Intel's naming system is VERY misleading :( You are not the only one asking this question and Apple poorly says that i5/i7 are dual core, they try to avoid the fact. Many people thinks that all iX CPUs are quads but the ugly truth is that they aren't.
     
  6. GregGebhardt macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2010
    #6
    Take it easy on your friend. He maybe using a CPU monitor like me and it does show quad cores but is only dual.

    These little hardware wars is such an ego thing. I am just tickled my new i7 MBP runs so much cooler! Oooops, I am bragging!;)
     
  7. apw100 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2010
    Location:
    Jacksonville, FL
    #7
    It is misleading, but most consumers don't know anything about computers anyway. The dual-core i7-620 in the MBPs is faster than the quad-core laptop i7-720, but uses much less power. The number of cores in a CPU is only one part of the equation.

    Check this out for the benchmarks...

    http://www.notebookcheck.net/Mobile-Processors-Benchmarklist.2436.0.html
     
  8. apw100 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2010
    Location:
    Jacksonville, FL
    #8

    I hate you Greg. ;)
     
  9. tflournoy95 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2009
    #9
    That's so stupid to pay all that money when your really getting pretty much the same thing as a used c2d. The hyperthreading is is a bunch of bull. It doesn't function like a physical core. My dell has a virtual processor and virtual memory. The processor does even get used and only four megabytes of the 2 gig virtual ram is used. And physical ram I only have like 500 kb of my 1 gig of physical ram. Now I don't know if arrandale is gonna be like this or not but I can garuntee it ain't gonna be like having four real cores. Besides very little software can utilize all four cores. I would, and am going to, buy used off of eBay or craigslist a used core 2 duo. But if you just have a lot of money to blow go ahead and buy one but in my opinion it's a waste of money.

    Sorry about the rant and any typos.
     
  10. apw100 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2010
    Location:
    Jacksonville, FL
    #10
    Well, the benchmarks don't support your argument.
     
  11. tflournoy95 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2009
    #11
    There is no way something virtual can work as well as something real. And as it's been said on here a million times before it's never as good in real life as it is on paper.
     
  12. singhy44 thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2008
    Location:
    Manchester, UK
    #12
    Hmm that's very interesting actually. What's more interesting for me, is what (i think) is the the CPU in my iMac (3.06ghz, 6mb l2, 1066mhz fsb) is either the t9800/9900 which is only just below this new Arrandale job :confused: I'm quite surprised, and my friend will be deflated :p I'm not mean to him, its just he tries to hype things up so much, and then they don't live up to it :)
     
  13. tflournoy95 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2009
    #13
    Sorry but isn't it 2 physical and 2 virtual? Cuz if not then the confusion should be about whether or not it's hexacore or dual core. Right?
     
  14. 1BadMac macrumors 6502

    1BadMac

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2010
    #14
    Hyperthreading was all the rage back in the Pentium 3 / 4 days. It provided a slight marginal increase, but never did make up for the lack of another physical core. I guess it's cool that it still has a purpose, but for all the hype of the "new" icore series procs, its partially old tech under the hood getting repackaged with some new tech. I will be more impressed when they can make legit quad core CPUs that don't require a nuclear power source to run.
     
  15. GregGebhardt macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2010
    #15
    Sometimes I hate me too!;)
     
  16. tflournoy95 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2009
    #16
    yes this is exactly what I mean
     
  17. Hellhammer Moderator

    Hellhammer

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Location:
    Finland
    #17
    It has two physical cores but OSs see four cores, that's where the four virtual cores came from. So in total, two physical and two extra virtual cores I guess
     
  18. shadygrove macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2010
    #18
    Call me crazy but given the option at the same price, I would take a arrandale MBP over a comparable clarksfield MBP any day. I don't see the 2 cores as a problem, but as a benefit. If I needed any more processing power than what the new i7 620M provides, I would just get a Mac Pro or a i7 iMac.
     
  19. iMacmatician macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2008
    #19
    720QM is faster in the Cinebench multiple rendering and I think some other benchmarks.

    I heard it's the same as the HyperThreading in the Pentium 4, but it works better on Nehalem than on Netburst.
     
  20. Hellhammer Moderator

    Hellhammer

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Location:
    Finland
    #20
    I agree. Hyper-Threading can speed up to 30% if an app can take advantage of it if I recall correctly
     
  21. mark28 macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2010
    #21
    Could you please stress your macbook pro to it's maximum for a couple of hours and report how hot it gets and how noisy are the fans under heavy load? :)

    How much battery life do you get when working normal? And how is the battery life in Windows 7 :)

    Thanks :apple:
     

Share This Page