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

Intel announced new mobile processors... maybe in upcoming 17" MBP?

I highly doubt it, if the 17" MBP comes out during Macworld as I think it will, i think its going to have the exact same chipset as the 15" version, and then in June during the WWDC they may upgrade them both to quad-core in time for Snow Leopard. Adding a Quad-Core CPU would be a massive step, and whilst everyone who bought a unibody 15" is still able to take them back until after Macworld, why would they introduce this now? Everyone would be taking them back and replacing them with the much much much better 17" version.

🙂
 
So when could we possibly expect a quad core 15 inch Macbook Pro? I was thinking it wouldn't be until end of '09 or early '10. Could it be earlier than that?
 
derek1984 said:
So when could we possibly expect a quad core 15 inch Macbook Pro? I was thinking it wouldn't be until end of '09 or early '10. Could it be earlier than that?
Click to expand...

Unlikely, Late 09 earliest, to be honest having a quad core wouldn't make a huge difference to your computing experience until 2010 anyway when developers start writing applications for quad core computers, so effectivly its a waste of money for now, other than for specilist applications, the dual-core setup is just fine for the moment.

Steve knows what you want, and you dont want quad-core laptops...just yet.
:apple:
 
kastenbrust said:
Unlikely, Late 09 earliest, to be honest having a quad core wouldn't make a huge difference to your computing experience until 2010 anyway when developers start writing applications for quad core computers, so effectivly its a waste of money for now, other than for specilist applications, the dual-core setup is just fine for the moment.

Steve knows what you want, and you dont want quad-core laptops...just yet.
:apple:
Click to expand...

I would actually benefit from a quad core laptop. When I work I usually run photoshop, after effects, final cut pro and compressor. These alone take a good amount in my 8 core mac pro.
 
Does it run at 45W TDP? If so, it's suitable only for now as some kind of desktop-replacement-with-sacrifices processor.
 
liquidtrend said:
if i were to buy a new macbook pro...i wouldnt want a low end chipset in it.
Click to expand...

I didn't see anything about that. It's a lower cost mobile quad core. In other words they're getting ready to put them in mainstream applications instead of specialty products.

I've been wondering when the mobile products were coming out.
Just in time for the i7. Now your laptop can have the processing power of a $600 desktop 6 months ago.😛
 
pointandclick said:
I didn't see anything about that. It's a lower cost mobile quad core. In other words they're getting ready to put them in mainstream applications instead of specialty products.
Click to expand...

try reading all the parts of the post.

from website said:
The Q9000 processor is listed at $348, significantly less expensive than the existing QX9300 mobile quad-core processor, which is listed at $1,038, and the Q9100, listed at $851. Both of these processors, however, have 12MB of cache memory, twice the amount of the cheaper Q9000, which integrates 6MB of cache. Generally, the more cache memory, the faster the processor.
Click to expand...

if i was someone in need of the power of a quad core in a portable form, i wouldnt want a slow quad core. since i am in need of quad core processing, there is a reason i need that faster speed and there is a reason i would spend the higher premium.

so i back up my first statement:
liquidtrend said:
if i were to buy a new macbook pro...i wouldnt want a low end cpu in it.
Click to expand...
 
liquidtrend said:
try reading all the parts of the post.



if i was someone in need of the power of a quad core in a portable form, i wouldnt want a slow quad core. since i am in need of quad core processing, there is a reason i need that faster speed and there is a reason i would spend the higher premium.

so i back up my first statement:
Click to expand...

cpu =/= chipset
I seriously doubt that your going to see a huge performance penalty for only 6megs instead of 12. Even the i7 only has 8. Adding more cache is just a simple way of speeding up a chip, to an extent.
More doesn't always translate into better. Especially at a fraction of the price. Kind of like how buying an Extreme edition is rarely worth it.

If Apple thinks they can sell enough of a marginally better chip, at more than twice the cost, they will. More likely, they will wait until they become more reasonable.
 
pointandclick said:
cpu =/= chipset
I seriously doubt that your going to see a huge performance penalty for only 6megs instead of 12. Even the i7 only has 8. Adding more cache is just a simple way of speeding up a chip, to an extent.
More doesn't always translate into better. Especially at a fraction of the price. Kind of like how buying an Extreme edition is rarely worth it.

If Apple thinks they can sell enough of a marginally better chip, at more than twice the cost, they will. More likely, they will wait until they become more reasonable.
Click to expand...

im not trying to say apple wont use it, nor will i say that you will see a huge difference between 6mb over 12mb.

what i will say, is that you are correct when i mistakenly spoke of a chipset over a cpu, and also state, i personally would not want a low end quad core cpu in the new quad core line up.

this is just a personal preference.

I dont believe there would be a huge performance penalty between dual core vs. quad core with similar specs. I dont feel a very large jump between my 2.6 versus a low end quad core. so i would not invest in a low end cpu. i would choose the 12mb of cache with the higher end processor over the lower for the fact that i personally already have a high level dual core

also (with a small revision to my first post) i still stand at
liquidtrend said:
if i were to buy a new macbook pro...i wouldnt want a low end cpu in it.
Click to expand...

and that yes, it is still considered low end.

and to the OP:

just because its quad core doesnt make it great.
the low end cpu you are refering to is just a chubby 2.6 dual core that eats more power and needs a more powerful (usually louder) cooling system in it.
 
andrewdale said:
OK, where's TallestSkil when you need him?
Click to expand...

I was thinking the same thing! 😀

kastenbrust said:
Unlikely, Late 09 earliest, to be honest having a quad core wouldn't make a huge difference to your computing experience until 2010 anyway when developers start writing applications for quad core computers, so effectivly its a waste of money for now, other than for specilist applications, the dual-core setup is just fine for the moment.

Steve knows what you want, and you dont want quad-core laptops...just yet.
:apple:
Click to expand...

No, No, No... well maybe. The current crop of mobile i7-type is slated for Q3/Q4 09. Think special keynote in October. Just like the Unibodies.

This crop of processors might make some sense. If Apple has a sooner, rather than later Rev B in mind then we might see these in 15" MBP. I wouldn't bet against a better processor in a 17" model than the 15".


Plus - let us not forget that Apple uses these chips in iMacs. That is the most likely case for them.
 
infernohellion said:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13924_3-10129536-64.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20


Will my dream ever come true?
Click to expand...

Dream on.

*prays for the new 17" MBP to have 9700M GT option and better CPU*
Click to expand...

You really ARE dreaming now. Funny thing about dreams is they make impossibilities possible. The 9700 GT couldnt' possibly be put in a MBP without overheating within about 30 seconds after startup.. not to mention draining the battery... and destroying itself.

Not physically possible.

AND THEY WILL NEVER OFFER A HIGH END IN A LAPTOP, THEY NEVER HAVE. Ever.
 
I would bet $500 Apple will NOT use this CPU. What's the point? Nehalem is so much faster it's a waste of money changing over to this when you will be using Nehalem in a years time that will blow this quad core out the water.
If they do use it fine, just don't cry when you see the compared test results between it and a laptop Nehalem CPU. Just my opinion though.
 
the mass market doesnt need a dual core barely.

I would love a quad in my MBP for handbraking.

Its not gonna happen for at least a year. And the price? Well Id rather have a Homebrew/quad PC, and a DualCore MBP now, than 1 MBP w/Quad.
 
apolloa said:
I would bet $500 Apple will NOT use this CPU.
Click to expand...
I would, but for different reasons.

apolloa said:
What's the point? Nehalem is so much faster it's a waste of money changing over to this when you will be using Nehalem in a years time that will blow this quad core out the water.
Click to expand...
Nehalem is not that much faster, at least not the mobile version, and at least not as much as everybody seems to be making it. Core-or-core, it's about 15%~20% faster than Penryn.
 
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