Intel Announces 'Sandy Bridge' Core Processors

[Hellhammer]

So you think quad cores? Sometimes you argue for them and sometimes against them.

That's because there are arguments for and against quad core in MBP I think we will see quad in MBP but it's just my guess. I could come up with several arguments why we won't see quad in MBP. I often tend to correct people when they forget some facts so sometimes it may sound like I'm saying we won't see quad.

 

[Yebubbleman]

I'm sure 95% of the buyers of 13" MBP are more than fine with i3, even with the lack of Turbo. There are only 3 i5 models so that may not be enough for the whole lineup (currently Apple uses 5 different CPUs and if 13" went i5, it would require 4 i5 models unless Apple uses the same CPU in some models).

Low-end 13" - i3-2310M
High-end 13" - i5-2410M

Low-end 15" - i5-2520M
Mid-level 15" - i5-2540M
High-end 15" - i7-2620M (BTO option for i7-2720QM)

17" - i7-2620M (BTO option for i7-2720QM)

That's my guess.

I'll agree with all of that save for your prediction regarding the 13" MacBook Pro. (a) Because the last rumor regarding the upcoming MacBook Pro refresh seemed to indicate only four new models, which conveniently eschews the 13" models, and (b) given the debate on the IGP and given Apple's stance on graphics muscle being more important on that machine, and not to mention increasing similarity internally to the white MacBook and the MacBook Air, Apple could easily justify discontinuing that model in favor of beefing up the white MacBook (or merging the two lines into "The Next MacBook"), in which case, your would-be prediction for the low-end 13" MacBook Pro having the i3-2310M would probably make that same CPU a likely target for the white MacBook in the same vein that the current bottom of the line 13" MacBook Pro and the white MacBook currently share the same CPU.

Just my two cents to your two cents. Apple could still surprise us all.

 

[Mr. Wonderful]

Low-end 13" - i3-2310M
High-end 13" - i5-2410M

Low-end 15" - i5-2520M
Mid-level 15" - i5-2540M
High-end 15" - i7-2620M (BTO option for i7-2720QM)

17" - i7-2620M (BTO option for i7-2720QM)

That's my guess.

This is exactly what I think, as much as I would love to see Quad-Cores more prevalent.

 

[Yebubbleman]

This is exactly what I think, as much as I would love to see Quad-Cores more prevalent.

They need to either make the quad-core chips cooler, or the MacBook Pro's thinner. Otherwise, it ain't ever happenin'.

 

[JustCreepin']

They need to either make the quad-core chips cooler, or the MacBook Pro's thinner. Otherwise, it ain't ever happenin'.

Chips don't get cooler, MBP's don't get thinner, but we still get the Quads by...losing the Optical Drive?

Considering I'm currently running without on my x200, and I already have an external DVDRW that works (quite well) with my wife's MacBook, I'm living that life and loving it. I still burn CD's & DVD's, but don't mind waiting until I get home to do it. If I really need it (or think I will), I just pop it into my laptop bag - the overall "additional" weight isn't that much , despite what I've seen some people claim (generally, not targeting that towards anyone specifically).

So...Quads? I sure hope so! But I understand the reality is that I'll be disappointed.

 

[Yebubbleman]

Chips don't get cooler, MBP's don't get thinner, but we still get the Quads by...losing the Optical Drive?

Considering I'm currently running without on my x200, and I already have an external DVDRW that works (quite well) with my wife's MacBook, I'm living that life and loving it. I still burn CD's & DVD's, but don't mind waiting until I get home to do it. If I really need it (or think I will), I just pop it into my laptop bag - the overall "additional" weight isn't that much , despite what I've seen some people claim (generally, not targeting that towards anyone specifically).

So...Quads? I sure hope so! But I understand the reality is that I'll be disappointed.

They won't take it from the MacBook Pro. They might take it from the MacBook, but that machine isn't getting one either, so it's moot. Sandy Bridge is better about power consumption, and therefore heat, but we'll see.

 

[Hellhammer]

They need to either make the quad-core chips cooler, or the MacBook Pro's thinner. Otherwise, it ain't ever happenin'.

How would making MBP thinner improve the cooling? It would just reduce the airflow inside it and the heatsinks would have to be smaller, meaning that it could dissipate less heat. With your logic, MBAs would have a quad core.

Other OEMs have used a quad core in similar sized laptops just fine. Using better thermal paste should already be enough as people who have reapplied it on their own have gotten amazing results.

 

[Eidorian]

How would making MBP thinner improve the cooling? It would just reduce the airflow inside it and the heatsinks would have to be smaller, meaning that it could dissipate less heat. With your logic, MBAs would have a quad core.

Other OEMs have used a quad core in similar sized laptops just fine. Using better thermal paste should already be enough as people who have reapplied it on their own have gotten amazing results.

HP is pushing rather hard to sell their new dv7tqe stock. A system with the Core i7 2630QM and Mobility 6570M may be purchased for around US$950.

The processor should trickle down to a few 14" options as well.

 

[Yebubbleman]

How would making MBP thinner improve the cooling? It would just reduce the airflow inside it and the heatsinks would have to be smaller, meaning that it could dissipate less heat. With your logic, MBAs would have a quad core.

Other OEMs have used a quad core in similar sized laptops just fine. Using better thermal paste should already be enough as people who have reapplied it on their own have gotten amazing results.

Woops! Definitely a typo on my part, I meant to say "thicker", but I think it got mixed up in my brain as I'm used to saying "The MacBook Pros are too thin, if they were thicker, then we could have a quad-core, dedicated graphics in the 13" model, etc.". Maybe I say it too much. Realistically, them being too thin seems to be the only reason I can come up with as to why they haven't done it yet; there's gotta be some kind of technical limitation, otherwise, they could make the 17" a quad-core model and, by that token, have it sell more. Yo no se.