Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I do. That's the great thing about multiple choices and build to order. Everybody gets what they want. I'm going to send Apple a letter explaining how it works. :D

Apple doesn't want someone to go to your house, hear your Mac's fans blazing and be put off Macs.
 
While intel keeps improving the chips, more efficient, new designs, more cores, they still haven't increased clock speed much. Remember how long ago it was that Jobs promised 3 gigahertz, and we still just barely have it in a couple machines at $3600+.

Keep in mind ... Steve Jobs and Apple can only offer what Intel manufactures for them. Steve promised 3 GHz because Intel assured him that they would provide it for him. Apple cannot control the chip manufacturer.
 
Why make such an assumption

There isn't really that much software that's optimised for quad core at the moment so it's difficult to see where the initial demand for quad core laptops is going to come from. That said, it's an inevitable step forward and I suspect most of these will end up in high end gaming laptops and iMacs.

There are many many iMac users that use their machines for graphic arts and or music creation. In fact, most of the creative professionals work on iMacs. Photoshop and most of Adobe's creative suite is optimized for multi-cores. In music, so is ProTools etc etc etc.
 
Quad Core mobile chips will be better with Nehalem

I myself am more interested in something like this running in a macbook Pro for better battery life:

Penryn Core 2 Duo P9500 - only 25W TDP
- 2.53GHZ
- 6MB cache
- 1066 FSB

But regarding the quad core chip, extreme series chips are always very expensive and run hot. For Penryn, there are two mobile extreme series announced so far, both with 45W TDP ratings.

1) Core 2 Extreme X9100, 3.06Ghz Dual Core
2) Core 2 Extreme QX9300, 2.53Ghz Quad core.

However, With the release of mobile Nehalem in Q1 2009, you'll see similar processors in the regular lineup, NOT extreme, which will
be much cheaper and most likely use less power. Hopefully we'll see a Quad core mobile at a 34 watt TDP/

Nehalem also introduces the first NATIVE quad core (4 cores on one die) chips for mobile, desktop, server in addition to native 8-core chips for 4+ socket servers. Either way, Nehalem is a totally new architecture than Core, including on-board memory controller and Quickpath front-side-bus replacement (similar to AMD HyperTransport). according to Wiki, Nehalem will, compared to Penryn, have up to1.25x the single-threaded performance, and up to 2x the multithreaded performance and 30% lower power usage for the same performance.

On a side note, Nehalem is also supposed to bring a big increases in floating point performance which has always lagged integer performance in Intels processors vs AMD. This will allow Xeons to scale much better in large many processor systems versus AMD's Opteron, which has allowed AMD to historically have a big lead in 4P+ HPC and scientific computing.
 
We'll definitely see quad core in iMac and eventually laptops. It's not a question of "if", it's a question of "when". Consumers are doing things like video processing, music, etc that can use plenty of power. And the high end laptops and iMacs are really positioned as pro (or at least semi-pro) machines based on price and performance.



Well, they seem to be selling $2249 iMacs now. But I do agree that it would be nice to see them use desktop components and deliver quad core for much less.

Check this out, they could be offering this in an iMac right now if they were willing to use desktop components...or in a midtower:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115017

The truth is that this new quad-core is only about $190 more than the duel-core that's in the BTO 2.8 extreme model. By the time this new chip get here, it'll probably be the same price. btw: desktop parts give to much heat and that means high fan noise. IMHO I'll take less power for less noise in an iMac.
 
There are many many iMac users that use their machines for graphic arts and or music creation. In fact, most of the creative professionals work on iMacs. Photoshop and most of Adobe's creative suite is optimized for multi-cores. In music, so is ProTools etc etc etc.

Fair enough.
 
Keep in mind ... Steve Jobs and Apple can only offer what Intel manufactures for them. Steve promised 3 GHz because Intel assured him that they would provide it for him. Apple cannot control the chip manufacturer.

Steve promised 3GHz on PPC, and Apple did have an influence on the production.
 
30" iMac Quad Core with Blueray, $2999 at the Jan 2010 Expo.

Imagine setting that up on your desk. I really don't see the joy in 30". I sold my 24" mirror in the end, the prospect of a 30" mirror is scary.

Quad core in the iMac would definitely be sweet though. Catch up with some of the consumer pc's out atm.
 
Steve promised 3GHz on PPC, and Apple did have an influence on the production.

Sounds like he fell for the processor marketing BS from back in 2001/02 days, where it was all hype for Ghz.

Since at least 2005 its clock per cycle or something like that. Sadly to this day too many people would think 5Ghz would cream everything and Steve bought that to this day. So everybody else jumps on that bandwagon.

It's how efficient the CPU is per clock cycle. Look at AMD when the Athlon 64 hit and the X2. They didn't need 3Ghz. Most of their chips were 2.0 to 2.4Ghz and it was whipping Intel's ass. Until the day came when Intel came out with the Core 2 Duo, the tables turned. But the same practice remained.
 
I don't understand how people can make bald assertions about what "most consumers need." I think a lot of "average consumers" these days want to do things like encode video, manage enormous photo libraries, watch HD video, playing 3d games, or just run 8 programs at once.

I can remember a time when I argued, on this site (so we're not talking 10 years ago), that some people are better off with a G3 ibook than a G4 powerbook because some people "just didn't need all the power of a G4."

maybe, but none of those programs are optimized for use of 4 cores. most programs are just starting to make use of 2.

infact, things like managing enormous photo libraries requires a fast CPU and fast HDD (7200 rpm), watchin HD video requires a processor optimizied for HD viewing (Montevina platform, dual-core), most 3d games are optimized for 2 cores with a fast graphics card and lots of memory. Running 8 programs at once can be done well with just one processor, one decent graphics card and lots of memory.
 
When it does come to mac, it's going to be optional. I'm surprised we've had to wait this long, I don't know if Mac will be able to secure it as a Mac Exclusive though, Alienware and Dell will want this.
 
My current G4 PB doesn't have enough battery life to finish a movie (with a relatively new battery) - I can't imagine the power drain on a quad-core processor.
 
No matter how much we want this processor to end up in a MBP, it won't happen. We'll see quad core by 2009. The current versions just use to much energy. Maybe in the iMacs. Though I doubt even that.
 
Keep in mind ... Steve Jobs and Apple can only offer what Intel manufactures for them. Steve promised 3 GHz because Intel assured him that they would provide it for him. Apple cannot control the chip manufacturer.
Apple would have faster chips if they didn't have a mobile CPU fetish. The desktop parts are able to hit much higher clock speeds with out added cooling. That just shows how Intel is really milking the market. As soon as AMD can come up with a faster chip Intel is right there in lock step with the same or faster speeds. The current clock speed barrier is 3.8-4Ghz. At that point you need more voltage than is safe (or sane) and the heat output stops being linear.

Sounds like he fell for the processor marketing BS from back in 2001/02 days, where it was all hype for Ghz.

Since at least 2005 its clock per cycle or something like that. Sadly to this day too many people would think 5Ghz would cream everything and Steve bought that to this day. So everybody else jumps on that bandwagon.

It's how efficient the CPU is per clock cycle. Look at AMD when the Athlon 64 hit and the X2. They didn't need 3Ghz. Most of their chips were 2.0 to 2.4Ghz and it was whipping Intel's ass. Until the day came when Intel came out with the Core 2 Duo, the tables turned. But the same practice remained.
You are thinking of IPC, Instructions per Cycle. Clock for Clock AMDs K8 was faster than Intels P4. Now Intel is faster, and from my understanding most of the speed has to do with the SSE instructions going from 2 cycles per set to 1.

No matter how much we want this processor to end up in a MBP, it won't happen. We'll see quad core by 2009. The current versions just use to much energy. Maybe in the iMacs. Though I doubt even that.
Apple could ask Intel to use lower multipliers. I am sure a quad 2 Ghz MBP would sit at a lower TDP. Or even a quad 1.8Ghz.
 
Apple could ask Intel to use lower multipliers. I am sure a quad 2 Ghz MBP would sit at a lower TDP. Or even a quad 1.8Ghz.

Yeah, I've never really understood why they don't have lower frequency but more cores. For most single programs 1.8-2Ghz per core is plenty, and the ones that really require CPU power are multi-threaded anyway and would run better on a quad 1.8 than a dual 2.4.

A quad-core 1.8 or 2.0Ghz Penryn would probably fit in the thermal envelope of the MB/MBP and iMac.
 
i predict these will be in mbps in the second half of 2009. i guess i won't be buying a laptop before then
I think we will see a quad-core BTO option when the MBP uses Nehalem, but will become quad-core across the line with Westmere (32nm shrink of Nehalem). The MacBook will stay dual-core until Sandy-Bridge which starts with quad-core.
 
perfect timing

I just got a macbook a month or so ago, and it's 5 times faster than the G4 PB it replaced. If a quad-core MBP was out mid-'10 that would be awesome for me 'cause i'll be looking to replace this baby. I don't need a 4-core cpu now... but what about in five years? I mean, the single cores are all but vanished. bigger, faster, stronger: let's see these babies!
 
Would this really benefit the iMac? I mean, I have a quad core Mac Pro, and I only get all 4 of those cores singing every once in a while, and it's mainly a work computer.

I would imagine that getting a gaming class video card in that thing would be higher priority than putting an extremely expensive processor in the iMac...

90% of users don't use 2 cores let alone 4. Most users don't gain value from 2.x GHz cpus either.

But it's a lot easier to charge more for faster cpu's and more RAM than it is to charge more for faster bus speed and faster disk drives.

I mean, the cpu is your bottleneck 10% of the time, the other 90% it's waiting for RAM, disk, or the user. But golly, for another $500 we can sell you a computer that will only bottleneck on the cpu 5% of the time. Save you 14 seconds a day by golly!!!!
 
With processors like these...

...Apple can hit a whole new market. The home appliance market!

They could ship a MBP with two teflon inserts, so it could double as a waffle iron or (for the trendier parts of the country) a panini maker. Think of the possibilities! :D
 
Clock speed isn't nearly as important as other aspects, such as front side bus.

I know that. I'm just saying that people will find things to complain about no matter what. The grass is always greener...

Let me be the first to say: I do NOT want to see that 45 watts thing inside my next Mac mini, I like the silence!

Quad-core in the Mac mini? Sure, once it requires a lot less power.

It's not like they'd make it the only version of the mini. They should do it as soon as they can, make it a BTO option.

Keep in mind ... Steve Jobs and Apple can only offer what Intel manufactures for them. Steve promised 3 GHz because Intel assured him that they would provide it for him. Apple cannot control the chip manufacturer.

I know that, I was just commenting on the various opinions about "Going intel was a stupid/genius move."

The truth is that this new quad-core is only about $190 more than the duel-core that's in the BTO 2.8 extreme model. By the time this new chip get here, it'll probably be the same price. btw: desktop parts give to much heat and that means high fan noise. IMHO I'll take less power for less noise in an iMac.

I'd rather have the power, not to mention that Apple could probably build a machine just as quiet if they weren't so obsessed with keeping the iMac as thin as possible. Sorry, but in a desktop machine I'll take function over form, substance over style. Especially when apple doesn't offer a real alternative to the iMac for price and features.

maybe, but none of those programs are optimized for use of 4 cores. most programs are just starting to make use of 2.

In the case of encoding audio and video, there are apps coded to use four cores. Handbrake has supported 8 for a while.

90% of users don't use 2 cores let alone 4.

No way. Anyone running more than one app at a time uses two cores, and there are plenty of consumer level apps that use at least two cores.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.