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

Intel's Upcoming Quad-Core "Mobile" Chip Realistic For Laptops?

Tensakun said:
Hope I'm wrong, but I doubt there'll be a 12" MB/MBP for a long time (ever), period. Seems like Apple's going to try to cover that market with a tablet-thingy/oversized iPhone. The masses will get the 13" moderately heavy and unsexy but dependable MB, maybe with some aluminum styling and a bit thinned down. Well-heeled biz travelers will get sexy but underpowered MBA. And whomever Apple views as PowerUsers will get increasingly powerful/fast big-footprinted zeppelins.

Again, hope I'm wrong, but seems like those of us who want the natural heir to the 12" PB (bless its aging heart) will be waiting for Godot.:(
Click to expand...

Agreed. I don't see them giving us a 12" PowerBook replacement anytime soon. Personally, you either have to choose the MB or the Air to get that kind of functionality.

I will stick with the 17" ers since the screen size and quality is so far unmatched. Put size and weight into the equation and there isn't a book on the market that compares. The 17" MBP is lighter than some 15" PCs out there.

Concorde Rules said:
I *highly* suspect if it comes in at 35W it'll be 17" only as that has a far bigger area to cool the chip and I again suspect it'll be a £200/300 extra option.


However, I shall be getting it when its released :D
Click to expand...

Same here. That is my next book since this Penryn I have is doing far better than I could have ever planned for. It's a great upgrade from my Core 2 Duo 2.16 GHz. A few years of upgrading the HDD and RAM and I will be fine until the Quad books come, and Apple and Intel get done with the Beta testing.... I am expecting about a Quad 2.8 or 3.2GHz mobile chip as BTO by that time.
 
Back in the mid 1980's many taught there never would be need for more than 640 KB RAM.

Had it not been for development people would still be playing Donkey Kong and writing documents in Basic.
 
Sorry to bring an old topic back to life, but does anyone have much of an idea when this is likely to happen, whether it's sometime this year, early next year or later than that?

I'm going to uni in September and have the classic "wait or not!?" situation, and I KNOW the answer is "buy it when/if you need it" but realistically its worth waiting a bit longer and making do with what you have for now (which for me is a not quite bottom end of the last white iMacs, 2.16 GHz + 2GB RAM) when its such a big jump rather than a slight speed boost, as long as its soon enough!

As you can guess I'm new here. I guess this will happen with the switch to Nehalem? Which I slightly understand. Slightly.
 
No to quad core lappy

With so little benefit from a quad core, it will be a long time before they appear in Apple laptops.
 
 
Eidorian said:
What little benefit from more cores?

And for everyone that missed the other threads...

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/440001/

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/427650/

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/424508/

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/408209/

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/369081/

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/351838/

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/305777/
Click to expand...
What is your point?
Apple lappies already have a problem with heat, so adding a quad core only multiplies that problem with so little benefit. After Leopard Snow, quad cores will be useful.
 
maccompaq said:
What is your point?
Apple lappies already have a problem with heat, so adding a quad core only multiplies that problem with so little benefit. After Leopard Snow, quad cores will be useful.
Click to expand...
Please tell me why this is true. What prevents current operating systems from taking advantage of a quad core?
 
Eidorian said:
Please tell me why this is true. What prevents current operating systems from taking advantage of a quad core?
Click to expand...
How about you listing ALL the software that benefits from a quad core.
Currently, Photoshop takes advantage of dual core, but not yet quad core, but Adobe is working on that.
 
maccompaq said:
How about you listing ALL the software that benefits from a quad core.
Currently, Photoshop takes advantage of dual core, but not yet quad core, but Adobe is working on that.
Click to expand...
You never answered my question.

What prevents current operating systems from benefiting from more cores?
 
maccompaq said:
What good does it do if your OS recognizes 4 cores, but none of the regular software does?
Click to expand...
I still haven't see anything that prevents the scaling to 4 cores of Windows XP/Vista and Mac OS X Tiger/Leopard.

What I have seen is a trend of users that believe that Snow Leopard will finally give these benefits.
 
Orlandooo said:
Sorry to bring an old topic back to life, but does anyone have much of an idea when this is likely to happen, whether it's sometime this year, early next year or later than that?
Click to expand...

The chip will be available later this year, but it remains to be seen when, or even if, Apple will use it. It will be very expensive ($1000+) and newer technology will be available within 9-12 months.
 
maccompaq said:
What good does it do if your OS recognizes 4 cores, but none of the regular software does?
Click to expand...

Who cares about regular software? A quad-core MBP will be a Pro computer just like the Mac Pro is (do you believe that the 8 cores on most current Mac Pros are useless?). A quad-core option for the MBP will be huge (even without Snow Leopard) for those who use FCS, Logic Pro, Pro Tools and other apps on MBPs.

The dual-core 2.6GHz is currently a $250 option, the quad-core Q9100 would be a $300-350 option over it (that's about $600 over the reference prices): $3099 for the 15" and $3399 for the 17". We're in the Pro domain, nothing regular.

Snow Leopard will be the cherry on the cake, for those who already have quads and octo-core computers.

After this summer's Montevina update (2.53/2.66GHz at least and 2.80GHz BTO), there will be a Montevina speedbump from Intel late Q4:
2.26GHz -› 2.40GHz (25W) $209
2.40GHz -› 2.53GHz (25W) $241
2.53GHz -› 2.66GHz (25/35W) $348/316
2.80GHz -› 2.93GHz (35W) $530
3.06GHz (45W) & Q9100 2.26GHz (35W) $851
QX9300 2.53GHz (45W) $1,038
And the MBP line up could be DC2.66/2.80GHz standard and QC2.26GHz BTO for MWSF 2009.
 
maccompaq said:
How about you listing ALL the software that benefits from a quad core.
Currently, Photoshop takes advantage of dual core, but not yet quad core, but Adobe is working on that.
Click to expand...

hmm just some regular software that many "regualar" people use

Eyetv
Handbrake
Toast 8+
foldingathome:)
and..i think itunes does when encoding video for ipod/itv dont remember though and imovie does when making the movie i think and even if they "only" use 2 cores then with 4 you still have 2 cores to work with rather then having a slow/jerky experience.

just some normal nonpro software that uses 3-4 cores or 2 if ilife stuff only use 2, but i really do think they can use more than 2.
 
maccompaq said:
How about you listing ALL the software that benefits from a quad core.
Currently, Photoshop takes advantage of dual core, but not yet quad core, but Adobe is working on that.
Click to expand...

Oh boy! The big one that I care about is Compressor, which utilizes all 8 cores in the Mac Pro, and is very core aware. To be able to compress HD content on the go, or on my already over worked Penryn MBP would be very welcomed.
 
If the new quad core chips are 45w, you'll surely see them in thicker, heavier, "desktop replacement" laptops from Clevo, Sager, etc. They're using desktop quad core chips today in these machines with 65w TDP...

But at 45w, you'll never see this chip in an Apple notebook, at least not in any of the current form factors. MBP's already get toasty with current chips, 45w will be an impossibility.
 
bobertoq said:
You could get that in a tower any day.... APPLE! Waaake up! I really would like some towers from Apple.

http://www.alienware.com/customize/area-51-desktop.aspx?SysCode=PC-AREA51-R6&SubCode=SKU-DEFAULT

See how cheap towers are?
Click to expand...

And that is a rather expensive one at that. There are cheaper ones from other vendors.

I still think Alienware has some of the sexiest laptops you can find. The 17" MBP is the lightest one available still though, and is lighter than some 15" competitors.
 
this thread convinces me even more that now is the time to buy a Macbook (after the montevina update). I can't imagine a 45W Quadcore in a MBP so my guess is that Quadcores arrive in q1 2010 earliest. That means I have about 2 years till I feel the need to update to a quadcore desktop replacement. In between is only the nehalem speedbump. that will be 25% speed increase.
 
andiwm2003 said:
this thread convinces me even more that now is the time to buy a Macbook (after the montevina update). I can't imagine a 45W Quadcore in a MBP so my guess is that Quadcores arrive in q1 2010 earliest. That means I have about 2 years till I feel the need to update to a quadcore desktop replacement. In between is only the nehalem speedbump. that will be 25% speed increase.
Click to expand...

When the quadcores do come, they may only be in the MBPs. If the hardware only allows it to be in larger laptops, it may only be a BTO for the 17" models.
 
I'm guessing that all this really means is that no one really has a clue when a quad core MBP (which is inevitable EVENTUALLY if not soon, you can't deny that) is likely to be available?

As usual, Sod's law, if I wait it'll come out in 2010, if I buy now quad core will come out a month later :| pah, such is life.

And no, I don't just want quad core for improving iTunes performance!? I can't see why the "regular" users sending email, using iPhoto and using word ETC would pay more for a feature like this, surely the only reason for them spending on a MBP is a larger screen than the MB...
 
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