Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Macbook Pro I7 update?
- Thread starter m.frank
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Absolutely not. Quad cores are way too hot and inefficient for Apple to put them in the MBP. The battery life would suffer a considerable loss and people would not be able to use their laptops on their legs.
Thanks for the reply. That's what I was thinking myself but just needed clarification.
So is there even a justification to pay for the i7 upgrade over the i5? They literally bench marked the same.
well, from the way that the processors were described to me, the reason that you would want an i7 over an i5 would be a better multitasking ability. I guess the processor distributes everything evenly over the cores (or something of that sort) so, the more cores you have, the better multitasking you can do? Just a thought...
I believe that he is asking about the differences between the i5 and i7 CPUs found in the MBP line currently. The i7-620m is not a quad core CPU.
To answer your question OP, in large computational tasks where the processor is being pushed to its limits, you will see a 10-15% difference in speeds. Whether that 10% is worth it to you or not is your call.
Apple won't go to clarksfield CPU's.
Next update will either be Sandy Bridge or a redesign of the MBP series.
Based on the iMac updates, it could also be possible that Apple will do a minor update, such as the new core i7 2.8 ghz dual-core before going to Sandy Bridge. But it's not really worth the wait for such a minor update.
I read that the i7 runs actually cooler than the i5 on this board. But maybe it could also be due to a bad thermal paste job.
The i5 has better battery life though.
I wouldn't if I was building a BTO; the only reason I got the i7 was it was the only way to get a 15" HR with antiglare at the Apple Store. If I were to order a machine off Apple.com I'd choose the i5 2.4GHz with the antiglare. With the money I saved, I'd have chosen a bigger SSD or something.
I'm not sure of the specifics, but there are differences in both areas between the two chips. The i7 will run hotter and will adversely affect battery life versus the i5.
Doesn't the i7 have hyperthreading, while the i5 does not? If so, I would think the i7 would make a lot of sense for someone who wants to keep their computer for a long time.
I'm just starting to research a replacement for my wife's 17" G4 Powerbook. Since I know she wants the same monitor size and there are lots of windows where she uses her computer, I know I'll be ordering the 17" MBP with anti-glare screen. I've been trying to figure out if I should get the i5 or i7. So many topics here talk about how the i7 really isn't worth it. However, my wife's G4 PB is 6 years old. If we keep the new computer for 6 years or more, wouldn't it make more sense to get the i7?
My thought is that the i7 will stand a better chance at holding its own 5-6 years down the road.
I'm just starting to research a replacement for my wife's 17" G4 Powerbook. Since I know she wants the same monitor size and there are lots of windows where she uses her computer, I know I'll be ordering the 17" MBP with anti-glare screen. I've been trying to figure out if I should get the i5 or i7. So many topics here talk about how the i7 really isn't worth it. However, my wife's G4 PB is 6 years old. If we keep the new computer for 6 years or more, wouldn't it make more sense to get the i7?
My thought is that the i7 will stand a better chance at holding its own 5-6 years down the road.
All three CPUs hyperthead.
I would say that the i7 isn't absolutely necessary unless it will help you get things done more quickly in the workplace. If she isn't doing things that are computationally intensive, there is no need for the upgrade.
The i7 has a higher turbo boost and more L3 cache than the i5 processors (for their standard voltage models).
i5 "Arrandale" processors offer:
- 4x boost for 1 core use and 2x boost for 2 core use (no boost for 3-4 HT use)
- 3MB L3 cache
i7 "Arrandale" processors offer:
- 5x boost for 1 core use and 3x boost for 2 core use (no boost for 3-4 HT use)
- 4MB L3 cache
i5 "Arrandale" processors offer:
- 4x boost for 1 core use and 2x boost for 2 core use (no boost for 3-4 HT use)
- 3MB L3 cache
i7 "Arrandale" processors offer:
- 5x boost for 1 core use and 3x boost for 2 core use (no boost for 3-4 HT use)
- 4MB L3 cache
It's funny. I didn't know what the difference between the i5 and the i7 were, so I did some searching online and found some stuff that said the i5 didn't support hyperthreading. Maybe they were talking about a different version of the i5, or maybe I misunderstood what I was reading.
I just did what I should have done earlier and went to Apple's website and looked at the MBP page. It says:
"Built-in Hyper-Threading allows two threads to run simultaneously on each core, so Mac OS X recognizes four virtual cores instead of just two. When you’re running multiple applications at once, the Core i5 and Core i7 processors spread tasks more evenly across a greater number of cores — so you can get more done, faster."
So, obviously I was mistaken. In my wife's case, she doesn't do anything particularly processor intensive. On the other hand, I know darn well that we're likely to keep this computer for at least 5, maybe 6 or more years. If there's any chance that the extra capability of the i7 will make the computer "capable" in its later years, then the processor upgrade would be worth it. (It's worth noting that, not only have we kept her G4 PB for 6 years, but I just retired a G4 PowerMac last year that was 8 years old.)
I just did what I should have done earlier and went to Apple's website and looked at the MBP page. It says:
"Built-in Hyper-Threading allows two threads to run simultaneously on each core, so Mac OS X recognizes four virtual cores instead of just two. When you’re running multiple applications at once, the Core i5 and Core i7 processors spread tasks more evenly across a greater number of cores — so you can get more done, faster."
So, obviously I was mistaken. In my wife's case, she doesn't do anything particularly processor intensive. On the other hand, I know darn well that we're likely to keep this computer for at least 5, maybe 6 or more years. If there's any chance that the extra capability of the i7 will make the computer "capable" in its later years, then the processor upgrade would be worth it. (It's worth noting that, not only have we kept her G4 PB for 6 years, but I just retired a G4 PowerMac last year that was 8 years old.)
What you are basically asking is if the 2.66 i7 will still be faster than the 2.53 i5 in five years time. Which the answer is pretty obvious, yes it will still be faster. Yes, it will still do a better job at multi-tasking, and yes it will handle the newest programs better. But both the 2.66 i7 and 2.53 i5 in five years time will be in the same boat, nowhere nearly as good, fast, etc as the newest and nowhere near optimal for the newest programs... but if all you do is surf the web and do some office program works, you won't notice the difference at all, and the money would be much better spent on a better HDD/SDD or some other upgrade.