Possibility of quad-core processor in next MBP

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by Gigatiran, Aug 11, 2008.

  1. Gigatiran macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2008
  2. J the Ninja macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2008
    #2
    With a 45w TDP and a $1k sticker price, I highly doubt it.
     
  3. Firefly2002 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2008
    #3
    I've run a very complicated, but completely accurate mathematical calculation, and it's told me the odds.

    Exactly 0.00%.

    On the bright side, it mentions supporting Centrino 2's 8 GB memory limit.

    It would be great if the new MacBook Pro's support up to 8 GB memory. With 1 GB RAM being required in an increasing number of applications today (and 128 MB being the absolute max about eight years ago), it stands to reason that we'll be pushing towards 8 GB in a few years down the road (five? six?)
     
  4. Gigatiran thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2008
    #5
  5. Firefly2002 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2008
  6. Gigatiran thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2008
    #7
    "Core 2 Extreme mobile processors have typically used 44 watts of power and are aimed at enthusiasts as well as high-end desktop replacement notebooks, potentially ruling out the quad-core offering for thin-and-light systems. However, one report regarding the 2.53GHz inaugural model suggests it may consume the same 35 watts of thermal peak power as Intel's faster dual-core processors for the Centrino 2 platform, which would allow it to fit in the MacBook Pro and other thin performance systems without overheating or reducing battery life beyond that of pre-update Core 2 processors."
     
  7. Firefly2002 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2008
    #8
    It's not going to happen.

    Probably not till Nehalem in MBPs. And when that happens, my guess is it will start out only in the 17" model, and possibly (not likely, but possibly) only as a BTO option.
     
  8. digitalpencil macrumors 6502

    digitalpencil

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2007
    Location:
    Manchester, UK
    #9
    Agreed, kinda.. We're definitely not going to see quad-cores in the next rev and would agree with the Core i7 bit but it would surprise me if these were reserved to only BTO and 17" models.. laptops are becoming an increasingly pervasive force in the computing world, driving many users from their offices into the lounge, serving as desktop replacements.. it would be naive to think that Apple would lock this functionality out to only 17" models..
     
  9. Radio Monk33 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2007
    #10

    Yeah, it's not like Apple forces people to buy more expensive systems to get features... *cough high res screens*

    Of course Apple would make people pay to upgrade to the 17" to get Quad Cores.
     
  10. digitalpencil macrumors 6502

    digitalpencil

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2007
    Location:
    Manchester, UK
    #11
    Yeh.. but only because 1920x1200 would be ridiculous on a 15.4" as outlined here in detail.

    I'm just saying, given the sheer size of the 17", it would be surprising for Apple to lock out half of MBP buyers.. Many people, myself included, would be very interested in an eventual quad-core laptop from Apple but I wouldn't get a 17", it's simply too big for my needs.. It'd be curious for Apple to lose half their MBP-buying customers to 3rd parties.
     
  11. CWallace macrumors 603

    CWallace

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    #12
    The Q9100 quad-core will launch at the same price as the current 2.6GHz Core Duo, so it could be possible for Apple to make the 2.6GHz standard and offer the Q9100 as a BTO option assuming Intel drops the price of the 2.6GHz when they launch the Q9100.
     
  12. rychencop macrumors 65816

    rychencop

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    http://www.northaugusta.net/
  13. iBunny macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2004
    #14
    Do they say how thick that HP laptop is? I wonder how it compares to the current MBP
     
  14. Firefly2002 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2008
    #15
    Yeah, and then face all the lawsuits of people who've been rendered sterile by the heat output :)

    Lol.
     
  15. Dmac77 macrumors 68020

    Dmac77

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2008
    Location:
    Michigan
    #16
    Not for the next revision, but I wouldn't be surprised if it comes with Nehalem. Isn't a quad the minimum for Nehalem?

    Don
     
  16. squeeks macrumors 68040

    squeeks

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2007
    Location:
    Florida
    #17
    show us ONE app that "requires" 1gb of ram
     
  17. ShoddyWorker macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Location:
    Global Traveller
    #18
    Parallels running Vista is the only thing that comes to mind... :rolleyes:
     
  18. Screwball macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2006
    #19
    The current platform too supports 8 GB of Memory! It's the rarity and price of 4 GB sticks that keep us from having 8 GB of Memory as " standard "

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820148220
     
  19. MattZani macrumors 68030

    MattZani

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2008
    Location:
    UK
    #20
    Not this update coming, but the one after, will see it as a 17" BTO, then maybe standard in all MBP's?
     
  20. eXan macrumors 601

    eXan

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2005
    Location:
    Russia
    #21
  21. CWallace macrumors 603

    CWallace

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    #22
    If the Q9100 has the same 35w TDP of the current T9500, it should be fine.
     
  22. Firefly2002 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2008
    #23
    Lol? Aperture, starting with Aperture 1.0, Lightroom 2.0... Crysis, Far Cry 2... are you high? I have 768 MB RAM on my Beige, the only way I got it to run Aperture at all was by modifying the requirements it set, otherwise it wouldn't launch. Even Lightroom 1-1.4 requires 768 MB RAM.

    An increasing number are calling for or recommending 1 GB, and recommending as high as 1.5 to 2. Ten years ago, something that required 64 MB of RAM was rather demanding.

    It's scaling fast.
     
  23. bartzilla macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2008
    #24
    Indeed - memory is cheap, there's little mileage for a developer making a product release a month later so they can make it use 10% less RAM, performance is king and people might talk about "bloat" but all the charts and benchmarks for app performance talk about how quickly it does something and not at all about how much memory it uses - so if a dev can make their app run quicker by being free and easy with memory requirements then what else are they going to do?
     

Share This Page