This. Regardless of whether they could make a quadcore 13", I suspect they won't as they would then sell less 15" machines
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.
Quad-core 13 inch MacBook Pro?
- Thread starter Windows&Apple
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
This. Regardless of whether they could make a quadcore 13", I suspect they won't as they would then sell less 15" machines
Depends on pricing. I don't believe that Quad Core would be available in lowest end Broadwell MBP's. Possibility here is that it would be 200 bucks addition to mid-end MBP, and high-end.
They HAVE to make a move on 13 inch here, because with Skylake, according to sources, all mobile lineup of CPUs will be Quad Core. Of course I mean - 28W and more TDP CPUs.
I had not heard of that requirement, but I'd say if Apple does go the quad core route, it will be only when they have too
Yeah, but then people will be complaining that the the 13" MacBook's only have 4 cores when the 15" model has 6-12
Yeah, but then people will be complaining that the the 13" MacBook's only have 4 cores when the 15" model has 6-12
When are 6-12 core mobile chips pencilled in to happen ? Not on the near horizon I think.
Well you should realize that the number of physical cores doesn't really matter that much. With 2 cores you still get 4 virtual threads on those processors so multitasking isn't a problem.
One and only thing what you should be concerned about is performance per WATT.
Since efficiency of 2core and 4core mobile CPUs is pretty much the same, meaning that if particular 4core CPU is faster than the same generation 2core CPU, then it has bigger TDP (runs hotter).
So therefore 2core CPU could in theory archieve the same performance as 4core one, if they had equal TDPs.
The goal should be to get as efficient CPU as possible for the amount of TDP (W) the given CPU cooler can deal with.
I'am not extremely familiar with this model, but if it runs as hot as quad core 15" model (which obviously has more space for bigger cooler), then Apple are doing as much as they can atm.
One and only thing what you should be concerned about is performance per WATT.
Since efficiency of 2core and 4core mobile CPUs is pretty much the same, meaning that if particular 4core CPU is faster than the same generation 2core CPU, then it has bigger TDP (runs hotter).
So therefore 2core CPU could in theory archieve the same performance as 4core one, if they had equal TDPs.
The goal should be to get as efficient CPU as possible for the amount of TDP (W) the given CPU cooler can deal with.
I'am not extremely familiar with this model, but if it runs as hot as quad core 15" model (which obviously has more space for bigger cooler), then Apple are doing as much as they can atm.
Last edited:
The mac mini has a quad core setup and that is considered an entry-level Mac.
I don't believe Apple is cripling the 13" on purpose. They will have quad core in the 13" when they manage to get heat under control.
Are you kidding ? Its twice the power. That I need. Some of us do more than surf the net. I'm forced to buy 15" even though I'd prefer 13".
Mac mini not the same though it doesn't have a Mac maxi to compete with!
You forgot that on 2core CPU you have 4 threads and on 4cores you get 8 threads?
If you have an app, that is designed to work on 4 cores rather than on higher clocked two cores, that one running on 4 cores will gonna run way faster than on 2 cores.
You forgot that on 2core CPU you have 4 threads and on 4cores you get 8 threads?
If you have an app, that is designed to work on 4 cores rather than on higher clocked two cores, that one running on 4 cores will gonna run way faster than on 2 cores.
It may sound cool to have those 8 threads, but you don't NEED more than 4 of them. It's like those old 1055T AMD processors with 6 physical cores which were nothing more than marketing in comparison to Intel's chips. it's a "bonus" on paper and may be chosen by manufacturer for various reasons (one of them could be to isolate poorly written old apps which are trying to eat cpu resources), but it still doesn't give more performance at the end of the day. And of course there are disadvantages as well (not all apps can fully utilize 8 threads).
Apps can't tell the difference between threads and physical cores.
There is no APP which is optimized to run better on 8 threads than on 4. In fact, most can run perfectly good on 2 threads/cores, so you've got an extra 2 already.
Last edited:
Only reason why you don't need all 4 cores/threads is that there is no App that uses them all at once on day to day use.
Of course - Pro Apps use them. But I cannot recall any other computer game, for example, that uses all 4 cores, except for Battlefield 3, and 4.
Anyways, lets hope that we will see Broadwell MBP's in Septeber of this year.
Well I can only add that even for those apps that can use 4 or more cores/threads, it doesn't matter if you have 2 powerful cores or 4 less powerful cores if total computing power is the same. It only matters when you multitask, but with 4vs8 threads that's no longer a argument.
Yes. But it will happen when 6 core is the norm for laptops and quad core is considered lower end. Dual core will be obsolete.
It will take some time!
It will take some time!
By the sound of things you have never directly compared a dual core machine with a quad core. The difference is night and day.
Of course it depends on your usage, that much is true. But in transcoding/encoding, 8 threads vs 4 threads make a huge difference. Especially in apps that support multiple cores/threads, such as all of Apple's Pro apps.
For what it's worth (as benchmarks don't paint the whole picture), the 13" rMBP does not exceed 7000 in GB3, whereas the base 15" scores well over 12000. That's just 2000 shy of the base Mac Pro.
I see what you mean.
But what you are essentially comparing here is more powerful CPU to less powerful one, kinda like E6600 to Q6600 (which is essentially 2x E6600). I was refering to CPUs that have similiar total computing power yet different amount cores. Kinda like E8400 vs Q6600. For multitasking one with 4 cores would be somewhat better, but there is no way one will encode file faster than another if they have similiar computing power and are utilized 100%.
Well, the things have changed from back when Q6600 was released. With automatic on-demand over clocking (turbo boost), current quad core CPUs are as fast in single threaded tasks as dual-core ones, and they fare much better in parallel computation (such as encoding) because of the ability to divide the work among multiple units better. A modern dual core cannot approach the performance of a quad core (no matter the scenario) simply because of technical reasons the CPU won't run beyond certain speed. A single CPU core has an upper limit on how fast it can get, and the chip designers/builders are not able to get past it. Its all about scalability. That is the reason why we have multiple core architectures in the first place.
Well the original topic really was 4cores/threads vs 8 cores/threads, and 2 vs 4 was just an example to make a point.
That's not the case. If there is 100% load there is nothing to divide anymore.
Again not quite true. I don't know where you are getting all this from honestly.
We don't have high end CPUs with 20 cores. We just have high end CPUs with casual number of cores that have good performance per Core ratios. Even server CPUs have 4-6 cores, where performance of single core is equal to dozens if not hundreds of cores which you are are setting the limit for here. There is no limit of any kind. CPUs are getting more and more performance per single core and that's where those benchmark figures come from, certainly not from the number of cores. And the TDP of server CPU is still very much in Desktop PC range, that is 100-130W. So again, let's say you have CPU with given amount of computing power. You can divide this amount as you want. 2 cores; 4 cores or 22 cores if you wish. But total power at 100% load will never change. You will affect performance managing when multitasking, but not CPU potential. And there is nothing more to it in this regard. Can't make this more clear lol.
Now as for the turbo boost, what turbo boost essentially does, is substantially boosts frequency of one or more cores if given activity/process can't take advantage of all cores. Let's say we have 100W TDP CPU with 4 cores. It can temporarily give 2 cores 50W each and according to stepping, temporarily increase overall TDP to 110W or so and overclock the whole CPU. Now similiar thing can happen with dual core CPU. It can increase the frequency and give more power to single core if that's needed therefore possibly increasing overall TDP just as well, so like I said the difference between number of cores/threads comes down to multitasking, but it applies more when we compare 2cores or threads with 4, and not that much when comparing 4 to 8. The efficiency should be all what matters since these machines are TDP limited and you certainly don't NEED more than 4 threads, especially when there is so little performance to begin with when compared them to certain desktop CPUs with 4 threads which eat everything you throw at them, which just shows one more time that 4 threads is not a limitation for overall performance of any kind.
Whoa. End of story. I hope.
Last edited:
Diploma in computer science, long time industry enthusiast, a job in IT, among other things. What about you?
This is total nonsense. There is not such thing like 'computing power' in your explanation. You have execution cores which run at certain speed. The faster they run, the more computations they can perform within the same time interval. The TDP is a derived parameter which depends on the speed. The physical limit is how fast that speed can get. The record for max speed of a Haswell CPU AFAIK is 7.0Ghz, but you need some very special equipment to achieve that which makes it impossible in a normal system. Fastest Haswell CPUs shipped by Intel are configured for max clock of around 4.4 Ghz, if I am not mistaken (haven't had look at the Intel listings this year) and this only when the CPU operates in a single-core mode. This is your limit. Intel does not have a dual core has well with a TDP of 84W simply because they can't clock the cores high enough to reach that TDP in a stable fashion.
And now to your claim: 'CPUs are getting more and more performance per single core and that's where those benchmark figures come from, certainly not from the number of cores'. First, if you look at the benchmarks it is kind of obvious that the multi-threaded performance scales almost linearly with the number of cores. Second, the single threaded performance of the 13" and 15" is virtually identical. Why? Because the benchmark is run at the maximal dynamic CPU clock, which is 2.9Ghz for the base 13" and 3.2Ghz for the base 15". Still, the 15" is almost twice as fast in the multi-threaded benchmark, precisely because it has more cores.
Sure. And that is why a quad core is faster. If your software does not take advantage of multiple cores, both the dual core and the quad core can boost their clock to a maximal safe limit (which is the same for both CPUs). In these scenarios the performance of a dual-core and a quad-core will be the same.
If your software does take advantage of multiple cores, the quad-core will fly, because it can more efficiently distribute the workload. For cores @2Ghz will beat two cores @3Ghz if you can 100% load them with work. The current multi-core designs are flexible and take the best of both worlds. This is why they are so successful. Again, times have changed since Q6600. Current CPUs work differently.
And that is what people in this thread are talking about. Multitasking. If you have a task which is easily split in parallel workloads, you want as many cores as possible. My statistical simulations run 2x faster on my quad core than on my older dual core. They run 2.5x faster yet on my 12 core Mac Pro Server (even though my laptop is faster in single-core performance).
I guess the message you want to convey is 'dual core is enough for most users'. I would certainly agree. Most of the activities an average user performs (browsing, emails, video etc.) are not parallel. However, a quad core becomes a huge bonus if you start doing parallel workflows (e.g. encoding/editing video), where a quad core is almost twice as fast as a corresponding dual core. For me, quad core is a necessity it makes a very big difference whether I need to wait 15 seconds or 30 seconds for results of a computation.
P.S. Just a note for you. 'Core' and 'thread' are very different concepts and have nothing to do with each other. Single-core CPUs were running hundreds of threads at the same time long before the industry switched to multi-core designs.
Ok I can see where this is going.
Now of course if you take the top end 4 core (8thr) CPU you can't match it with 2 core (4thr) one from the same branch as it will require the new architecture to do so, which is essentially how the performance of CPU grows, new architecture gives more performance per core. So again, number of cores isn't what makes the progress. if that was the case, we already had quads back in 2007, so we should have 20+ cores by now. Number of cores gives benefit only to a certain point, and casual user certainly doesn't need the highest amount of them if the same performance he gets can be archieved with less.
My point was, that number of cores alone doesn't mean a thing. i still stand for that. You can take the slowest available 4 core (8 threads) and match it with top end 2 core (8 threads) one with the same architecture. But like I said, top of the line quads are already pushing it to the limits, so essentially what it means is that dual core equivalent is too hard/expensive to manufacture to make it worth the while, especially when there are so many people crazy about meaningless numbers, but that's it.
Now of course if you take the top end 4 core (8thr) CPU you can't match it with 2 core (4thr) one from the same branch as it will require the new architecture to do so, which is essentially how the performance of CPU grows, new architecture gives more performance per core. So again, number of cores isn't what makes the progress. if that was the case, we already had quads back in 2007, so we should have 20+ cores by now. Number of cores gives benefit only to a certain point, and casual user certainly doesn't need the highest amount of them if the same performance he gets can be archieved with less.
My point was, that number of cores alone doesn't mean a thing. i still stand for that. You can take the slowest available 4 core (8 threads) and match it with top end 2 core (8 threads) one with the same architecture. But like I said, top of the line quads are already pushing it to the limits, so essentially what it means is that dual core equivalent is too hard/expensive to manufacture to make it worth the while, especially when there are so many people crazy about meaningless numbers, but that's it.
Last edited:
And I completely agree with you. I would always take a single-core 8Ghz CPU over a quad-core @2Ghz CPU (from the same architecture, of course). But unfortunately, we live in a imperfect world where compromises (like multi-core architectures) have to be met.
Wow, i definitely dont know half the knowledge of hardware like you guys,
I've just been waiting for a Quad-Core 13" because of work mainly.
i have to run parallel desktop for work, since i work with Apps (Xcode) and our back end software (windows based)
My MBP (mid 2010) acts up at the worst possible times (meetings, customer's office/warehouse) and works fine (lol which is now) when well it's not that relevant.
But its still slow at times and its really irritating when i want to get something down quick. I want to avoid getting a 15" because i travel a lot by plane couple multiple times a year. (bunch of cables, chargers, linea pro sleeves, iPad, external hard drives, folder filled with papers, headphones, external/battery sleeves batteries old iPhone for international use, power outlet converters etc etc)
can the current 13" rMBP handle my requirements? or should i wait for the quad-core whenever it does come out.
last resort, id be forced to get a 15" rMBP. any suggestions would be great =]
----------
Wow, i definitely dont know half the knowledge of hardware like you guys,
I've just been waiting for a Quad-Core 13" because of work mainly.
i have to run parallel desktop for work, since i work with Apps (Xcode) and our back end software (windows based)
My MBP (mid 2010) acts up at the worst possible times (meetings, customer's office/warehouse) and works fine (lol which is now) when well it's not that relevant.
But its still slow at times and its really irritating when i want to get something down quick. I want to avoid getting a 15" because i travel a lot by plane couple multiple times a year. (bunch of cables, chargers, linea pro sleeves, iPad, external hard drives, folder filled with papers, headphones, external/battery sleeves batteries old iPhone for international use, power outlet converters etc etc)
can the current 13" rMBP handle my requirements? or should i wait for the quad-core whenever it does come out.
last resort, id be forced to get a 15" rMBP. any suggestions would be great =]
edit: and in terms of price too, because its imperative i get 16 GB of ram and 500GB of SSD space, because I'm going to at least partition 200 GB to the windows side. so my rMBP is going to be $1,999.
and i want to use it for more than 5 years, ill prob play a few games maybe D3 and Dota 2, but for everything else i got a gaming rig so gaming isn't really an issue either.
I've just been waiting for a Quad-Core 13" because of work mainly.
i have to run parallel desktop for work, since i work with Apps (Xcode) and our back end software (windows based)
My MBP (mid 2010) acts up at the worst possible times (meetings, customer's office/warehouse) and works fine (lol which is now) when well it's not that relevant.
But its still slow at times and its really irritating when i want to get something down quick. I want to avoid getting a 15" because i travel a lot by plane couple multiple times a year. (bunch of cables, chargers, linea pro sleeves, iPad, external hard drives, folder filled with papers, headphones, external/battery sleeves batteries old iPhone for international use, power outlet converters etc etc)
can the current 13" rMBP handle my requirements? or should i wait for the quad-core whenever it does come out.
last resort, id be forced to get a 15" rMBP. any suggestions would be great =]
----------
Wow, i definitely dont know half the knowledge of hardware like you guys,
I've just been waiting for a Quad-Core 13" because of work mainly.
i have to run parallel desktop for work, since i work with Apps (Xcode) and our back end software (windows based)
My MBP (mid 2010) acts up at the worst possible times (meetings, customer's office/warehouse) and works fine (lol which is now) when well it's not that relevant.
But its still slow at times and its really irritating when i want to get something down quick. I want to avoid getting a 15" because i travel a lot by plane couple multiple times a year. (bunch of cables, chargers, linea pro sleeves, iPad, external hard drives, folder filled with papers, headphones, external/battery sleeves batteries old iPhone for international use, power outlet converters etc etc)
can the current 13" rMBP handle my requirements? or should i wait for the quad-core whenever it does come out.
last resort, id be forced to get a 15" rMBP. any suggestions would be great =]
edit: and in terms of price too, because its imperative i get 16 GB of ram and 500GB of SSD space, because I'm going to at least partition 200 GB to the windows side. so my rMBP is going to be $1,999.
and i want to use it for more than 5 years, ill prob play a few games maybe D3 and Dota 2, but for everything else i got a gaming rig so gaming isn't really an issue either.
Does your 2010 machine have an SSD ?
I've not run Parallels on a dual core machine so I can't speak to that - however the 13" rMBP will be much much faster than your 2010 machine especially if you have an HDD - hell even a 2014 macbook air will be lightening quick by comparison.
Basically if you are getting by with a 2010 dual core then a 2013 dual core will be more than enough. And yes I agree 15" is that little bit too big for air travel - its just too hard to open in the airplane seat - expecially if the guy or gal in front leans back onto your screen!
I've not run Parallels on a dual core machine so I can't speak to that - however the 13" rMBP will be much much faster than your 2010 machine especially if you have an HDD - hell even a 2014 macbook air will be lightening quick by comparison.
Basically if you are getting by with a 2010 dual core then a 2013 dual core will be more than enough. And yes I agree 15" is that little bit too big for air travel - its just too hard to open in the airplane seat - expecially if the guy or gal in front leans back onto your screen!
thanks I'm definitely leaning towards a 13" rMBP.
at times running a parallels on my MBP is just terrible. but its fine right now LOL, but right when i go to a customers office for doing a task it acts up.
sometimes the lag never goes away until i restart it either.