Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Quad Cores in the Next MBP
- Thread starter drexl5
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Give me SSD and a dedicated graphics card (in the 13", specifically), and keep the damn C2D if that's what it takes, and I'll be quiet.
i7-2720QM sounds reasonable. At 378$, it's only 32$ more than i7-2620M so Apple could ask their 200$ BTO price for that and make a nice profit. That would be 2399$ for 15" and 2699$ for 17", assuming Apple keeps the same pricing.
i7-2630QM would be perfect as well though its price is unknown (obviously less than 2720QM)
Apple will just have to work to improve the cooling, nothing else. There are 15" PC laptops with quad core that don't run abnormally hot. I'm sure you remember old MBAs being like hot stoves but the new one runs amazingly cool.
Spending 0.50$ more on the thermal paste should make miracles already. People who have replaced the thermal paste have gotten amazing results.
I'm almost certain. Quad core for entry the entry level segment, 8 core for high-end mainstream, 16 core for servers
That info is based on a year and a half old article and even that is just a guess:
http://www.brightsideofnews.com/new...uses-on-22nm-ivy-bridgehaswell--larrabee.aspx
It surely is possible but I wouldn't start hoping for quad core in all Macs
Which is what I basically said in my post. I said if the reason it would be removed is due to COOLING..then Okay.
I havent used my optical drive for 1.5years, i dont mind apple getting ri of the odd in favor of better cooling and battery to accomodate a quad core sandybridge
if they did put the quad cores in, i'm sure it'd sell well in Alaska. keep the house nice and warm in the winter!
35W to 45W sounds like a lot, until you consider how much power everything else in the computer uses. The GPU, RAM, screen, USB ports, airport, bluetooth, speakers, etc all use power.
It's not 35W versus 45, it's probably more like 100W versus 110. In my opinion, 10% extra heat, and 10% lower battery life when you really push a quad MBP is irrelevant compared to a CPU speed increase of over 50%. Although I might just be crazy
It's not 35W versus 45, it's probably more like 100W versus 110. In my opinion, 10% extra heat, and 10% lower battery life when you really push a quad MBP is irrelevant compared to a CPU speed increase of over 50%. Although I might just be crazy
35W to 45W sounds like a lot, until you consider how much power everything else in the computer uses. The GPU, RAM, screen, USB ports, airport, bluetooth, speakers, etc all use power.
It's not 35W versus 45, it's probably more like 100W versus 110. In my opinion, 10% extra heat, and 10% lower battery life when you really push a quad MBP is irrelevant compared to a CPU speed increase of over 50%. Although I might just be crazy
thats an interesting way of looking at it
35W to 45W sounds like a lot, until you consider how much power everything else in the computer uses. The GPU, RAM, screen, USB ports, airport, bluetooth, speakers, etc all use power.
It's not 35W versus 45, it's probably more like 100W versus 110. In my opinion, 10% extra heat, and 10% lower battery life when you really push a quad MBP is irrelevant compared to a CPU speed increase of over 50%. Although I might just be crazy
I like you're train of thought on this.
35W to 45W sounds like a lot, until you consider how much power everything else in the computer uses. The GPU, RAM, screen, USB ports, airport, bluetooth, speakers, etc all use power.
It's not 35W versus 45, it's probably more like 100W versus 110. In my opinion, 10% extra heat, and 10% lower battery life when you really push a quad MBP is irrelevant compared to a CPU speed increase of over 50%. Although I might just be crazy
That is true but the cooling system must still be able to dissipate the extra 10W from the CPU which is only one component. The extra 10W of heat will come straight from the CPU, not from RAM, HD, USB or AirPort.
Lets assume that the current heatsink used for CPU and GPU can dissipate ~60W (35W+23W). Adding 10W hotter CPU will make that number ~17% bigger (58W vs 68W). In theory, that means that when the old setup runs at 80°C (just a random number), the new setup with similar cooling would run at ~93.8°C. If the current CPUs are already hitting +90°C like reported by some users, there will be a real problem without better cooling. SB quads have Tjunction of 100°C, that means they should shut themselves down when they reach that temperature. Adding 17% more heat to that 90°C would give us 105.3°C, more than the CPU can handle. I would say that starts to be a difference (this is just theoretical numbers though).
What I am saying is that the only thing Apple has to do is to improve the cooling. This shouldn't require more than using better thermal paste! We have seen threads where people have reapplied the thermal paste and got over 10°C cooler MBPs. I'm sure Apple can do it. Remember old MBAs which were like hot stoves? I'm using my 2010 MBA on bed as we speak and it's pretty much buried under the blanket. That's the worst you can do as it blocks ventilation. But it doesn't even feel warm! CPU is at 44°C (just MR though).
We have seen the battery life tests and they were very impressive. The quad was the most power efficient CPU when idling. The battery life Apple reports is always with light usage so even with a quad, I'm guessing we will see an improvement in battery life. Of course when under full load, the battery will be used more quickly but usually when you're doing something heavy, you are plugged in.
Lol, my SR MBP is sitting on a wooden table, only doing MR, and my CPU temp is 55˚C. My GPU temp is 67˚C.
Exactly.
45 is maximum (or maximum average, or whatever it is). Most of the time, they could run even cooler than the old chips, as they are more efficient and 2 of the cores will probably just be idle.
They still need to improve the cooling (so it doesn't melt using Handbrake), but battery isn't such an issue.
They still need to improve the cooling (so it doesn't melt using Handbrake), but battery isn't such an issue.
TDP isn't actually the maximum, it's just a recommendation from Intel as to the cooling requirements the chip needs.
When it's idling, it downclocks to 800MHz, and uses very little power. When you're pushing it, and turbo is fully engaged, it's going to draw a lot more than 45W, which is why it will heat up. I thought I saw an article which actually listed the maximum power draws of a quad-core SB idling, and performing a range of tasks. Can't find it now.
There it's drawing 57.85W, which is ~28% more than the TDP (which is perfectly fine as the maximum power draw is usually 20-30% more than the TDP).
Pity it doesn't list the clock speeds as well. I wonder if it actually maxed out turbo to draw this much power?
Just thought it would be cool to mention it lol..
http://m.cultofmac.com/apple-moves-to-patent-liquid-cooled-notebooks/5395
That would do the job!
http://m.cultofmac.com/apple-moves-to-patent-liquid-cooled-notebooks/5395
That would do the job!
Yes! So I can get quad core processing, and have some radioactive green fluid in case I need it to turn myself into the Hulk, create a major diversion, or power a small city.