Quad i7 MBP's

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by SDAVE, May 20, 2010.

  1. SDAVE macrumors 68040

    SDAVE

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2007
    Location:
    Nowhere
  2. aiqw9182 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2010
    #2
    Just letting you know you're going to be waiting until 2011 when Intel's new Sandy Bridge processors are released.
     
  3. SDAVE thread starter macrumors 68040

    SDAVE

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2007
    Location:
    Nowhere
  4. MBHockey macrumors 68040

    MBHockey

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2003
    Location:
    New York
    #4
    Yeah but look how long it took to get the Core i5/i7s in MBPs. Just because intel releases it doesn't mean it'll be ready for mass production.
     
  5. iMacmatician macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2008
    #5
    Possibly even longer than 2011, since quad-core Sandy Bridge-MB is 45 W, like Lynnfield now. That includes the integrated GPU, so it could be turned off (and the discrete GPU turned on) for lower TDP (~35 W?).

    Late 2010 production, early 2011 release. Like Clarkdale/Arrandale.
     
  6. Hellhammer Moderator

    Hellhammer

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Location:
    Finland
    #6
    Can the IGP be turned off? Especially in SB as they are on same die (no dual die like in Nehalem). Has it been confirmed that they'll all be 45W? Die shrink and new architecture should allow 35W quads with reasonable clocks
     
  7. cyclical macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2010
    #7
    AFAIK Huron River (the platform for Sandy Bridge) isn't due until Q1 2011. In any case, I wouldn't bet on Apple implementing the quad-core version – the quad-core has a TDP of 45W, vs 20W for the dual-core (according to wikipedia).
     
  8. iMacmatician macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2008
    #8
    No actual confirmation but that's what the reports are saying.

    I don't actually know if the IGP can be turned off; it's just an assumption I've been making. I think 35 W quad-core is possible on 32 nm, just that the IGP adds ~10 W.
     
  9. Hellhammer Moderator

    Hellhammer

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Location:
    Finland
    #9
    Ahh, that's valid point! Why can't Intel just get rid of those IGPs, they are useless!
     
  10. iMacmatician macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2008
    #10
    Integration saves space and I think it's cheaper too. Also that stops other integrated GPUs (NVIDIA) from being placed in the computers.

    Eventually Larrabee cores will replace the IGP but that may be in 5 years' time. Until then it might be GMA all the way.
     
  11. Hellhammer Moderator

    Hellhammer

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Location:
    Finland
    #11
    I understand them in low-end CPUs as they are fine for most users but I don't get it why they have to use them in high-end chips as well! Especially in desktops. Sure if auto-switching (Optimus etc) becomes more popular and for ATI too it might be handy but the extra 10W ain't nice :(
     
  12. vhp3 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2008
    #12
    I'll wait as i use my brand new macbook pro i7.
     
  13. iMacmatician macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2008
    #13
    Quad-core Sandy Bridge-DT isn't next year's Bloomfield but it does go from i5-750 to i5-870/i7-930.

    So in 2011, it looks like desktop CPUs below ~$400 will have an integrated GPU and be limited to 4 cores.
     
  14. Hellhammer Moderator

    Hellhammer

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Location:
    Finland
    #14
    That's sad, especially as Phenom x6s are out :( Hopefully the mainstream CPUs will be fairly priced at least. LGA 1356 CPUs will replace LGA 1366 CPUs right (Bloomfield -> SNB-HEDT)?
     
  15. LedCop macrumors regular

    LedCop

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2008
    #15
    Intel had trouble making Arrandale i5/i7s because they were transitioning to the 32nm process with those processors. Fabrication plants had to be overhauled, etc. But Sandy Bridge is also 32nm so Intel won't face that problem and so its factories should hit the ground running once production starts.


    Everyone blasts Intel integrated graphics, especially Mac users when Apple started using nVidia integrated graphics so it's funny that when the i5 and i7 MacBook Pros came out one of the biggest complaints is "why is my MacBook Pro turning on the nVidia card." :rolleyes: So they're not exactly useless.
     
  16. iMacmatician macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2008
    #16
    Possibly.
     
  17. Hellhammer Moderator

    Hellhammer

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Location:
    Finland
    #17
    SB ain't just renamed Nehalem so of course there can be issues, with e.g. IGPs.

    Well, not useless but it would be nice to have CPUs without IGP. Also, IMO it's ridiculous in e.g. quad-core desktop CPUs. They are good in laptops, especially with Optimus
     
  18. LedCop macrumors regular

    LedCop

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2008
    #18
    I know the design is a major change and is perhaps as big a step as Penryn to Nehalem but it's just that, a design. So with Sandy Bridge, the IGP is just one component of the processor die like cache is and shouldn't (to my layman mind) be any more difficult to produce.

    I wouldn't mind my desktop having switchable graphics, actually. Performance won't be impacted when I play games because the dedicated card would be used but when I read MacRumors my dedicated and power hungry graphics card can turn off and save electricity and reduce heat.
     
  19. Hexero macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2010
    #19
    (Let's say they get released then) Just becuase they "get released then", doesn't mean the MBP's will be updated.
     
  20. dsprimal macrumors 6502a

    dsprimal

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2010
    #20
    ooo sandy bridge, how sexy you sound! I'll probably end up selling off my current mbp for one of those before their released, just because its quad core, i wonder what will be after quad cores? hmmm
     
  21. Hellhammer Moderator

    Hellhammer

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Location:
    Finland
    #21
    We haven't said SB will be quad-core in MBP :rolleyes: MAYBE, but MAYBE not
     
  22. dsprimal macrumors 6502a

    dsprimal

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2010
    #22
    lol woops :eek:
     
  23. Erasmus macrumors 68030

    Erasmus

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Location:
    Hiding from Omnius in Australia
    #23
    I think there's definitely a hole in what Wikipedia says. I don't think Intel would only release CPUs at either 20W for dual core or 45W for quad core. That's a big gap, that it seems likely a few 30-35W CPUs will fill.

    If not, I highly doubt Apple will go for 20W CPUs in the 15" and 17" MBP at least, as they are likely to be quite slow. More likely they are destined for the MBA. Especially as with just a small redesign, or slight underclock, Apple could fit a quad core in there that would blow the present i5/i7 away.
     
  24. kny3twalker macrumors 65816

    kny3twalker

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2009
    #24
    AMD had/has a tri-core processor. Maybe intel will make a mobile variant of their own in the future?
     
  25. mark28 macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2010
    #25
    The dual-core is a Low voltage CPU for netbooks and stuff like that. So I'm 99,99999% sure the new MBP at the end of 2010 will be the 32nm quad-core Sandy bridge CPU. A Pro machine, needs Pro power. They already have a weak GPU, if they go for the dual-core Sandy bridge, they also have a weaker CPU which makes it more of a trendy consumer machine.

    And possibly the Macbook Air will have the dual-core version with 20W.
     

Share This Page