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.
Sandy Bridge MBP not likely to use quad cores, but still dual cores
- Thread starter pooprscooper
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
This is why I didn't wait to but my 2010 MBP. I don't think the next version will be much faster, I think it might lose the optical drive (which I have already used a number of time in the 1 week I've had it, and only once to load a program so far)
The only thing that will make me regret not waiting is if the next MacBook will have Blu-ray
The only thing that will make me regret not waiting is if the next MacBook will have Blu-ray
I think the dual core processors are probably still fine for now. I'd much rather have a higher clocked dual core than a low clocked quad. Turbo boost isn't going to be running constantly...
Those Quad cores run at similar frequencies as the Dual cores, they are twice as fast.
True.
Next year Pc laptops that cost only $1000 are 2 times faster than Apple's $2500 flagship MBP with only 2 cores.
This is why I think:
13" MPB = i5 Dual cores
15" & 17" MBP = i7 Quad cores
Else I really don't see a reason to buy a Mac.
Those Quad cores run at similar frequencies as the Dual cores, they are twice as fast.
Apple could make an external (or internal in a modular bay) add on processing unit. A couple of extra cpu sockets on a card in a heat sink case. Use a very fast and low latency connection on a short cable. An external unit may need it's own power supply. An internal unit would have heat issues and probably need its own ventilation system.
Relatively few people would pay the huge price tag for such an item. You could probably buy an entry level Mac Pro instead for a little bit more.
Relatively few people would pay the huge price tag for such an item. You could probably buy an entry level Mac Pro instead for a little bit more.
In real time, how big is the difference between quad and dual for 'standard' aps? (Theoretically) For programs that use fewer resources, wouldn't a lower clocked quad core actually be slower than a higher dual core and for resource heavy programs, quad core excel? If that's the case there needs to be an option for a quad core MBP given that Mac's are known and respected for graphics (I'de imagine most people looking for this type of performance would prefer the larger 17 inch screen for what they run). It would also suck for Intel as the people who would be an i7 Extreme Quad Core SB are obviously users who want the most capable processor performance wise; many of the above people are Mac users and if they don't deliver, it sounds like many of you guys are going wait the next round of MBP updates out.
the dual cores are pretty fast, but for 2 G's i would like for my computer to be somewhat future-proof. quad cores are the future
Quad cores were the 'future' years ago. I'd love to see Apple step up and catch up by finally quadding up the MacBook Pros.
This.
Unless the program is "Multi-Core Aware" - it's up to OSX to distribute the workload, and in general, faster, dual-cores are better than slower quads.
Yes, there's a 55W 2.7Ghz part, but right now Apple can barely fit the 35W parts into the "less than 1" thick" ad-friendly chassis.
I really don't see them making the 17"er thicker *and* heavier. It's already almost 7lbs! As many have said, Apple goes more and more for consumers these days vs. professionals. But it's working for business. And there's no way for them to say "The new 17" MacBook Pro. Now Heavier AND Thicker!" in Ad copy, so I don't see it happening unless the weight/size difference could be totally minimal (like how the 15" Unibody MBPs actually weigh a little bit *more* than the Alu MBPs -- 5.6lbs vs. 5.4lbs).
The only thing they *might* do is put the Quad-Core as a BTO, but it'll be a pricey one, as people have indicated it needs a better cooling system, and therefore a whole different logicboard, etc, I'd assume.
Regardless, CNET reported today that the SB Quads are launching first. In January. With the Dual-Cores following in Late-Feb/Early-March.
And I bet they'll update the whole MBP line at once, so don't expect an update (dual or quad) until late-March/April at the earliest!
Not true at all.
This is what Turbo boost is all about. If a program only uses 1 core, it can shut down the unused cores and overclock the active core to higher frequencies to make it perform like a 1 core CPU.
You are talking about the old generations of Quad Cores like the Q6600. The i7 Quad cores however have Turbo Boost which can transform themself into a Dual core or a Single Core CPU.
This is independent of OS X btw.
Even so, most programs don't scale well for more than one or two cores. Having a quad core CPU in a laptop would require better cooling which means more size and weight, even if it's mostly running as a single or dual core.
You can expect a Quad Core Sandy Bridge to be faster with pretty much any workload than a Dual Core.
The cure i7 QM with 1,6 Ghz default clock is almost always faster than the fastest Arrendale. With two cores it runs at 2,4Ghz and with 1 at 2,8Ghz along with the better IPC it wins.
Turbo works within a TDP budget and that is 45W for the Quads, ergo the clocks with two active cores are likely to be higher or equally high as the fastest dual core chips.
A quad core is thus a faster single or dual core too.
Still some people need the added speed even if there is no difference with standard stuff like browsing etc. If you run handbrake and the encode takes 2h it makes a huge difference to have 60% faster CPU. Since the 17" is usually bought by people that want this kind of processing power a redesign to fit 45W CPU into the 17" would be worth it and not that much trouble. It is only 10W. With the 15" handling the current ≈60W (GPU,CPU,hub) that shouldn't be too hard for the 17".
The cure i7 QM with 1,6 Ghz default clock is almost always faster than the fastest Arrendale. With two cores it runs at 2,4Ghz and with 1 at 2,8Ghz along with the better IPC it wins.
Turbo works within a TDP budget and that is 45W for the Quads, ergo the clocks with two active cores are likely to be higher or equally high as the fastest dual core chips.
A quad core is thus a faster single or dual core too.
Still some people need the added speed even if there is no difference with standard stuff like browsing etc. If you run handbrake and the encode takes 2h it makes a huge difference to have 60% faster CPU. Since the 17" is usually bought by people that want this kind of processing power a redesign to fit 45W CPU into the 17" would be worth it and not that much trouble. It is only 10W. With the 15" handling the current ≈60W (GPU,CPU,hub) that shouldn't be too hard for the 17".
Obviously I don't speak alone when I say I will be LIVID with Apple if they can't get around to putting in a quad core CPU at least as an option in the 15" and 17" MBPs.
I think at this point a better GPU is a safe bet. How much better, however, is still obviously pure speculation.
I see no reason why I shouldn't be able to get a quad core (>2GHz) 17" MBP with decent graphics, (ie. twice as good as the 330M), a large HDD (500-1000 GB), and at least one medium sized (~128GB) blade SSD.
Light Peak, USB 3, Blu-Ray, ODD, etc. I have no immediate use for, and their mostly unlikely appearance would therefore all be icing on a very yummy cake.
I think at this point a better GPU is a safe bet. How much better, however, is still obviously pure speculation.
I see no reason why I shouldn't be able to get a quad core (>2GHz) 17" MBP with decent graphics, (ie. twice as good as the 330M), a large HDD (500-1000 GB), and at least one medium sized (~128GB) blade SSD.
Light Peak, USB 3, Blu-Ray, ODD, etc. I have no immediate use for, and their mostly unlikely appearance would therefore all be icing on a very yummy cake.
On one hand, Alienware laptops are portable, simply because they can be carried around. On the other hand, they're so bulky and heavy no one really wants to bring them around all the time.
I prefer the HP Envy 15 and Sony Vaio Z. Both are extremely slim and light, but they both pack a ton of power.
Sony Vaio Z
Core i7-620M 2.66GHz
Nvidia GT 330M
1.45kg
HP Envy 15
Core i7-720QM
ATI Mobility 5830
2.4kg
The Sony Z is the same weight as the new MBA. I felt both and there is no difference between the 2.
This is a really interesting thread. Please forgive my ignorance but from what I am gathering, a quad core can function as both a dual core and single core for lower power-hungry apps, but for the higher performance apps, the quad core functions and this is where the speed difference will be most seen?
Additionally, if the quad cores are this capable, wouldn't a SSD and at least 8GB of RAM and a really, really nice graphics card be needed to maximize its speed and capability? (I ask to get an idea of price).
Additionally, if the quad cores are this capable, wouldn't a SSD and at least 8GB of RAM and a really, really nice graphics card be needed to maximize its speed and capability? (I ask to get an idea of price).
Yes. CPUs have had some kind of turbo boost for years and years, and continues to improve. According to Wiki, the SB quads can overclock up to 50%. The duals only get 25%. In the end, it works out to roughly the same single core speeds (as the quads start out lower), but for well-threaded, CPU intensive apps, like Handbrake or CFD/FEA programs, the quads will obviously demolish the duals by 60-70%.
Not necessarily.
GPU and CPU performance are reasonably distinct, ie. you don't need a good CPU for games (generally) and you don't need a good GPU for most non-game apps, even many professional apps. This will change when OpenCL becomes more common.
More RAM is only useful if your apps need it. If you just want to run small apps, 8GB RAM is overkill.
Again, an SSD simply increases the performance of one portion of the computer, which can sometimes be a bottleneck, but often isn't. ie. the SSD would speed up your launching of a large app, but may not change how fast it runs. For example, as video encoding is thoroughly CPU bottlenecked, an SSD is unlikely to provide any speed improvement. But loading times for games would be drastically reduced.
What you need always depends on what you want to use it for. I want my Sandy Bridge MBP to be able to play games well (SSD and GPU), as well as run computationally expensive code I write, or use that people I know have written (RAM and CPU). Which basically means I want it all.
Thank you very much! That makes sense and I fall into the category of low resource applications...mind you I've debated biting the bullet and getting the 8GB Crucial RAM because I have loads and loads of things open but that's another story all in itself. Even though I don't need more than my Penryn, this stuff is still fascinating to learn about.
By what you said, even with additional heat, at least having the option of a quad core makes logical sense...who is going to pay significantly more for a laptop that doesn't have near the capability of cheaper ones. Also, the only people I know with the 17 inch MBP's are all doing crazy stuff. And given the 17 inch MBP is one of the most expensive laptops out their, I doubt a few hundred more bucks will affect the people who buy them.
By what you said, even with additional heat, at least having the option of a quad core makes logical sense...who is going to pay significantly more for a laptop that doesn't have near the capability of cheaper ones. Also, the only people I know with the 17 inch MBP's are all doing crazy stuff. And given the 17 inch MBP is one of the most expensive laptops out their, I doubt a few hundred more bucks will affect the people who buy them.
Sweet. Here's hoping my next 13" has a 2.5GHz i5 in it, AND keeps the DVD drive!
+1 Sounds great