Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by Sound Evolution, Jun 26, 2009.
Will it be possible anywhere in 2010?
With best regards,
Either Clarksfield (Q4 2009, HIGHLY UNLIKELY) or Sandy Bridge (2011).
Why? Do you really need it?
Most of the current discussion is here. I've been discussing it over the past 3 years though.
Eventually, yes. When? Who knows.
Well a little. I use music programs like Logic and Pro-tools and all those programs relay heavy on the processor for DSP processing. With many plugins , soft-synths and audio tracks it get fast and u can never have enough processor speed.
With best regards,
Do we really need anything?
I don't think so, because Apple took the move to dual core rather unwillingly, so an even larger move to quad core with all new motherboard designs and parts would be almost impossible.
When Apple decides?!
Anyway, I've worked on a new MBP at work and no matter what I do, I couldn't max out a dual core processor so it makes me wonder why I'd need a quad core? Just so the other two cores can sit there, comatose?! Anyway, sure it will happen - when it's really needed.
hasnt Apple begun to hire people who have previously worked or helped on processor development? They could very easily start to develop their own processors and put however many cores they would like in it to directly accommodate all their different models!
If that is the case, though, it might take another 5 years. Apple will probably hold out at least another 2 years before making such a drastic change.
But honestly no one will ever know until Apple announces it.
That will be the G6
if you compare the laptop cpu in the recent 3 years. there is not much difference at all.
so I don't expected for much change in the next 3 years. except SSD might be more popular.
Given the majority of the intended macbook user base I wouldn't be surprised if they just leave the quad core development to the desktop line for a very long time.
Long battery life is the appeal of a good notebook and Apple will continue to play with the innards of macbooks to achieve that.
Ummm...IIRC thats what they were doing before they switched to Intel, the G processors in partnership with Motorola and IBM?
im guessing mid 2010 early 2011?
wish they would hurry up im desperate
Processors are commodities. It costs way too much to develop a new one and make them at an affordable price. Intel invests billions in fab plants to produce hundreds of thousands of chips. Why would Apple want to duplicate all that effort? It would not be cost effective.
Apple could be hiring engineers to help on the iPhone/iPod Touch; lots of room for innovation.
Aside from a few select software titles that nobody should be using on a laptop anyway, there is really nothing out there that benefits from the additional cores. There is a lot of research to back this up too. Tom's Hardware did a great writeup showing that for normal usage, a quad actually slowed performance for several common uses of a computer.
The most popular software that utilizes multi-core processors is benchmark software. Yes, an octa-core desktop will score much higher than my mac laptop in benchmarks, but the .01% gain in a few "real life" situations is not really worth it. However, you will get bragging rights and street cred though. It has been stated by others often and I too believe that it's kind of a marketing ploy for the most part. Like, here is a car that goes 150mph, but for $500 more, it can go 200mph. When do you plan to drive 150 mph anyway? The fastest roads only allow 70mph.
But...if you are making the next Matrix movie, that's a different story. But who walks into an Apple store with the intent of buying a laptop to make a feature length Hollywood film with?
I had an overclocked Intel Q6600 quad for a long time and never once maxed it out. Now my desktop is an AMD tri-core running at 3.2ghz and still have yet to come close to maxing it out with CPU intensive work.
The real bottleneck on a laptop is the hard drive. Save your money and buy a decent SSD when they are affordable.
Recently, yes. But I think that those projects will end up in handheld devices such as ipods and iphones.
Don't you think that editting software like Final Cut Studio has benifit of a quad core as apposed to a core2duo?
The problem is that most apps don't need 4 cores, and when you increase the number of cores you have to drop the frequency (until sufficient advances in technology are made).
Most consumers would rather have 2.6Ghz dual core than 1.8Ghz quad core, because they'll get better use out of the higher clock than having more cores. I certainly wouldn't want that drop in speed, but then I don't use any Pro apps.
Not so true on Nehalem.