Yep, that's my explanation, if they wanted too, they could.
They made some decisions to differentiate the 13" and 15" models
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.
Why no quad core 13"?
- Thread starter Cayden
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
They made some decisions to differentiate the 13" and 15" models
Completelty disagree, if it could be done in a small, slim, light, long battery life laptop someone else would make one and they don't.... Even the new suface book is only a 15W dual core and the only way they got a dGPU in was to have it in itin teh keyboard on it's own and all the computer parts in the screen. If intel made a low power quadcore chip of course it could be done but the silicon isn't available.
How do you imagine them going about it? To maintain the form factor, the only way is to significantly reduce the battery size. You would end up with a 13" laptop that has two hours or so of usable battery time.
That's my point. Apple decided to have a very thin laptop, and decided to go dual core. If they wanted too, they could have added quad core which would have altered the design of the laptop.
My point is apple has the freedom to anything they want, but they opted for a very thin product that is only dual core which differentiates between the 13" and 15" model
btw, Apple has shrunk battery sizes before. The iPhone 6s has less battery capacity to make room for the force touch stuff. That's one example of apple making a design choice that impacts battery size. So again, they could do something similarly with the MBP as well. I don't see them doing that because they want the less expensive model to have dual core and the higher end one quad core.
Apple did the right thing then, the best laptop is the one you have with you withsome battery life remaining. Making a fat thick heavy laptop that no one can be bothered to lug around and is noisy (more and bigger fans in a small chassis) with a crap battery life would be a very poor option. They would sell a few thousand and then take the biggest media kicking of all time...
Yes they could have done it but rather than it being to differentiate between the 2 lines it's to stop the biggest computer disaster since the zx81 that they haven't done it. If a machine like that was worth making someone would make one.
So we are in agreement, they could have done it, but chose not too
To a certain extent, they could do it so could anyone else if they so wished it would be an utterly pointless product and would be commiting media suicide but yes technically it could be done. The decision not to however is an obviously sensible one.
Again intels fault, the 2011 and 2012 dual core and quad core mobile chips both used the same motherboard socket making it very easy just to throw in a quadcore onto the same logic board.
This changed with Haswell making it a completely different proposition for apple.
I do agree though there should be a quad mini, this was some penny pinching on apples part.
You are certainly correct that this is a design choice. However, my point is that this design is driven by practicability and function and less by economics, as you seem to claim. There is not much point in a 13" laptop if its thick and bulky — it does not have any substantial advantage over a thin 15" with a comparable configuration. Yes, Apple choice to design the laptops the way have because — as they state themselves — they want to build most practical and useful laptops. The constraint here is the technical progress.
But at the same time their new hardware is more efficient, so the battery life has remained the same. If they were to do the same to the 13", while upgrading it to a more power-hungry quad core CPU, the battery life would be cut in half (in the best case).
I'll likely be buying a new MBP sometime in 2016, and I was just curious if anyone thinks we might see a quad core 13" model sometime next year. I've been using a 13" MBP for the last few years and really prefer the smaller 13" size over the 15", but at the same time I'd prefer going with a quad core for my next purchase. I've read that power and cooling considerations were the main reasons that a 13" quad core MBP hasn't been available, but that the new line of Intel processors might be able to overcome this limitation.
Self-explanatory thread title, methinks...
Apple reserves the quad-core CPU's for the 15" rMBP, which is frustrating for users who need the extra power but prefer the more compact 13" form factor.
If they can make iPads and iPhones with identical specs in two sizes, why not the rMBP?
Apple reserves the quad-core CPU's for the 15" rMBP, which is frustrating for users who need the extra power but prefer the more compact 13" form factor.
If they can make iPads and iPhones with identical specs in two sizes, why not the rMBP?
because of thermal constraints. the 13" chassis is too small to provide adequate cooling for a quad core CPU running at full TDP. That, and they want to give you reasons to upgrade to the 15". Same reason why there is no dedicated graphics on the 13" either
There was a time when Apple refused to put a quad core in the 21.5" iMac. They eventually came around, but it took a while.
I think it'd be a good option for a lot of people, but I feel like software that demands a quad core most always need adequate screen real estate (audio, video, etc). The 13" is pretty cramped for lot of multi-media creation work.
I think it'd be a good option for a lot of people, but I feel like software that demands a quad core most always need adequate screen real estate (audio, video, etc). The 13" is pretty cramped for lot of multi-media creation work.
I was curious. Did a search of "i7 quad core laptop" and Best Buy came near the top of the results. I figured "why not" and they had 119 products in the search results. All of the 13" i7 laptops were dual-core. There was one 14" true quad-core HT laptop - the MSI GS40 Phantom. One of the ads for the system says "A total of 5 heat pipes and dual fans actively and effectively push heat out of the system". A couple of other gaming-oriented systems, both with 14" screens are the Razer Blade and Gigabyte P34W.
Not going to happen. As poematik13 said, the thermal limits are greater on the 13" than the 15", which is a severe enough issue in itself.
I understand the conventional wisdom presented here, but Intel has reduced power usage for the Skylake mobile processors. They now offer quad-cores that have a TDP comparable to the Haswell dual-cores in the current rMBP.
I think the i7-6822EQ in particular could be a suitable 4-core for the 13" rMBP.
[edit:] link removed, wrong info
I think the i7-6822EQ in particular could be a suitable 4-core for the 13" rMBP.
[edit:] link removed, wrong info
Last edited:
The i7-6822EQ is an "embedded" processor, which, in Intel-speak, means they'll keep it on the market for at least 7 years. It seems to be classified as a mobile processor otherwise.
The problem with this processor is that it runs at 2Ghz (up to 2.8Ghz) and uses the HD 530 GPU. Compare that with the current 13" MBP which is 2.7Ghz (presuming they would use a similar processor for a Skylake model). For those tasks that are not multi-threaded, that would be a noticeable difference. The HD 530 has a benchmark figure of 442 GFlops, vs. 845 GFlops for the Iris Graphics 6100 in the 2015 13" MBP (a Skylake version would likely be noticeably higher). You could use a dGPU, but then you have the heat issue again. A computer using the processor would have marketing positioning issues for Apple.
I'm looking at the 4th-generation (Haswell) mobile quad-core processors and they max out at 47W (a majority seem to be 47W). The 2.6Ghz dual-core Haswell in the 2014 13" MBP was 28W, as is the 2.7Ghz Broadwell in the 2015 13" MBP. For the Skylake mobile processors (not looking at the "embedded"), all the true quad cores are 45W. Most of the Skylake processors have a "TDP-down" feature which lets you run at 35W for the quads, but I don't what compromises doing that would entail.
The problem with this processor is that it runs at 2Ghz (up to 2.8Ghz) and uses the HD 530 GPU. Compare that with the current 13" MBP which is 2.7Ghz (presuming they would use a similar processor for a Skylake model). For those tasks that are not multi-threaded, that would be a noticeable difference. The HD 530 has a benchmark figure of 442 GFlops, vs. 845 GFlops for the Iris Graphics 6100 in the 2015 13" MBP (a Skylake version would likely be noticeably higher). You could use a dGPU, but then you have the heat issue again. A computer using the processor would have marketing positioning issues for Apple.
I'm looking at the 4th-generation (Haswell) mobile quad-core processors and they max out at 47W (a majority seem to be 47W). The 2.6Ghz dual-core Haswell in the 2014 13" MBP was 28W, as is the 2.7Ghz Broadwell in the 2015 13" MBP. For the Skylake mobile processors (not looking at the "embedded"), all the true quad cores are 45W. Most of the Skylake processors have a "TDP-down" feature which lets you run at 35W for the quads, but I don't what compromises doing that would entail.
I'd love to be able to get a desktop class octo-core processor and a dual sli gpu setup in the rMB body. Instead, I'd wind up with a smoldering hunk of aluminum
The TDP requirements won't allow it into a 13" unless you installed some jet engine powered fans. I was contemplating getting the new Surface Pro, but want a quad powered machine. So here I continue to wait for a 15" Skylake based rMBP.
The TDP requirements won't allow it into a 13" unless you installed some jet engine powered fans. I was contemplating getting the new Surface Pro, but want a quad powered machine. So here I continue to wait for a 15" Skylake based rMBP.
Yes they did and Microsoft still failed to put a quad core in their own flagship 13 inch laptop the surface book hell they only used the same processors that go in the surface pro.
As others have pointed out that processor would be slower than the current broad well dual core and not have the graphics power to run a retina screen.
You have made the mistake of thinking 4cores is always better than 2 just like all those arm processors that get spanked by apples dual cores every year.
As others have pointed out that processor would be slower than the current broad well dual core and not have the graphics power to run a retina screen.
You have made the mistake of thinking 4cores is always better than 2 just like all those arm processors that get spanked by apples dual cores every year.
Last edited:
I'd like to think that one day they'll find a way around the heat constraints and manage to include quad core inside the 13''. I think everyone knows the reason why there isn't a quad in the 13'' body by now, but that doesn't mean there won't ever be a way to do it.