That's what I thought, but I didn't bother to look into it further. Intel's bewildering naming scheme doesn't help.
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
That's what I thought, but I didn't bother to look into it further. Intel's bewildering naming scheme doesn't help.
The GFlops benchmark is a low-level benchmark (giga floating-point operations per second) and admittedly, who cares if higher GFlops doesn't translate into a better user experience? That being said, the graphics performance of the chip in question (i7-6822EQ) was just one reason I cited as to why Apple wouldn't use it in a laptop. The major reason is that it's a 2.0Ghz chip. Besides, I was comparing the HD 530 to what is in the current generation MBP. A Skylake MBP with a 28W i5 dual-core would use the Iris Graphics 550.
What I've learned from this thread is that it is not easy to put a 45W chip into a 13" laptop - but it can be done. But what is striking to me, something that I wasn't aware of before is that nobody (or almost nobody) seems to be doing it currently. Sony does it for the tablet, but not for their laptops. Gaming-oriented companies have 14" models. That suggests that PC companies and Apple don't perceive the need for the product at a price and battery life that the market would bear. One can argue that this perception is wrong, but it is what it is.
There are no quad core 13" laptops that exist in the class (build quality, screen, battery, trackpad, and OS) of a macbook pro.
iTunes itself is pretty terrible in of itself...lol That being said I find no difference between them on both OS's really to write about.
[doublepost=1459058779][/doublepost]
The Dell XPS which is probably their BEST laptop and one of the best Windows laptops being sold today at best has an Intel Core i7-6560U which is a Dual core Ultra low powered chip.
At the rate they are going, it is conceivable that Apple's own iDevice CPU's will at some point surpass Intel's mobile X86 processors.
iPad Pro:
Geekbench 3 (64): 3160 (single core)
Geekbench 3 (64): 5411 (multi-core)
13" rMBP (base-model):
Geekbench 3 (64): 3263 (single)
Geekbench 3 (64): 6938 (multi)
It is amazing to see how rapidly Apple's CPU's have gained performance in just 6 years.
Original iPad:
Geekbench 2 (32): 454
Some folks hope (or expect) that Apple's advances will spur Intel on to make multiple cores available at the same price. Interesting discussion over at Anandtech: http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2447200
iPad Pro:
Geekbench 3 (64): 3160 (single core)
Geekbench 3 (64): 5411 (multi-core)
13" rMBP (base-model):
Geekbench 3 (64): 3263 (single)
Geekbench 3 (64): 6938 (multi)
It is amazing to see how rapidly Apple's CPU's have gained performance in just 6 years.
Original iPad:
Geekbench 2 (32): 454
Some folks hope (or expect) that Apple's advances will spur Intel on to make multiple cores available at the same price. Interesting discussion over at Anandtech: http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2447200
Last edited:
Until full desktop apps run on ARM comparing bench racing the two really doesn't matter..
While Gordon is about as biased as it gets in the things he writing are helpful
http://www.pcworld.com/article/3006...he-ipad-pro-really-isnt-as-fast-a-laptop.html
While Gordon is about as biased as it gets in the things he writing are helpful
http://www.pcworld.com/article/3006...he-ipad-pro-really-isnt-as-fast-a-laptop.html
I highly doubt it. There's more of a chance that they make it thinner and put a core M in them.
I'm scared there gonna deprecate the air and make the pro 13 take 15 watt CPUs.
They won't drop 15watt. Either there's a MacBook 14 coming, or the pro 13 is being shrunk.
I doubt it. Will most likely stay dual core. Mix of i5 and i7 options.
Larger one will have 4core. Most likely will bottom out with i5-6350HQ, and will probably be configurable from there with the 3 i7's (6770HQ, 6870HQ, 6970HQ), and maybe (a big, big, maybe) that mobile Xeon. Personally, if they do have a config with a mobile Xeon, it will probably be in whatever the largest Macbook Pro turns out being, but I doubt they'll use the Xeon.
Then again, they could decide to use just Xeon's in the larger Macbook Pro's too. If they do, it will be one of the most expensive Macbook Pro's ever made.
[doublepost=1459999519][/doublepost]
I don't think the Air will go away. After seeing what the iPad lineup has become, it wouldn't surprise me if they do something with the Airs, and then have three Macbook product lines to sell. Macbook on the low end (price drop this year), updated Airs (more expensive than the Macbook,) and then Macbook Pro at the high end.
They seem to be migrating toward a three tier product lineup across the board.
Larger one will have 4core. Most likely will bottom out with i5-6350HQ, and will probably be configurable from there with the 3 i7's (6770HQ, 6870HQ, 6970HQ), and maybe (a big, big, maybe) that mobile Xeon. Personally, if they do have a config with a mobile Xeon, it will probably be in whatever the largest Macbook Pro turns out being, but I doubt they'll use the Xeon.
Then again, they could decide to use just Xeon's in the larger Macbook Pro's too. If they do, it will be one of the most expensive Macbook Pro's ever made.
[doublepost=1459999519][/doublepost]
I don't think the Air will go away. After seeing what the iPad lineup has become, it wouldn't surprise me if they do something with the Airs, and then have three Macbook product lines to sell. Macbook on the low end (price drop this year), updated Airs (more expensive than the Macbook,) and then Macbook Pro at the high end.
They seem to be migrating toward a three tier product lineup across the board.
Last edited:
This was discussed not that long ago -
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/do-you-want-a-quad-core-13-rmbp.1962544/
It was interesting, I learned from it but the topic goes on ad nauseam, in my opinion.
While difficult, putting a 45W quad-core Intel processor into the 13" laptop form is possible. Sony puts the same quad-core Haswell processor used in the low-end 15" MBP in the Vaio Canvas Z 12" tablet. However, in the thread linked above, nobody could come up with a 13" quad-core laptop currently being sold by the major manufacturers. There are 14" quad-core laptops available that are gaming-oriented. Intel has a i7-6822EQ quad-core processor which takes 25 watts. The problem is that it's 2.0Ghz and has a lower-end iGPU.
So it's technically feasible, but none of the major manufacturers, Apple included, perceives a demand that they believe is worth their effort to produce.
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/do-you-want-a-quad-core-13-rmbp.1962544/
It was interesting, I learned from it but the topic goes on ad nauseam, in my opinion.
While difficult, putting a 45W quad-core Intel processor into the 13" laptop form is possible. Sony puts the same quad-core Haswell processor used in the low-end 15" MBP in the Vaio Canvas Z 12" tablet. However, in the thread linked above, nobody could come up with a 13" quad-core laptop currently being sold by the major manufacturers. There are 14" quad-core laptops available that are gaming-oriented. Intel has a i7-6822EQ quad-core processor which takes 25 watts. The problem is that it's 2.0Ghz and has a lower-end iGPU.
So it's technically feasible, but none of the major manufacturers, Apple included, perceives a demand that they believe is worth their effort to produce.
It IS possible, but unlikely. Not because they can't do it, but because it would essentially be a 13" MBP with the capabilities of the 15". This would require them to raise costs. So now they have a similarly priced 13 and 15" MBP. This would end up in a price increase of the 15", because it is bigger, has better stereo speakers facing up, more monitor support, and two GPUs.
So the price hikes wouldn't make sense, all because they decided to put 4 cores in a 13" Mac. It would alienate customers and make it more complicated for them to keep track of what the market it telling them about what demographic buys which computers and for what reasons.
This means that the only way to do it, would be to give the option to add the extra two cores, like they do with the extra ram and HD size. That means that you will pay a premium for those extra cores. This would likely put the cost at close to the 15", but without the extra features. Not because they are greedy, but because of the principle of the reasons listed above.
A lot of us would be glad to pay that extra bit, and some of us would think it's ridiculous, but there will never be enough of us who would prefer that route, to make them decide to try 4 cores in a 13" MBP.
So, they can, but they won't.
So the price hikes wouldn't make sense, all because they decided to put 4 cores in a 13" Mac. It would alienate customers and make it more complicated for them to keep track of what the market it telling them about what demographic buys which computers and for what reasons.
This means that the only way to do it, would be to give the option to add the extra two cores, like they do with the extra ram and HD size. That means that you will pay a premium for those extra cores. This would likely put the cost at close to the 15", but without the extra features. Not because they are greedy, but because of the principle of the reasons listed above.
A lot of us would be glad to pay that extra bit, and some of us would think it's ridiculous, but there will never be enough of us who would prefer that route, to make them decide to try 4 cores in a 13" MBP.
So, they can, but they won't.
Interesting how we have gone from "it's not possible" to "possible, but not likely" in this thread. 
They could if they tried, look at the Razor Blade 14 it has a much more powerful GPU than the 15" Retina, and a quad core, in a laptop basically a rip off of the 13" MBP
features an i7-6700HQ quad core, Nvidia GTX 970m that simply destroys the performance of the AMD M370X dGPU in the 15" MBP or any other previous options the MBP had.
http://www.razerzone.com/gaming-systems/razer-blade
Again, all Apple has to do is lighten up just a little on their obsession with thinness and they could easily accommodate a 4-core processor in the 13-inch model. But again, they think we care more about how our computers look than how they perform. Given the amazing number of idiots who buy their stuff .. Sadly they are apparently right.
The 2.7GHz 13" MBP with 16GB memory and a 256GB SSD sells for $1699. The 2.2Ghz 15" MBP quad-core with 16GB of memory and a 256GB SSD sells for $1999. If you charge $200 to upgrade from a dual-core to a quad-core, that brings you to $1899 for a 13" quad-core. There would be the added cost of a different thermal system, which would without a doubt be more expensive than the standard 13" model. So either Apple eats that cost or has to bump up the price more. So the question becomes, and this has been brought up before - how many people would essentially pay the same price for a 13" vs. a 15"? Apple can revamp the price structure of their MBP line but there's no way they would do that just to accommodate a 13" quad-core.
Because Apple had a quad core processor in the MBP before it slimmed down?
Apple has great sales numbers so they're doing something right. If you need a quad core CPU in your 13" laptop, Apple doesn't make a computer for you.
Apple targets specifuc marketa with each computer model. There probably is not enough demand to make each model haee a variant to meet each market andcthus the cost of doing so is not worth it.
Or you could just get a 15" rMBP instead of a thicker 13", with similar portability (same weight as 13" classic MBP), quad core, and, you know, bigger screen.
They're just not going to fill every possible niche. It's better this way.
Cannonlake CPU architecture may move from the current 2/4 core config to a 4/6/8 cores.
In 2018 we can then argue why our 13" notebooks are only limited to 4 cores instead of 6 or 8.
In 2018 we can then argue why our 13" notebooks are only limited to 4 cores instead of 6 or 8.
They will still have to fit in the same power envelope, resulting in only a slight boost in performance over the previous generation.
But hey, Atom CPUs are quad core. Everybody can get a $200 netbook, hackintosh it and rave about the fact that they have a quad core Macbook.