Why Sandy Bridge Quad Cores ARE possible in the next MBP

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by asdf542, Feb 8, 2011.

  1. asdf542 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2010
    #1
    Mid 2009 MBP Watt usage:
    Penryn T9600 - 35W
    NVIDIA 9400M - 12W
    Overall - 47W

    Sandy Bridge Quad Core Usage
    Core i7-2820QM - 45W (This includes the IGP)
    Overall - 45W

    Boom.
     
  2. Gen macrumors 6502a

    Gen

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2008
  3. TSE macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2007
    Location:
    St. Paul, Minnesota
    #3
    Decent CPU + GPU > Great CPU, Intel GPU

    Truth is, not many people are going to notice the difference between a Sandy Bridge 2-Core processor and a Sandy Bridge 4-Core processor, but they will notice the difference between the Intel GMA HD 3000 and the AMD Radeon 6630HD.

    A Quad-Core in the 17" makes sense. Anything else is just a waste.
     
  4. asdf542 thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2010
    #4
    The Intel GPU isn't an issue at all. The mid-2009 MBP had a discrete GPU alongside that 35W Penryn chip and 12W 9400M. So can the 45W quad core Sandy Bridge chips.
     
  5. axu539 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2010
    #5
    The Sandy Bridge IGP is supposed to come close to the current 320m in performance. The 320m is way better than the 9400m. Thus, a quad-core CPU in the MBPs would make a HUGE difference.

    Calling it a waste is another thing. Speak for yourself please. I do a lot of video encoding, and the 17" is way too big for me. I plan to pick up a 15" 2011 MBP if it has a quad core. It will make my life so much easier, especially since I'm upgrading from a C2D. The 15" and 17" have always had very similar guts with the 17" just having a bigger screen. I like it that way, and I hope it stays that way.
     
  6. axu539 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2010
    #6
    This.
     
  7. Erasmus macrumors 68030

    Erasmus

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Location:
    Hiding from Omnius in Australia
    #7
    As NVIDIA have stopped designing chipsets, we can't even hope for a Core 2 Duo and 520M for an increase in graphics performance.

    The facts are, that if the 13" MBP moves to Sandy Bridge, the CPU power will increase dramatically, battery life and heat will improve significantly, and RAM will be much faster too. All this for a SMALL decrease in graphics performance?

    Anyone who hopes Apple keeps the Core 2 Duo processor simply to keep the 320M must therefore be a gamer, and should just get the 15".
     
  8. Kauai macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2010
    #8
    Or a PC.
     
  9. macmac88 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2011
    #9
    If they remove the optical disc drive, they can fit in a better graphics card! I'm hoping Apple does this!
     
  10. Erasmus macrumors 68030

    Erasmus

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Location:
    Hiding from Omnius in Australia
    #10
    Whatever floats their boat :p

    Would be very interesting to see what happens if Apple does. And how many people are disappointed that their optical drive got replaced with a large extra battery and a moderate GPU.
     
  11. grahamnp macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2008
    #11
    You forgot the Sandy Bridge chipset.

    Also, the second gen penryns run cooler than their TDP suggests. The TDP was kept the same as the original penryns while optimisations were made to make them run cooler and more efficient. AnandTech seems to indicate that the more intelligent power management in the SB CPUs make them run cooler and more efficient so maybe it is still possible, I really hope so.

    I think the greatest thing in the way of us getting quad cores are Apple's profit margins.
     
  12. zenio macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2011
    #12
    I'm such a geek I've followed sandy very close. My one wish is for Apple to engineer a very good thermal management system. A MBP Capable of running as cool under severe load (as my ThinkPads do) would really make me happy.
     
  13. TSE macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2007
    Location:
    St. Paul, Minnesota
    #13
    The Intel IGP comes close the the nvidia 320m in benchmarks, but in performance and quality isn't as close.

    The reviews have stated that for it to be "comparable" to the AMD 5450, which was a terrible card to begin with, the Intel GMA scaled down the graphics quality and could only be comparable at 800x600 resolutions with the 3D games.
     
  14. bossmanjunior macrumors member

    bossmanjunior

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2010
    #14
    who cares if the intel IGP is AS good as the 320m. the 320m is terrible and that wouldnt be an improvement (except for battery, but if with optimus already enabled, maybe not). having a "pro" laptop with no discrete graphics is an atrocity.
     
  15. Erasmus macrumors 68030

    Erasmus

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Location:
    Hiding from Omnius in Australia
    #15
    Which is why the 13" should just be called a MacBook. (Shrug)
     
  16. murdercitydevil macrumors 68000

    murdercitydevil

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2010
    Location:
    california
    #16
    Yeah but hasn't Apple been making battery life better and better throughout each upgrade? If that's the max, I'm sure they'd rather use something lower than that.
     
  17. Nein01 macrumors 6502

    Nein01

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2009
    Location:
    Germany
    #17
    Bam!
     
  18. Erasmus macrumors 68030

    Erasmus

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Location:
    Hiding from Omnius in Australia
    #18
    With the screen, graphics, RAM, and everything else, the 35W vs 45W CPU difference won't actually make that much difference to battery life, but will provide a lot more processing power.

    And considering TDP is related to the maximum power draw (minus about 20%) I wouldn't be surprised at all if the dual core and quad core CPUs had similar idle and close-to-idle power draw.

    Also, four cores operating at half power will use significantly less juice than two cores operating at full power, as power consumption vs clock speed is not linear.
     
  19. C01E macrumors member

    C01E

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2009
    #19
    Who buys the most over the top PC's made? Gamers, Think about the $$$ they are missing out on by not having at least one macbook pro with high end graphics (No, the 330 or 9600GT are NOT high end...)

    I know I'm holding out for one with a good GFX processor, I can deal with either a 2 or 4 core i7 but for me, Its all about what GFX chip the mid to high end MBP's use next.

    Cmon apple, Don't force me to buy Asus again, They are starting to suck these days!

    EDIT: Side note, BTW, all computers are PC's Including Apple, "Personal Computer" That is unless apple stopped calling their units "Computers"... :) I love ragging on people for splitting hairs like that... all in good fun!
     
  20. Androidpwns macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2011
    Location:
    England
    #20
    Nice.
     
  21. Hellhammer Moderator

    Hellhammer

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Location:
    Finland
  22. AdamRock macrumors 6502a

    AdamRock

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2010
    Location:
    Toronto
    #22
    if they add a quad cpu in the mbp, then they better add a GPU as-well, not something on-die.

    i rather have no quad and a good gpu, then have 1 million cores with ****** gpu.
     
  23. infamous84 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2010
    #23
    hopefully the next update does come with quad, ill be the first one to put my order in!
     
  24. Jdstew1234 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2010
  25. jlc1978 macrumors 68000

    jlc1978

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2009
    #25
    Very little - the high end gaming market is a very small specialized market that is driven by software, not hardware. Without games to drive hardware there is no reason to believe Apple would make nay kind of dent in that market so the costs to enter are simply not worth it. The people who are into the high end game machine market simply are not a target market.

    In addition, many high end systems seem to focus on desktop, not laptop machines in the PC world; where it's easy for a manufacturer to keep up with the latest hardware by simply dropping in the latest video card. Apple is simply not interested in messing up their supply chain simply to ensure they have the latest and greatest hardware every few months.

    Apple is not interested in being on the bleeding edge of hardware because that is not where the money is; to them the Mac is as much about delivering content as it is a computer. As a result, they focus on the entire eco-system around content and high end games are not even noticed from that perspective.
     

Share This Page