Why Sandy Bridge Quad Cores ARE possible in the next MBP

[grahamnp]

They don't have to put in the latest GPU every few months. Ever since the 8600m GT, every GPU in the MBP has been inferior to the equivalent midrange Dell, HP, Asus or Sony. If they put comparable GPUs in at every major refresh (~1yr), that should silence the critics.

You can't say that high end games are not noticed by Apple when gaming performance is displayed prominently on the product page of the MBP and iMac.

 

[Kalach]

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.

We'll wait and we'll see.

Boom!

 

[Erasmus]

They don't have to put in the latest GPU every few months. Ever since the 8600m GT, every GPU in the MBP has been inferior to the equivalent midrange Dell, HP, Asus or Sony. If they put comparable GPUs in at every major refresh (~1yr), that should silence the critics.

You can't say that high end games are not noticed by Apple when gaming performance is displayed prominently on the product page of the MBP and iMac.

So far, Apple hasn't really had any graphically intensive games. And as Apple doesn't really care about Boot Camp, other than it being another method of winning over Windows users, the gaming benchmarks Apple have used tend to be rather weak.

Hopefully the introduction of the Mac App Store, and Steam for Mac will convince companies to spend the extra money to port the more graphically intensive games to System, which will in turn make Apple benchmark their computers using more demanding games, and result in more powerful GPUs.

On the other hand, I hope AMD and NVIDIA put more effort into making large cards with low clock speeds like the 5800M/6800M series, so that Apple has a wider range of high performance, low power drain GPU options.

 

[jjahshik32]

I think people buying the 13" macbook pro this time around is going to see a huge upgrade in performance mainly due to the CPU upgrade.

 

[Hellhammer]

Hopefully the introduction of the Mac App Store, and Steam for Mac will convince companies to spend the extra money to port the more graphically intensive games to System, which will in turn make Apple benchmark their computers using more demanding games, and result in more powerful GPUs.

I think the issue is that in Windows, games use DirectX but as you probably know, there is no DX for OS X. When games are coded for DX, porting them to OpenGL doesn't yield amazing results. Macs have only about 5% market share so investing a lot money on that rather small share is not really worth it.

Putting a more powerful GPUs isn't just "lets put it there", it always means a loss in something else, those being portability and battery life for example. Apple has never shown much interest toward gamers and I doubt they will change that dramatically. First they should work out the software limitations as putting more powerful GPUs is waste of money if software (e.g. drivers) are limiting the performance.

People who want to do serious gaming will need Windows in Boot Camp.

On the other hand, I hope AMD and NVIDIA put more effort into making large cards with low clock speeds like the 5800M/6800M series, so that Apple has a wider range of high performance, low power drain GPU options.

Apple could buy stock parts and underclock them, just like they have done in the past. Low clock speed cards aren't any cheaper, it costs as much to do them. The problem with higher-end card is their high price and big physical size (the chip itself is bigger).

 

[retrorichie]

Which is why the 13" should just be called a MacBook. (Shrug)

Exactly

 

[cool11]

Do you really hope that we will see quad-core in new mbp(15-17')?
I would like to see it so much.
But I don't think it will happen.
Apple has a special way of thinking about what it calls as a 'pro' machine.
Tech specs is not in the cutting edge, most of times.

 

[dusk007]

One thing is fact after reading all the reviews about Quad Core Sandy Bridge.
The 17" and 15" too would be a joke compared to other dell latitude and similar notebooks if they stick to Dual Core SB.. Till now few used the quad cores in anything but desktop replacements because battery life was terrible.
Those new QC chips are being put in 14" notebooks and the battery life is no worse and possibly better than Arrendale. If Apple puts DC in the 15/17" it is just sad.
The 10W TDP difference is manageable. The only reason why i could imagine they won't do it is because they might not have expected those chips to be as good as they are and realized it to late in the development cycle. I very much doubt that.

 

[fortunecookie]

I am hoping and praying that at least the 17" MBP gets the quad SBs.

 

[DudeMartin]

OR

We could have a nice i5 / i7 dual-core, with Intel's IGP AND nice dedicated graphics, and have the machine produce less heat than quad-core, while still having a great processor with great graphics!

 

[dusk007]

We could have a nice i5 / i7 dual-core, with Intel's IGP AND nice dedicated graphics, and have the machine produce less heat than quad-core, while still having a great processor with great graphics!

People like you seem always to forget that for most of the time there is as much or less heat as before. Those Quad Core SB CPUs produce in idle and low load about as much or less heat than current Arrendale chips.
Only at constant full load there will be a difference. And considering the headroom my i5 15" has it would probably only mean that if will run a little louder. Apple could compensate for this with a little bigger cooling blocks and a Notebooks that is maybe 100g heavier.
There is still enough room for anything up to a 525M and I doubt we would ever see more. I hardly notice the difference between the Arrendale Intel GPU and Nvidia 330M in any situation. VLC works the same iphoto only has trouble with huge images or when I switch while it is running. Everything else is as snappy as with the 330M.
A few days ago I even did some gaming on OSX some shooter and I didn't even realize that I was running on Intel GPU because it was only some crappy old shooter.

The only reason for a decent GPU is Windows and Apple will hardly worry much about bootcamp gamers.

 

[axu539]

People like you seem always to forget that for most of the time there is as much or less heat as before. Those Quad Core SB CPUs produce in idle and low load about as much or less heat than current Arrendale chips.
Only at constant full load there will be a difference. And considering the headroom my i5 15" has it would probably only mean that if will run a little louder. Apple could compensate for this with a little bigger cooling blocks and a Notebooks that is maybe 100g heavier.
There is still enough room for anything up to a 525M and I doubt we would ever see more. I hardly notice the difference between the Arrendale Intel GPU and Nvidia 330M in any situation. VLC works the same iphoto only has trouble with huge images or when I switch while it is running. Everything else is as snappy as with the 330M.
A few days ago I even did some gaming on OSX some shooter and I didn't even realize that I was running on Intel GPU because it was only some crappy old shooter.

The only reason for a decent GPU is Windows and Apple will hardly worry much about bootcamp gamers.

Actually, the GPU is important for anyone using any visual rendering etc. Plus, Lion will probably be more graphics heavy.

 

[Hellhammer]

Plus, Lion will probably be more graphics heavy.

Still something that even an Intel IGP will be able to handle smoothly.

 

[roe1234]

Open CL

Quad Core this, GPU that, I am astonished that no one has brought up the fact that the primary reason Apple started pushing the Nvidia GPUs is that OpenCL is going to play a role in the future of OS X (Lion).

http://developer.apple.com/technologies/mac/snowleopard/opencl.html
http://www.apple.com/macosx/technology/#opencl


Whatever Apple decides to do, you should understand that all machines will support OpenCL.

As far as I know the Intel SB IGP does *not* support OpenCL, although I *think* the Ivy Bridge GPU will.

 

[asdf542]

Quad Core this, GPU that, I am astonished that no one has brought up the fact that the primary reason Apple started pushing the Nvidia GPUs is that OpenCL is going to play a role in the future of OS X (Lion).

http://developer.apple.com/technologies/mac/snowleopard/opencl.html
http://www.apple.com/macosx/technology/#opencl


Whatever Apple decides to do, you should understand that all machines will support OpenCL.

As far as I know the Intel SB IGP does *not* support OpenCL, although I *think* the Ivy Bridge GPU will.

So how exactly is this relevant in a thread referring to the 15" and 17" having quad cores? Oh wait, it isn't. The current 15" and 17" already use Intel's IGP alongside a discrete GPU and they will do the same for this upcoming refresh.

 

[roe1234]

So how exactly is this relevant in a thread referring to the 15" and 17" having quad cores? Oh wait, it isn't. The current 15" and 17" already use Intel's IGP alongside a discrete GPU and they will do the same this refresh.

I guess I mis-understood the first page or so of people talking about the 320m and the 13" MBP, and the initial poster comparing the quad core sandy bridge chip to the c2d+9400m. I don't really see anyone arguing that the 15" and the 17" won't have discrete graphics.

 

[asdf542]

I guess I mis-understood the first page or so of people talking about the 320m and the 13" MBP, and the initial poster comparing the quad core sandy bridge chip to the c2d+9400m. I don't really see anyone arguing that the 15" and the 17" won't have discrete graphics.

I was comparing the wattage not the integrated GPU's (that are used solely for battery life) that have a discrete counterpart. OpenCL support is irrelevant in the topic of this thread.

 

[chrmjenkins]

Add 3.9W for the PHC in Sandy Bridge

And don't forget the that GPU and CPU were cooled separately in the 9400M machines because they are on different physical locations on the motherboard. With Sandy Bridge, we're talking about cooling 45W in a single spot. That could potentially take a significant cooling/fan system redesign, one which would alter the case design and make it contrary to Apple's design goals.

 

[asdf542]

And don't forget the that GPU and CPU were cooled separately in the 9400M machines because they are on different physical locations on the motherboard. With Sandy Bridge, we're talking about cooling 45W in a single spot. That could potentially take a significant cooling/fan system redesign, one which would alter the case design and make it contrary to Apple's design goals.

Tell that to Apple's design team who worked on the new iMacs that went from using mobile 35-45W chips in the iMac to using desktop 65-95W chips while still making it thinner.

 

[Hellhammer]

And don't forget the that GPU and CPU were cooled separately in the 9400M machines because they are on different physical locations on the motherboard. With Sandy Bridge, we're talking about cooling 45W in a single spot. That could potentially take a significant cooling/fan system redesign, one which would alter the case design and make it contrary to Apple's design goals.

They were still under the same heatsink though (iFixit). It shouldn't have a big effect whether the extra 10W is coming from this chip or 5cm next to it if the heat is dissipated through the same heatsink.

No matter what it requires, it's by no means an impossible job for Apple. Like I've said before, even better thermal paste might be enough.

 

[chrmjenkins]

Tell that to Apple's design team who worked on the new iMacs that went from using mobile 35-45W chips in the iMac to using desktop 65-95W chips while still making it thinner.

Those were added when they introduced the 27 inch model IIRC. The chassis got bigger, so it's not a 1-to-1.

They were still under the same heatsink though (iFixit). It shouldn't have a big effect whether the extra 10W is coming from this chip or 5cm next to it if the heat is dissipated through the same heatsink.

No matter what it requires, it's by no means an impossible job for Apple. Like I've said before, even better thermal paste might be enough.

That's true, which is why I say might. Still, I'd imagine a peak temperature higher with a single 45W chip than a 35W and 12W chip. No thermal coefficient is perfect, and the material is rather thin inside the MBPs. Better paste can help mitigate that, though.

Optimally, since the CPU and GPU all share the same heatsink, the board design puts them closer to the fans to minimize the length of the heatsink.

 

[asdf542]

Those were added when they introduced the 27 inch model IIRC. The chassis got bigger, so it's not a 1-to-1.

21.5" is shorter than the 24", thinner than the 24" and uses higher TDP parts than the 24".

 

[Hellhammer]

21.5" is shorter than the 24", thinner than the 24" and users higher TDP parts than the 24".

24" iMac had 45W CPU and ~55W GPU (ATI 4850M). 21.5" has 73W CPU (that's with IGP which is not used) but the hottest GPU it has had was 35W (ATI 4670M). The total TDP is around the same but I think Apple did improve the cooling in 21.5" and 27" iMacs compared to the older ones.

 

[asdf542]

24" iMac had 45W CPU and ~55W GPU (ATI 4850M). 21.5" has 73W CPU (that's with IGP which is not used) but the hottest GPU it has had was 35W (ATI 4670M). The total TDP is around the same but I think Apple did improve the cooling in 21.5" and 27" iMacs compared to the older ones.

It is a smaller machine overall though so the fact that they managed to cram the same overall TDP in it definitely points to them improving the cooling.

 

[chrmjenkins]

24" iMac had 45W CPU and ~55W GPU (ATI 4850M). 21.5" has 73W CPU (that's with IGP which is not used) but the hottest GPU it has had was 35W (ATI 4670M). The total TDP is around the same but I think Apple did improve the cooling in 21.5" and 27" iMacs compared to the older ones.

Yeah, it's an interesting case because CPUs hit full load in differing scenarios from the GPUs and actual dissipation doesn't always match the TDP. The main issue that I have with the whole thing is that Apple has never been one to include something faster just because they can. That's why I'm hesitant to think they'll commit to a 45W quad core now when they can bank on one at 35W perhaps by Ivy Bridge, certainly by Haswell.

It is a smaller machine overall though so the fact that they managed to cram the same overall TDP in it definitely points to them improving the cooling.

It's not a linear scale, though.

For instance, in a 2" notebook (Clevo X7200), you can cool 330W worth of TDP between two GPUs in a CPU whereas in 1" Apple is only cooling about 60W currently. This suggests the depth of the housing rapidly becomes your limiting factor.