Gearslutz

Gearslutz (https://www.gearslutz.com/board/)
-   Music Computers (https://www.gearslutz.com/board/music-computers/)
-   -   Macbook Pro quad-core - when will they be released? (https://www.gearslutz.com/board/music-computers/520491-macbook-pro-quad-core-when-will-they-released.html)

rids 17th August 2010 04:09 AM

Macbook Pro quad-core - when will they be released?
 
I know they released the i5 and i7 Macbook Pros last Spring and it was disappointing that there was no quad core. Has there been any speculation as to when we might see a Macbook Pro quad core? I'm hoping soon because I'm running more and more software these days and I don't want to get an i5 Macbook when Quad cores will be twice as fast. I can wait a little longer before I need to upgrade, but hoping it's not next Spring...

phas3d 17th August 2010 04:24 AM

Don't expect new upgrades on laptops this year. Do you really travel a lot' wouldn't an I7 IMac do for you? It's got an amazing 27" screen!!! And it's not that expensive...

rids 17th August 2010 07:28 AM

I'm mainly wondering about what the speculation is on this topic. Seems like a lot of people were really looking forward to the Quad-core Macbook Pro model and it didn't come as hoped. Does anyone have any inside info on this? Any sites that stay up to date with this kind of topic?

thedomus 17th August 2010 08:48 AM

The Sandy Bridge roadmap was leaked the other day, check Hardmac.com : Le "Macbidouille" in English - Intel to Release 19 Different Sandy Bridge CPU Early 2011

True 4 cores still use 45w/55w so still more power (therefore heat) than Apple likes to use!
You never know but it looks like 2 core hyperthread to 4 is the way to go for Apple lappies for a good few months....

NewSc2 17th August 2010 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedomus (Post 5693072)
The Sandy Bridge roadmap was leaked the other day, check Hardmac.com : Le "Macbidouille" in English - Intel to Release 19 Different Sandy Bridge CPU Early 2011

True 4 cores still use 45w/55w so still more power (therefore heat) than Apple likes to use!
You never know but it looks like 2 core hyperthread to 4 is the way to go for Apple lappies for a good few months....

Yeah, it's not looking like we'll have quad cores till 2012. And I'll be willing to bet that Apple will stick with mostly dual-cores (can't see the 13" MBP making the jump), and make quad-core a BTO option, like the 12-core Mac Pros.

I'm still holding out as best as I can. Hopefully SSD's become reasonably priced next year ($300-400ish for a 256gb), which'll tide me over till 2012.

Arcadia 17th August 2010 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by phas3d (Post 5692608)
Don't expect new upgrades on laptops this year. Do you really travel a lot' wouldn't an I7 IMac do for you? It's got an amazing 27" screen!!! And it's not that expensive...

The iMac i7 is a great value and fast as *uck, but I've really been missing my UAD plug-ins I used to be able to run on my previous-gen 15" MBP. I've been considering buying an i5 17" MBP but also worried it won't have enough power and will be replaced soon by a quad-core model. Why won't UA just go Native already?!!!

jcschild 17th August 2010 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rids (Post 5692569)
I know they released the i5 and i7 Macbook Pros last Spring and it was disappointing that there was no quad core. Has there been any speculation as to when we might see a Macbook Pro quad core? I'm hoping soon because I'm running more and more software these days and I don't want to get an i5 Macbook when Quad cores will be twice as fast. I can wait a little longer before I need to upgrade, but hoping it's not next Spring...

no point to a quad core Apple (or PC)

the 620m (2.66GHz) outperforms all the quads anyway and cost less.

yes i said the faster GHZ dual outperforms the Quads.

Scott
ADK

Arcadia 17th August 2010 05:09 PM

Care to provide some sources for your info? According to Barefeats this is simply not true... the Quad i7 kills a similarly clocked i7 dual-core.

2010 iMac Core i7 - CPU crunch

jcschild 17th August 2010 05:21 PM

i see nothing in those benchmarks that compares a laptop?
nor compares the imac dual vs quad of the SAME architecture...

i am talking about MOBILE processors.

but here you go
Benchmarks for Pro Audio!

first test

black is the 820 Quad light green is the 620 DUAL

GHZ is king not cores.

Scott
ADK

Arcadia 17th August 2010 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jcschild (Post 5694155)
i see nothing in those benchmarks that compares a laptop?
nor compares the imac dual vs quad of the SAME architecture...

i am talking about MOBILE processors.

but here you go
Benchmarks for Pro Audio!

first test

black is the 820 Quad light green is the 620 DUAL

GHZ is king not cores.

Scott
ADK

Umm it's called "MBP" as in MacBook Pro. Look again... read the analysis text at end as well. Quad-core i7 iMac kills all current i7 MacBook Pros.

gregwar 17th August 2010 05:49 PM

ya, like someone posted the quads are going to be a drain on power

apple could do some tweaking to the battery to accommodate this but i dunno. some sources said the sandy dual core will be 20-30% faster but doesn't look it based on specs.

another at intel said the chips will be 4x faster. this is apparently because they're going to have onboard video, memory controllers and cpu in one chip.

i'm not sure how thats different than the integrated graphics in my current macbook pro i guess the memory controller ? we'll have to wait and see but sandy is supposedly a one time jump in processor speed according to some not an incremental one ? ?

phas3d 17th August 2010 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arcadia (Post 5693316)
The iMac i7 is a great value and fast as *uck, but I've really been missing my UAD plug-ins I used to be able to run on my previous-gen 15" MBP. I've been considering buying an i5 17" MBP but also worried it won't have enough power and will be replaced soon by a quad-core model. Why won't UA just go Native already?!!!

Again no updates for MBP this year. As for native, they're just afraid their plugs will be cracked like all the others were. Even Oxford plug-ins that were safe on the mac platform got hit.

jcschild 17th August 2010 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arcadia (Post 5694250)
Umm it's called "MBP" as in MacBook Pro. Look again... read the analysis text at end as well. Quad-core i7 iMac kills all current i7 MacBook Pros.

you cant read eh?

this thread is about MAC BOOK PRO not stinking imac

there is no benchmarks for QUAD MacBook Pro as they dont exsist.

AGAIN
you cant compare a dektop processor to MOBILE...

step away from the pipe...

Scott
ADK

Arcadia 17th August 2010 08:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jcschild (Post 5694489)
you cant read eh?

this thread is about MAC BOOK PRO not stinking imac

there is no benchmarks for QUAD MacBook Pro as they dont exsist.

AGAIN
you cant compare a dektop processor to MOBILE...

step away from the pipe...

Scott
ADK

I'm on crack? You stated that quad core chips aren't faster than their dual-core counterpart, which is simply not true. It's not "all about clock speed" as you suggest. The point is that if one waits for a quad core MacBook pro it will certainly provide significant performance gains compared to the current dual core i7 macbook pros, as evidenced by the fact that a quad core i7 based iMac smokes a similar clock speed dual core i7 MacBook pro.

L-Fire 17th August 2010 09:29 PM

It appears you guys don't know your Apple history. Apple has never and will never make a Macbook Pro that is as fast or faster than the iMac. They make laptops fast enough but not so fast that power users can get rid of their desktop at home and just use a MBP. They wan't to sell you a laptop and a desktop.

WhiteSheets 17th August 2010 09:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gregwar (Post 5694283)
ya, like someone posted the quads are going to be a drain on power

apple could do some tweaking to the battery to accommodate this but i dunno. some sources said the sandy dual core will be 20-30% faster but doesn't look it based on specs.

another at intel said the chips will be 4x faster. this is apparently because they're going to have onboard video, memory controllers and cpu in one chip.

i'm not sure how thats different than the integrated graphics in my current macbook pro i guess the memory controller ? we'll have to wait and see but sandy is supposedly a one time jump in processor speed according to some not an incremental one ? ?

No one knows how fast Sandybridge will be except Intel.

There's no way of telling from specs which were leaked recently as they only say the clock speed - the actual speed of the processor depends on a number of factors.

Sadly it doesn't look like quad mac laptops till at least 2012grrr

WhiteSheets 17th August 2010 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jcschild (Post 5693592)
no point to a quad core Apple (or PC)

the 620m (2.66GHz) outperforms all the quads anyway and cost less.

yes i said the faster GHZ dual outperforms the Quads.

Scott
ADK

So does a single core computer out perform a dual-core one?

Its a shame they have cores at all, really...

jcschild 17th August 2010 10:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arcadia (Post 5694886)
I'm on crack? You stated that quad core chips aren't faster than their dual-core counterpart, which is simply not true. It's not "all about clock speed" as you suggest. The point is that if one waits for a quad core MacBook pro it will certainly provide significant performance gains compared to the current dual core i7 macbook pros, as evidenced by the fact that a quad core i7 based iMac smokes a similar clock speed dual core i7 MacBook pro.

lets try this one more time eh
title of thread is about macbook pros.

that means mobile processors
you cant compare mobile and desktop.

the 2.66GHz DUAL MOBILE outperforms the lower GHz quad MOBILE
that my friend is a fact!
even with multi-threaded Apps.
benchmarks dont lie, i have already linked to the benchmarks.
unless you magically think that somehow the same intel cpu in a MacBook will magically do better than it does in a PC laptop.


now you want to get into desktop?
fine
a 3.33GHZ 6 core outperforms a 2.8GHz 12 core
again even with mutithreaded apps.
again fact!

so you were saying?
oh yeah imacs not sure why you mentioned those in a MOBILE processor thread.

are the new imacs (desktop processor)faster than a mobile (laptop processor)
DUH!

Scott
ADK

rids 20th August 2010 12:50 AM

I see what everyone is saying about the Quad-core Macbook probably not coming for a while. Apple seems to be playing it a little safer now and from looking at their track record of releasing 2 different Macbook/Pros in a year, sometimes a third, Apple seems to be spreading the time out, with a year between each new Macbook release. Was wondering if Apple would start pumping them out quicker or if they would continue this trend. Seems to be the later and it doesn't look like I see any indication that will change.

Interesting that the Dual cores can outperform Quads, though the Quad speeds are about 1ghz less.

This thread has proved to be very useful and revealing to me. So much so, I've been looking for a while, but today I just bought a 17" Macbook Pro 2.93mhz (5,2 model - can't find much info on the net since it's a custom mdel). I got an awesome deal on it and it's actually more visually stunning to look at than I realized. I can't wait to transfer everything over from my 13" Macbook. This should help out a lot handling cpu intensive softsynths and plugins. If and when the Quad cores come out, I can again recontemplate a possible step up, but I should be set for a while. cooge

valis 20th August 2010 01:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arcadia (Post 5694250)
Umm it's called "MBP" as in MacBook Pro. Look again... read the analysis text at end as well. Quad-core i7 iMac kills all current i7 MacBook Pros.

Scott was referring to the fact that the mobile dual cores aren't as speed gimped as the desktop format (i3/i5 dual cores.) You're comparing a quadcore DESKTOP processor with a significantly higher TDP.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arcadia (Post 5694886)
I'm on crack? You stated that quad core chips aren't faster than their dual-core counterpart, which is simply not true. It's not "all about clock speed" as you suggest. The point is that if one waits for a quad core MacBook pro it will certainly provide significant performance gains compared to the current dual core i7 macbook pros, as evidenced by the fact that a quad core i7 based iMac smokes a similar clock speed dual core i7 MacBook pro.

The TDP on a mobile 'quad' (Lynnfield derived Clarksfield core) is 35-45W while mobile 'duals' right now (Clarkdale derived Arrandale core) are 18-25W. A considerable difference, and the extra 20W doesn't buy enough of a 'boost' in most apps to matter as the lower TDP dual can turbo HIGHER due to its lower thermal output.

tomlee 20th August 2010 01:28 AM

interesting when it happens.

i'll get one when they do.

SeveBC 20th August 2010 01:58 AM

Feel the burn baby……
 
The key issue is the TDP of the chips plus ancillaries and getting rid of the heat generated. There is no easy solution for Apple with their toasty laptops and users won't tolerate burnt fingers (both literal and metaphorical). My late 2008 15.4 2.6GHz MacBook Pro gets hot but I mostly use it on a stand. The same problem affects the Mac Pro case: designed for a significantly lower TDP generation of chips - all those cores pump out much more heat overall. Less severely though because it is a full tower without the space restrictions of a laptop design. So unless the laws of thermodynamics suddenly change (excessive scolding casework and loud fan noise do not a desirable designer orientated product make) or there is a leap in cooling technologyablian don't hold your breath for a Quad core MacBook Pro in a cool slim slinky Apple designer body.heh

David_Kessler 20th August 2010 01:47 PM

Sweetwater ad in the back of the new Recording mag is talking about the Macbook Pro with I5 and I7 quads. Anyone else see this? Is this news of what's around the corner or bs?

work2do 20th August 2010 04:00 PM

i would take the advice from a professional in the field with hands on experience especially when he is giving you hardcore facts and not trying to sell you anything.

NewSc2 21st August 2010 12:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by L-Fire (Post 5695147)
It appears you guys don't know your Apple history. Apple has never and will never make a Macbook Pro that is as fast or faster than the iMac. They make laptops fast enough but not so fast that power users can get rid of their desktop at home and just use a MBP. They wan't to sell you a laptop and a desktop.

How does this explain the Mac Mini?

Apple won't sell a laptop faster than an iMac because they CAN'T sell it. You're comparing a desktop to a laptop. One has a far bigger form factor and more power than the other, which needs to be durable, run cooler, portable, and require less power. It's like comparing a Porsche to a hybrid car.

L-Fire 21st August 2010 04:20 PM

My point is that you can get an iMac with a quad core i7, correct? As long as that is the top of the line iMac you won't see a laptop with the same processor. Even if they did put an i7 quad core in there, they would find some way to "cripple" the machine. Don't get me wrong, I'm a Mac user. I have been since my dad bought a SE-30 in 87 or 88. I've bought three Macs in the past 5 years. I'm not trolling. I have just been paying attention lately and I noticed that Apple is no longer the underdog that I used to root for. They are slowly becoming the bully.

You have to understand that to us it's "OMG, check out the new MBP with i7 running at 3.0gHz". To Apple it's business. You don't shove a quad core i7 in a laptop when it may cost you some desktop sales. The Mini is a desktop computer, as in, it sits on your desktop, but really it's a Macbook. They could put an i7 in it, the same as the MBP, but it won't run as fast. All the other components wouldn't be equal. People that use laptops rarely use them as their main Logic/PT?CS4 computer.