Originally Posted by backtomac
Yes there are so many *other* cpu vendors to choose from.
Quad core will happen when Intel says so.
Actually AMD has been demoing a 45 watt chip that is expected in notebooks next month. It has a far better GPU than the Intel offering and actually draws far less power than Sandy Brudge under load.
The most effective way to provide the end user with a responsive machine *today* is with an SSD.
SSDs certainly help to widen one well known bottle neck. They however do nothing for computational performance.
That Intel are now gearing mobile cpus for energy efficiency rather than raw cpu processing power is a obvious recognition that todays average mobile user is not cpu constrained. performance. The Intel move to make 15 watt mobile cpus the mainstream cpus is a *major* paradigm shift. Its also no accident that Intel also make SSDs.
BS! Manufactures have been lowering the power draw in laptop components for years now. This is nothing new. Considering the process tech that comes with Ivy Bridge we will be seeing both a cooler running and faster processor.
Processing cores are becoming the new megahurts myth. Only now are we seeing applications like Final Cut that can truly take advantage of multi-core cpus.
Everyone we have a discussion about multi core someone gas to bring up this nonsense. I'm sorry your software suit is so limited but there are many apps that take advantage of more than one core.
It makes about as much sense as people complaint about OpenCL support or the supposed lack there of. There are many apps that take advantage of OpenCL but it is not a solution for every bodies needs.
I think its going to be later than you think. Obvious it will happen eventually, but for the typical usage the MBA is designed to do, quad core cpus don't add much value.
More BS! Step back for a moment and think about why a transition to dual core was made all those years ago. It allowed for good performance while keeping power usage under control. Like wise with today's software you can manage good performance in a laptop by having a number of cores running at the same time. By having those cores available you eliminate the need for a high clock rate single core.
Multi-core cpus are useful and perhaps even indispensable for power users. But for people using MS office or iWork, email, web browsing and light iLife usage a quad core cpu isn't that beneficial.
Even here you blew it. Take web browsing for example. Safari, in the Webkit beta, is taking on many improvements that will make use of the extra cores and even the GPU. Flash will run in it's own process while Safari is still threaded. That pretty much takes care of three cores right there. That doesn't even include other apps running at the same time such as iTunes or a chat program.
As to E-Mail the Macs Mail program got a big speed up when it moved to Snow Leopard. How? By the better use of multi threading that GCD offered in Snow Leopard. Same thing for Aperture and a couple of other apps from Apple.
In any event this idea that apps can't take advantage of more than two cores is totally bogus. It depends upon the app and the way it is written of course. However the user has his own influence on core usage, don't do anything demanding with the app and it will never use more than one core.
As to the constant whine about power users, what ezactly is a power user. If you are using Handbrake to transcode a file are you a power user? I doubt it because many casual users end up messing with video on their PCs. I do know they won't be happy if their machine becomes unusable when running that transcoding. How about somebody running Java and an end user app, are they power users?
My point is this if you are tuned in to what Apple is doing with the OS you will quickly realize the multi core is the future. The new facilities, such as GCD, are pointers in the direction Apple is going. In any event like I said before we will see quad cores as soon as Apple can put them is. They will be needed to best deliver all of Apples visions for the OS.