Apple is not in the business of providing boring, sensible products, it is in the business of providing exciting products, and best bang for the buck is normally only achieved with the boring, sensible products.
And once you have Sandy Bridge, TB and quad-core (which admittedly is unfortunately rather unlikely) in a Mac mini, you get performance which rivals the 2010 Mac Pro.
Instead of refusing to offer good performance by designing a form factor that can handle powerful components, if Apple insists on retaining the Mac Mini form factor, it's forced to limit performance as a result.
The question now, though, is just how much larger a "Mini" would have to be to accommodate the components used in the iMac. Surely the average consumer would not be in the slightest inconvenienced were the Mini to be not so mini by a modest margin. If you can put serious performance into an iMac, surely the Mac Pro is an obsolete piece of overkill.
As it stands, the Mac Pro is overkill and the Mini simply too restricted by Jpbs infamous obsession with miniaturization. The hardware is there to offer a compact monitorless desktop with incredible computing power yet nowhere near the sheer bulk of the Mac Pro. A somewhat larger case would allow the use of less expensive yet far more powerful components.
Personally, if the Mini was replaced with a somewhat larger device still graced with Apple's much-respected industrial design, it would not strike me as being a bad thing. In fact, I suspect that Apple could wind up selling a lot more high-spec systems. Maybe someone might start off looking at a bargain $700 set-up and then move up to something closer to $1,500, lured in by the promise of affordable Mac-Pro-like performance. The more expensive the unit the greater the profit. Right now, to leap from paying less than a $1,000 for a Mini to paying well in excess of $2,000 for a Mac Pro is so substantive that many, like me, wouldn't even consider going that route. I just don't think the Mini's compactness is the huge selling point Jobs seems to think it is. There are a few applications in which size matters but I suspect most Mini buyers have opted for that model because it is the least expensive headless Mac available. It could have been the size of a Buick and many Mini owners would still have bought the thing.
I would, however, imagine lots of merit in retaining the server version of the Mini.
Apple could really shake things up with a smart re-think of their desktop strategy. I really don't see a lot of risk in pulling off such a bold change in direction. The biggest benefit would be to give observers something interesting to talk about and that's not a bad thing.
Ivy Bridge will not be a huge performance improvement over Sandy Bridge, but it should about double the performance per watt. That will allow, sometime in 2012, about double the performance for the MacBook Air and the Mac Mini, probably by means of quad-core.
I hope Apple are smart enough to realise that the current MacBook Air owes its popularity, in no small part, to its accessible price point and excellent value for money.
If they'd just build in wireless connectivity as well, my credit card would be out in a heartbeat. My MBP is starting to feel too heavy and my iPad is too constraining. So what I'd really like would be a small MBA with integral 3G (or better, 4G).
I'm puzzled by this statement; Macbook Airs have 80211n and Bluetooth built in, isn't that wireless connectivity?
As for integrated 3G or 4G, nice idea but I don't want it at the expense of a thicker or heavier Macbook Air.
USB modem sticks are tiny, will sticking one in the bag alongside the Macbook Air really break your back?
You can also use the Bluetooth or wifi wireless connectivity to tether to your smartphone. Even many ordinary phones with Bluetooth allow networking - I myself use a Sony Ericsson W880i as a 3G modem when travelling with my Macbook.
Ok so I read earlier that the new chips are good but the graphics card from intel are not as good as the nivida ones in the core 2 duo, is this correct?
They're about on par. You might see a drop in some GPU-limited scenarios due to the difference in driver quality (for lack of a better term) and developer support for nVidia vs. Intel; however, a dual-core Sandy Bridge will be a massive increase in CPU performance.
Space isn’t the only factor, it’s about about power usage which means a larger battery, the heat is creates, and the additional or larger components to disperse that heat, as well as these components extra use of power to do their job.
Excluding price, Quadcore Core-i chips are going to start at 45W compared to the 35W used by the 13” MBPs today. MBAs use even smaller and power efficient chips with a TDP of 18W and 10W.
They already can get toasty inside that small chassis. I say it’s not possible until Apple finally removes the optical drive. Even then there are plenty of other considerations. For instance, what’s more important to users in a 13” notebook, a longer duration from a larger battery life or putting in the fastest CPU possible.
It's coming...
Intel Aggressively Dropping Power Consumption in Future Notebook Processors
What makes you so certain those will be Quad core chips? They may be, then again they may be just dual core with hyperthreading, at least at the 22nm process node. At 14 nm sure I can see 15 watt Quad core cpus as a likely product.
Intel are recognizing that most mobile users are not cpu constrained. Fast dual core cpus paired with SSD drives gives most, but not all, mobile users the best user experience. Intel are shifting their design and manufacturing focus to energy efficiency rather than raw cpu processing power.
What makes you so certain those will be Quad core chips? They may be, then again they may be just dual core with hyperthreading, at least at the 22nm process node. At 14 nm sure I can see 15 watt Quad core cpus as a likely product.
Intel are recognizing that most mobile users are not cpu constrained. Fast dual core cpus paired with SSD drives gives most, but not all, mobile users the best user experience. Intel are shifting their design and manufacturing focus to energy efficiency rather than raw cpu processing power.
Sure, it?s coming, but we still need to consider that the battery is still much more constrained than the CPU for most users. So even if Intel can get the 35W average TDP down to 10-15W Apple may not use quad-core chips if they feel the dual-core are more than sufficient for a 13? and a much larger battery, 3G card, extra ports, thinner and lighter design, and other components are more important.
I know I stuck with a C2D 13? MBP instead of going with a Core-i 15? because the CPU wasn?t my primary concern.
What is the TDP of the future quad-core? How big is the die compared to the dual-core? I agree with backtomac that they will eventually come, but we shouldn?t expect it based solely on the fact that Intel is offering them.
To put it simply we will get quad cores because that is what Apple needs to propel Mac OS going forward.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
Sure, it?s coming, but we still need to consider that the battery is still much more constrained than the CPU for most users.
It depends upon which user you are talking about and which Laptop. AIR will always be limited battery life wise as it doesn't have the volume for a large battery. SB isn't going to do much for us in this respect unless Apple chides a really slow clock. That is why I see the next generation of AIR really excelling on Ivy Bridge. It is also notable that each generation save power outside of the CPU/GPU complex.
Quote:
So even if Intel can get the 35W average TDP down to 10-15W Apple may not use quad-core chips if they feel the dual-core are more than sufficient for a 13? and a much larger battery, 3G card, extra ports, thinner and lighter design, and other components are more important.
I suspect that they will go quad core as soon as they can. This in order to better support new tech in the OS moving forward.
Quote:
I know I stuck with a C2D 13? MBP instead of going with a Core-i 15? because the CPU wasn?t my primary concern.
Funny but I'm sticking with my 2008 MBP because the current updates aren't enough. Not so much that the CPU performance is bad but rather that they run to hot for that performance. If I can wait a year for better performance at half the power I will.
Quote:
What is the TDP of the future quad-core? How big is the die compared to the dual-core? I agree with backtomac that they will eventually come, but we shouldn?t expect it based solely on the fact that Intel is offering them.
Well I don't see Intel having much impact here, it is still Apples machine and OS. More cores are the vest way to assure better user experience. To that end I see AIR going QUAD as soon as Apple can. That might not be with SB though.
It is going to be a tough call. However the rest of the platform is not standing still either, so who is to say what absolute power usage will look like. I can safely say it will improve, but not by how much.
To put it simply we will get quad cores because that is what Apple needs to propel Mac OS going forward.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Well I don't see Intel having much impact here, it is still Apples machine and OS. More cores are the vest way to assure better user experience.
Yes there are so many *other* cpu vendors to choose from. Quad core will happen when Intel says so.
The most effective way to provide the end user with a responsive machine *today* is with an SSD. 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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
To that end I see AIR going QUAD as soon as Apple can....
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. 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.
I call BS! I say its a real tablet computer, not a supped up iPad but a real computer that you can do work on. All it would take is another 64 gb of memory (upped from 64 to 128 GB)configed as a HD and a hybrid OS 4.3/Snow Leopard and I think you could put the nail in MS/Android.
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
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.
Well we'll just have to see what AMD can deliver. I won't dismiss them out of hand since Zacate pretty much delivered the goods. But AMD also have a history of breaking hearts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
SSDs certainly help to widen one well known bottle neck. They however do nothing for computational performance.
Again, most users don't need more cpu power. They just don't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
BS! Manufactures have been lowering the power draw in laptop components for years now. This is nothing new.
Ever since 2006 when I bought my C2D MBP, the mainstream mobile cpu from Intel has been a 35 watt cpu. That's changing and its the paradigm shift.. Its now going to be a 10-15 watt cpu. I read in a thread at Ars that the cpus that are likely to be used for the next MBA are as follows:
i5-2537 1.4GHz, 17W
i7-2617 1.5GHz, 17W
i7-2657 1.6GHz, 17W
i7-2629 2.1GHz, 25W
i7-2649 2.3GHz, 25W
With that in mind I'm going to predict that at 22nm the 15 watt mainstream mobile cpus that Intel make will be dual core hyperthreading enabled cpus. Mainstream Quad core cpus at 15 watts won't be seen until the the 14nm process node. That's probably 2-3 years away. So I predict that mainstream laptops for the next 2-3 years are going to be dual core machines. For a quad core laptop, you'll have to come up with a little extra cash as I bet the 35 watt quad core Intel cpus will be 'extreme' cpus with premium prices.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
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.
There are plenty of apps that can take advantage of more than one core. How many can take advantage of 4 or more? Please tell me names of the apps that I can buy at the Mac App store or get at Best But that run on a Mac and leverage 4 or more cores during use. Bonus points if you show the app running, and only that app, and a menu meter documenting all those cores in action.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
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?
Absolutely. My parents have *no* idea what Handbrake is or what it does. They would have *no* hope in running that app by themselves even if they wanted to use it. I can't tell you how many times I've shown 'average' users how to use HB. And every time it has to be a hands on demo. The average user can't be told to just download the thing and figure it out on your own. I've had to show them how to use it every time.
The average user isn't nearly demanding and sophisticated as you think. Why do you think the iPad is so successful? It doesn't do any of the things you think are necessary for 'Apple's vision' and has no hope of running HB.
Comments
Apple is not in the business of providing boring, sensible products, it is in the business of providing exciting products, and best bang for the buck is normally only achieved with the boring, sensible products.
And once you have Sandy Bridge, TB and quad-core (which admittedly is unfortunately rather unlikely) in a Mac mini, you get performance which rivals the 2010 Mac Pro.
Instead of refusing to offer good performance by designing a form factor that can handle powerful components, if Apple insists on retaining the Mac Mini form factor, it's forced to limit performance as a result.
The question now, though, is just how much larger a "Mini" would have to be to accommodate the components used in the iMac. Surely the average consumer would not be in the slightest inconvenienced were the Mini to be not so mini by a modest margin. If you can put serious performance into an iMac, surely the Mac Pro is an obsolete piece of overkill.
As it stands, the Mac Pro is overkill and the Mini simply too restricted by Jpbs infamous obsession with miniaturization. The hardware is there to offer a compact monitorless desktop with incredible computing power yet nowhere near the sheer bulk of the Mac Pro. A somewhat larger case would allow the use of less expensive yet far more powerful components.
Personally, if the Mini was replaced with a somewhat larger device still graced with Apple's much-respected industrial design, it would not strike me as being a bad thing. In fact, I suspect that Apple could wind up selling a lot more high-spec systems. Maybe someone might start off looking at a bargain $700 set-up and then move up to something closer to $1,500, lured in by the promise of affordable Mac-Pro-like performance. The more expensive the unit the greater the profit. Right now, to leap from paying less than a $1,000 for a Mini to paying well in excess of $2,000 for a Mac Pro is so substantive that many, like me, wouldn't even consider going that route. I just don't think the Mini's compactness is the huge selling point Jobs seems to think it is. There are a few applications in which size matters but I suspect most Mini buyers have opted for that model because it is the least expensive headless Mac available. It could have been the size of a Buick and many Mini owners would still have bought the thing.
I would, however, imagine lots of merit in retaining the server version of the Mini.
Apple could really shake things up with a smart re-think of their desktop strategy. I really don't see a lot of risk in pulling off such a bold change in direction. The biggest benefit would be to give observers something interesting to talk about and that's not a bad thing.
I've had the cash burning a hole in my savings account since February for a 13" MBA with a quad Sandy Bridge processor and Thunderbolt...
+1 (...like a MoFo.... :-)....I have a 7 yr. old PB G4)
A price hike, would only harm sales.
If they'd just build in wireless connectivity as well, my credit card would be out in a heartbeat. My MBP is starting to feel too heavy and my iPad is too constraining. So what I'd really like would be a small MBA with integral 3G (or better, 4G).
I'm puzzled by this statement; Macbook Airs have 80211n and Bluetooth built in, isn't that wireless connectivity?
As for integrated 3G or 4G, nice idea but I don't want it at the expense of a thicker or heavier Macbook Air.
USB modem sticks are tiny, will sticking one in the bag alongside the Macbook Air really break your back?
You can also use the Bluetooth or wifi wireless connectivity to tether to your smartphone. Even many ordinary phones with Bluetooth allow networking - I myself use a Sony Ericsson W880i as a 3G modem when travelling with my Macbook.
Ok so I read earlier that the new chips are good but the graphics card from intel are not as good as the nivida ones in the core 2 duo, is this correct?
They're about on par. You might see a drop in some GPU-limited scenarios due to the difference in driver quality (for lack of a better term) and developer support for nVidia vs. Intel; however, a dual-core Sandy Bridge will be a massive increase in CPU performance.
Space isn’t the only factor, it’s about about power usage which means a larger battery, the heat is creates, and the additional or larger components to disperse that heat, as well as these components extra use of power to do their job.
Excluding price, Quadcore Core-i chips are going to start at 45W compared to the 35W used by the 13” MBPs today. MBAs use even smaller and power efficient chips with a TDP of 18W and 10W.
They already can get toasty inside that small chassis. I say it’s not possible until Apple finally removes the optical drive. Even then there are plenty of other considerations. For instance, what’s more important to users in a 13” notebook, a longer duration from a larger battery life or putting in the fastest CPU possible.
It's coming...
Intel Aggressively Dropping Power Consumption in Future Notebook Processors
http://www.macrumors.com/2011/05/19/...ok-processors/
It's coming...
Intel Aggressively Dropping Power Consumption in Future Notebook Processors
http://www.macrumors.com/2011/05/19/...ok-processors/
What makes you so certain those will be Quad core chips? They may be, then again they may be just dual core with hyperthreading, at least at the 22nm process node. At 14 nm sure I can see 15 watt Quad core cpus as a likely product.
Intel are recognizing that most mobile users are not cpu constrained. Fast dual core cpus paired with SSD drives gives most, but not all, mobile users the best user experience. Intel are shifting their design and manufacturing focus to energy efficiency rather than raw cpu processing power.
It's coming...
Intel Aggressively Dropping Power Consumption in Future Notebook Processors
http://www.macrumors.com/2011/05/19/...ok-processors/
What makes you so certain those will be Quad core chips? They may be, then again they may be just dual core with hyperthreading, at least at the 22nm process node. At 14 nm sure I can see 15 watt Quad core cpus as a likely product.
Intel are recognizing that most mobile users are not cpu constrained. Fast dual core cpus paired with SSD drives gives most, but not all, mobile users the best user experience. Intel are shifting their design and manufacturing focus to energy efficiency rather than raw cpu processing power.
Sure, it?s coming, but we still need to consider that the battery is still much more constrained than the CPU for most users. So even if Intel can get the 35W average TDP down to 10-15W Apple may not use quad-core chips if they feel the dual-core are more than sufficient for a 13? and a much larger battery, 3G card, extra ports, thinner and lighter design, and other components are more important.
I know I stuck with a C2D 13? MBP instead of going with a Core-i 15? because the CPU wasn?t my primary concern.
What is the TDP of the future quad-core? How big is the die compared to the dual-core? I agree with backtomac that they will eventually come, but we shouldn?t expect it based solely on the fact that Intel is offering them.
Sure, it?s coming, but we still need to consider that the battery is still much more constrained than the CPU for most users.
It depends upon which user you are talking about and which Laptop. AIR will always be limited battery life wise as it doesn't have the volume for a large battery. SB isn't going to do much for us in this respect unless Apple chides a really slow clock. That is why I see the next generation of AIR really excelling on Ivy Bridge. It is also notable that each generation save power outside of the CPU/GPU complex.
So even if Intel can get the 35W average TDP down to 10-15W Apple may not use quad-core chips if they feel the dual-core are more than sufficient for a 13? and a much larger battery, 3G card, extra ports, thinner and lighter design, and other components are more important.
I suspect that they will go quad core as soon as they can. This in order to better support new tech in the OS moving forward.
I know I stuck with a C2D 13? MBP instead of going with a Core-i 15? because the CPU wasn?t my primary concern.
Funny but I'm sticking with my 2008 MBP because the current updates aren't enough. Not so much that the CPU performance is bad but rather that they run to hot for that performance. If I can wait a year for better performance at half the power I will.
What is the TDP of the future quad-core? How big is the die compared to the dual-core? I agree with backtomac that they will eventually come, but we shouldn?t expect it based solely on the fact that Intel is offering them.
Well I don't see Intel having much impact here, it is still Apples machine and OS. More cores are the vest way to assure better user experience. To that end I see AIR going QUAD as soon as Apple can. That might not be with SB though.
It is going to be a tough call. However the rest of the platform is not standing still either, so who is to say what absolute power usage will look like. I can safely say it will improve, but not by how much.
To put it simply we will get quad cores because that is what Apple needs to propel Mac OS going forward.
Well I don't see Intel having much impact here, it is still Apples machine and OS. More cores are the vest way to assure better user experience.
Yes there are so many *other* cpu vendors to choose from.
The most effective way to provide the end user with a responsive machine *today* is with an SSD. 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.
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.
To that end I see AIR going QUAD as soon as Apple can....
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. 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.
Yes there are so many *other* cpu vendors to choose from.
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.
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.
Well we'll just have to see what AMD can deliver. I won't dismiss them out of hand since Zacate pretty much delivered the goods. But AMD also have a history of breaking hearts.
SSDs certainly help to widen one well known bottle neck. They however do nothing for computational performance.
Again, most users don't need more cpu power. They just don't.
BS! Manufactures have been lowering the power draw in laptop components for years now. This is nothing new.
Ever since 2006 when I bought my C2D MBP, the mainstream mobile cpu from Intel has been a 35 watt cpu. That's changing and its the paradigm shift.. Its now going to be a 10-15 watt cpu. I read in a thread at Ars that the cpus that are likely to be used for the next MBA are as follows:
i5-2537 1.4GHz, 17W
i7-2617 1.5GHz, 17W
i7-2657 1.6GHz, 17W
i7-2629 2.1GHz, 25W
i7-2649 2.3GHz, 25W
With that in mind I'm going to predict that at 22nm the 15 watt mainstream mobile cpus that Intel make will be dual core hyperthreading enabled cpus. Mainstream Quad core cpus at 15 watts won't be seen until the the 14nm process node. That's probably 2-3 years away. So I predict that mainstream laptops for the next 2-3 years are going to be dual core machines. For a quad core laptop, you'll have to come up with a little extra cash as I bet the 35 watt quad core Intel cpus will be 'extreme' cpus with premium prices.
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.
There are plenty of apps that can take advantage of more than one core. How many can take advantage of 4 or more? Please tell me names of the apps that I can buy at the Mac App store or get at Best But that run on a Mac and leverage 4 or more cores during use. Bonus points if you show the app running, and only that app, and a menu meter documenting all those cores in action.
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?
Absolutely. My parents have *no* idea what Handbrake is or what it does. They would have *no* hope in running that app by themselves even if they wanted to use it. I can't tell you how many times I've shown 'average' users how to use HB. And every time it has to be a hands on demo. The average user can't be told to just download the thing and figure it out on your own. I've had to show them how to use it every time.
The average user isn't nearly demanding and sophisticated as you think. Why do you think the iPad is so successful? It doesn't do any of the things you think are necessary for 'Apple's vision' and has no hope of running HB.
Just buy both.
Do you know there is still a recession going on now?