I think so. They're due for an update, and with i5 and i7 laptops currently on store shelves running Windows 7, it's time for Apple to step up its game. My 2006 MBP is on its way out (graphics chipset showing signs of failure) and when it dies, my next laptop will be a quad-core. I hope it's a Mac!
I sure hope so. I'm looking for a quad-core laptop to replace the 15" MBP. For the first time in a little over 2 years I noticed vertical striping in my display. Only happened 3 times and hasn't since, but I'm sure it's on it's way out as well. I hope new models are available immediately after they're announced.
Understand though that nobody here knows for sure. In any event I'd hold off for as long as possible before Apple plays its cards. That simply due to the potential for a vast improvement in performance. Especially if they go with the new ATI mobile hardware.
Understand though that nobody here knows for sure. In any event I'd hold off for as long as possible before Apple plays its cards. That simply due to the potential for a vast improvement in performance. Especially if they go with the new ATI mobile hardware.
Dave
Man that would be sweet to be able to get a Mobility Radeon 58xx GPU.
I'd be really pissed if Apple only offered the mobiles on this list.
I'm hoping for a Core i7 820QM. But I hope they introduce models with the 620QM, 720QM and 820QM.
The quad core mobile Core i7s have been out for a while, they are based on the older 45nm process and have TDPs of 45-55W, so it's unlikely that MBPs will ever use them, because of cooling requirements and battery life issues. The MBPs will likely only use the newer 32nm Arrandale-based Core i5s and i7s.
What kind of tasks do you run that benefits from quad core processors? Quad core is quite rare in mobile computing.
The quad core mobile Core i7s have been out for a while, they are based on the older 45nm process and have TDPs of 45-55W, so it's unlikely that MBPs will ever use them, because of cooling requirements and battery life issues. The MBPs will likely only use the newer 32nm Arrandale-based Core i5s and i7s.
What kind of tasks do you run that benefits from quad core processors? Quad core is quite rare in mobile computing.
CS4, video, compiling, etc... The usual suspects.
Dell, Asus, Sony, Lenovo all have released models base on the i7-720QM. There currently are no 32nm quad core mobile chips from Intel. I can't imagine a new MBP line up without at least one of these chips as a option on the high end 15" and 17".
Man that would be sweet to be able to get a Mobility Radeon 58xx GPU.
I'd be surprised if Apple put that into the 15" model, but I wouldn't object either. Without a doubt ATI has made fantastic strides with their GPU's. They aren't as focused on OpenCL as NVida but the design is very well balanced.
Between this GPU and some of the other new tech out there I'd really resist buying anything at the moment. Maybe Apple won't implement everything out there that is new and juicy but I'd imagine some of it will go into the new laptops so we should see a whole new generation of performance.
I would like to see eSATA as standard. Since the Express card slot is only available on the 17" now, I would have to get a 17" MBP so I can use eSATA, so it would be nice if it was included in the next refresh so I can spend the cash on a faster CPU than a larger display.
... The MBPs will likely only use the newer 32nm Arrandale-based Core i5s and i7s.
This is possibly true but not a certainty. The 17" machine might be able to handle it, or Apple could produce a 20" machine.
Quote:
What kind of tasks do you run that benefits from quad core processors? Quad core is quite rare in mobile computing.
I see this attitude all the time and I'm not sure where it comes from. Multiple cores do a few things for you.
First; it keeps the computer responsive even if you are running a long process in background such as a video transcode. This can be rather important but also highlights another thing, todays PC's are often doing more than one thing at a time, often several. Things here equate to processes and those processes can have any number of threads. The more cores you have the greater likely hood that threads will get resources from the CPU when needed.
Second; many programs are now multi threaded but up front you may not know exactly how many threads they need. Or maybe I should say use effectively. So the more hardware threads you have the more likely you will keep all the active threads running.
Third; Apple has been very clear about where they are going with Mac OS/X. Snow Leopard has been extensively reengineered to make use of the highly threaded software of the future. It is some of Apples quality software engineering that has gone virtually unnoticed outside to forums like these. Buy as many cores as is reasonable is the only way to be prepared for the future.
Fourth; There is already a lot of software that is highly multithreaded. Look on the forums for examples, but the payoff can be pretty huge for one of these multi core processors driving your software.
So yeah Quad core may be rare, but why is that? Well it might have something to do with the lack of suitable hardware! You can't have quad core until the power demands are within the mobile space. I'd expect a quick change over to Quad capable hardware as it appears. Given that the ARRANDALE chips aren't that bad. It just that if you want to keep that PC for any length of time you need a CPU that will reflect trends in the industry.
I would like to see eSATA as standard. Since the Express card slot is only available on the 17" now, I would have to get a 17" MBP so I can use eSATA, so it would be nice if it was included in the next refresh so I can spend the cash on a faster CPU than a larger display.
There are a couple of reasons for that. One; it isn't a robust connector so after all the issues with FireWire I don't think Apple will make that mistake again. Two; the port is already to slow for modern SSD's and likely will be extremely slow relative to new SSD coming to market. Three; Apple has its eye on LightPeak.
Anything can happen of course but I just don't see eSATA as an Apple thing.
there are a couple of reasons for that. One; it isn't a robust connector so after all the issues with firewire i don't think apple will make that mistake again. Two; the port is already to slow for modern ssd's and likely will be extremely slow relative to new ssd coming to market. Three; apple has its eye on lightpeak.
Anything can happen of course but i just don't see esata as an apple thing.
I'll settle for that too as long as there are USB3 externals to choose from.
I believe Lacie announced one so far. Not sure about others. Much rather have a Drobo.
Yeah, I don't think there are many yet, but it's coming. Firewire 3200 support would be good too, it uses the same cables as 800 AFAIK. However, I don't think there are many options out for that either. It would be better to have the ports than an optical drive IMO. I don't use mine much at all, but I never have enough ports for peripherals. Add some extras ports, I don't mind an external blu-ray drive for a MBP.
Here's to hoping for a Jan. refresh, anyway. I would sure like to upgrade.
Yeah, I don't think there are many yet, but it's coming. Firewire 3200 support would be good too, it uses the same cables as 800 AFAIK. However, I don't think there are many options out for that either. It would be better to have the ports than an optical drive IMO. I don't use mine much at all, but I never have enough ports for peripherals. Add some extras ports, I don't mind an external blu-ray drive for a MBP.
Here's to hoping for a Jan. refresh, anyway. I would sure like to upgrade.
I forgot about firewire 3200. Haven't even heard it mentioned much at all since late last year.
This is possibly true but not a certainty. The 17" machine might be able to handle it, or Apple could produce a 20" machine.
I see this attitude all the time and I'm not sure where it comes from. Multiple cores do a few things for you.
First; it keeps the computer responsive even if you are running a long process in background such as a video transcode. This can be rather important but also highlights another thing, todays PC's are often doing more than one thing at a time, often several. Things here equate to processes and those processes can have any number of threads. The more cores you have the greater likely hood that threads will get resources from the CPU when needed.
Second; many programs are now multi threaded but up front you may not know exactly how many threads they need. Or maybe I should say use effectively. So the more hardware threads you have the more likely you will keep all the active threads running.
Third; Apple has been very clear about where they are going with Mac OS/X. Snow Leopard has been extensively reengineered to make use of the highly threaded software of the future. It is some of Apples quality software engineering that has gone virtually unnoticed outside to forums like these. Buy as many cores as is reasonable is the only way to be prepared for the future.
Fourth; There is already a lot of software that is highly multithreaded. Look on the forums for examples, but the payoff can be pretty huge for one of these multi core processors driving your software.
So yeah Quad core may be rare, but why is that? Well it might have something to do with the lack of suitable hardware! You can't have quad core until the power demands are within the mobile space. I'd expect a quick change over to Quad capable hardware as it appears. Given that the ARRANDALE chips aren't that bad. It just that if you want to keep that PC for any length of time you need a CPU that will reflect trends in the industry.
Dave
I agree that in general computing for many tasks having as many cores as you can is beneficial. My point was only with regards to mobile computing, where there are further restrictions. I also agree with you that quad core may be more common in the mobile space if the power demands fall. But it isn't quite there yet, which is why I think the next generation of MBPs won't use them. The Arrandales have TDPs of 18-35W, which includes a GPU, while the mobile quad core i7s have TDPs of 45-55W without a GPU. There are of course laptops that are designed to use these processors, but MBPs have been designed with things like switchable graphics to achieve long battery life, even with the 17 inch model. This is why I think the MBP line won't get the current quad core i7 processors, because its power requirements don't fall within those that MBPs seem to be designed for.
You know, I just don't think we're going to see a refresh to the MBP line until at least late Feb.
Normally, with any update, you hear rumblings, little pieces of info, rumors, factory leaks etc. But there just hasn't been that with the MBP's. Maybe because the internet is overdrive with apple tablet hype... but it's still strange. I'm guessing Apple still haven't sorted out gpu issues, which is a shame as the current line up is terribly out of date.
Comments
Dave
The processors likely to be used are now available (the first section, where it says "mobile"):
I'd be really pissed if Apple only offered the mobiles on this list.
I'm hoping for a Core i7 820QM. But I hope they introduce models with the 620QM, 720QM and 820QM.
Understand though that nobody here knows for sure. In any event I'd hold off for as long as possible before Apple plays its cards. That simply due to the potential for a vast improvement in performance. Especially if they go with the new ATI mobile hardware.
Dave
Man that would be sweet to be able to get a Mobility Radeon 58xx GPU.
I'd be really pissed if Apple only offered the mobiles on this list.
I'm hoping for a Core i7 820QM. But I hope they introduce models with the 620QM, 720QM and 820QM.
The quad core mobile Core i7s have been out for a while, they are based on the older 45nm process and have TDPs of 45-55W, so it's unlikely that MBPs will ever use them, because of cooling requirements and battery life issues. The MBPs will likely only use the newer 32nm Arrandale-based Core i5s and i7s.
What kind of tasks do you run that benefits from quad core processors? Quad core is quite rare in mobile computing.
The quad core mobile Core i7s have been out for a while, they are based on the older 45nm process and have TDPs of 45-55W, so it's unlikely that MBPs will ever use them, because of cooling requirements and battery life issues. The MBPs will likely only use the newer 32nm Arrandale-based Core i5s and i7s.
What kind of tasks do you run that benefits from quad core processors? Quad core is quite rare in mobile computing.
CS4, video, compiling, etc... The usual suspects.
Dell, Asus, Sony, Lenovo all have released models base on the i7-720QM. There currently are no 32nm quad core mobile chips from Intel. I can't imagine a new MBP line up without at least one of these chips as a option on the high end 15" and 17".
Man that would be sweet to be able to get a Mobility Radeon 58xx GPU.
Even the 57xx series would be awesome. Screw NVIDIA! ATI is where it's at.
Man that would be sweet to be able to get a Mobility Radeon 58xx GPU.
I'd be surprised if Apple put that into the 15" model, but I wouldn't object either.
Between this GPU and some of the other new tech out there I'd really resist buying anything at the moment. Maybe Apple won't implement everything out there that is new and juicy but I'd imagine some of it will go into the new laptops so we should see a whole new generation of performance.
Dave
... The MBPs will likely only use the newer 32nm Arrandale-based Core i5s and i7s.
This is possibly true but not a certainty. The 17" machine might be able to handle it, or Apple could produce a 20" machine.
What kind of tasks do you run that benefits from quad core processors? Quad core is quite rare in mobile computing.
I see this attitude all the time and I'm not sure where it comes from. Multiple cores do a few things for you.
First; it keeps the computer responsive even if you are running a long process in background such as a video transcode. This can be rather important but also highlights another thing, todays PC's are often doing more than one thing at a time, often several. Things here equate to processes and those processes can have any number of threads. The more cores you have the greater likely hood that threads will get resources from the CPU when needed.
Second; many programs are now multi threaded but up front you may not know exactly how many threads they need. Or maybe I should say use effectively. So the more hardware threads you have the more likely you will keep all the active threads running.
Third; Apple has been very clear about where they are going with Mac OS/X. Snow Leopard has been extensively reengineered to make use of the highly threaded software of the future. It is some of Apples quality software engineering that has gone virtually unnoticed outside to forums like these. Buy as many cores as is reasonable is the only way to be prepared for the future.
Fourth; There is already a lot of software that is highly multithreaded. Look on the forums for examples, but the payoff can be pretty huge for one of these multi core processors driving your software.
So yeah Quad core may be rare, but why is that? Well it might have something to do with the lack of suitable hardware! You can't have quad core until the power demands are within the mobile space. I'd expect a quick change over to Quad capable hardware as it appears. Given that the ARRANDALE chips aren't that bad. It just that if you want to keep that PC for any length of time you need a CPU that will reflect trends in the industry.
Dave
I would like to see eSATA as standard. Since the Express card slot is only available on the 17" now, I would have to get a 17" MBP so I can use eSATA, so it would be nice if it was included in the next refresh so I can spend the cash on a faster CPU than a larger display.
There are a couple of reasons for that. One; it isn't a robust connector so after all the issues with FireWire I don't think Apple will make that mistake again. Two; the port is already to slow for modern SSD's and likely will be extremely slow relative to new SSD coming to market. Three; Apple has its eye on LightPeak.
Anything can happen of course but I just don't see eSATA as an Apple thing.
Dave
there are a couple of reasons for that. One; it isn't a robust connector so after all the issues with firewire i don't think apple will make that mistake again. Two; the port is already to slow for modern ssd's and likely will be extremely slow relative to new ssd coming to market. Three; apple has its eye on lightpeak.
Anything can happen of course but i just don't see esata as an apple thing.
Dave
usb 3?
usb 3?
I'll settle for that too as long as there are USB3 externals to choose from.
I believe Lacie announced one so far. Not sure about others. Much rather have a Drobo.
I'll settle for that too as long as there are USB3 externals to choose from.
I believe Lacie announced one so far. Not sure about others. Much rather have a Drobo.
Yeah, I don't think there are many yet, but it's coming. Firewire 3200 support would be good too, it uses the same cables as 800 AFAIK. However, I don't think there are many options out for that either. It would be better to have the ports than an optical drive IMO. I don't use mine much at all, but I never have enough ports for peripherals. Add some extras ports, I don't mind an external blu-ray drive for a MBP.
Here's to hoping for a Jan. refresh, anyway. I would sure like to upgrade.
Yeah, I don't think there are many yet, but it's coming. Firewire 3200 support would be good too, it uses the same cables as 800 AFAIK. However, I don't think there are many options out for that either. It would be better to have the ports than an optical drive IMO. I don't use mine much at all, but I never have enough ports for peripherals. Add some extras ports, I don't mind an external blu-ray drive for a MBP.
Here's to hoping for a Jan. refresh, anyway. I would sure like to upgrade.
I forgot about firewire 3200. Haven't even heard it mentioned much at all since late last year.
Haven't noticed any peripherals for that either.
This is possibly true but not a certainty. The 17" machine might be able to handle it, or Apple could produce a 20" machine.
I see this attitude all the time and I'm not sure where it comes from. Multiple cores do a few things for you.
First; it keeps the computer responsive even if you are running a long process in background such as a video transcode. This can be rather important but also highlights another thing, todays PC's are often doing more than one thing at a time, often several. Things here equate to processes and those processes can have any number of threads. The more cores you have the greater likely hood that threads will get resources from the CPU when needed.
Second; many programs are now multi threaded but up front you may not know exactly how many threads they need. Or maybe I should say use effectively. So the more hardware threads you have the more likely you will keep all the active threads running.
Third; Apple has been very clear about where they are going with Mac OS/X. Snow Leopard has been extensively reengineered to make use of the highly threaded software of the future. It is some of Apples quality software engineering that has gone virtually unnoticed outside to forums like these. Buy as many cores as is reasonable is the only way to be prepared for the future.
Fourth; There is already a lot of software that is highly multithreaded. Look on the forums for examples, but the payoff can be pretty huge for one of these multi core processors driving your software.
So yeah Quad core may be rare, but why is that? Well it might have something to do with the lack of suitable hardware! You can't have quad core until the power demands are within the mobile space. I'd expect a quick change over to Quad capable hardware as it appears. Given that the ARRANDALE chips aren't that bad. It just that if you want to keep that PC for any length of time you need a CPU that will reflect trends in the industry.
Dave
I agree that in general computing for many tasks having as many cores as you can is beneficial. My point was only with regards to mobile computing, where there are further restrictions. I also agree with you that quad core may be more common in the mobile space if the power demands fall. But it isn't quite there yet, which is why I think the next generation of MBPs won't use them. The Arrandales have TDPs of 18-35W, which includes a GPU, while the mobile quad core i7s have TDPs of 45-55W without a GPU. There are of course laptops that are designed to use these processors, but MBPs have been designed with things like switchable graphics to achieve long battery life, even with the 17 inch model. This is why I think the MBP line won't get the current quad core i7 processors, because its power requirements don't fall within those that MBPs seem to be designed for.
Normally, with any update, you hear rumblings, little pieces of info, rumors, factory leaks etc. But there just hasn't been that with the MBP's. Maybe because the internet is overdrive with apple tablet hype... but it's still strange. I'm guessing Apple still haven't sorted out gpu issues, which is a shame as the current line up is terribly out of date.