A Quad Core MBP at MacWorld?

[JMcEntegart]

Acer definitely wins the prize for being first out the gate with a machine running Intel’s latest addition to its processor line up, the ultra cheap quad core Q9000. However, now that it’s all official and out in the open...

A Quad Core MBP at MacWorld? : Read more

 

[gjelly]

What would be the point of putting this chip into the new 17" MacBook Pro? At 2.0 Ghz it wouldn't give any performance benefit in clock speed dependent applications like Photoshop that many Mac users use.

 

[apache_lives]

bahahaha http://processorfinder.intel.com/details.aspx?sSpec=SLGEJ - 45w CPU - my ass AMD has the most power efficent quad core on the market, intel isnt even trying and pitches these low power babies.

 

[Luscious]

"So far Acer is the only company with a Q9000 machine on sale"

WRONG!!!

Toshiba Qosmio X305-Q725. Look for it on newegg.

 

[Claimintru]

apache the fanboyism is pathetic.

 

[Claimintru]

Lol sorry I was drunk..I take it back

 

[apache_lives]

Haha the line break does make me look like a fanboy

What i was saying was AMD claims to have the most power efficent quad - the X4 9100 rated at 65w for a poor excuse of a quad etc - this Intel fits in a laptop and owns AMD's ass, and shows how much work AMD needs to put in to compete.

 

[apache_lives]

[citation][nom]gjelly[/nom]What would be the point of putting this chip into the new 17" MacBook Pro? At 2.0 Ghz it wouldn't give any performance benefit in clock speed dependent applications like Photoshop that many Mac users use.[/citation]

Sorry to sound like a fanboy here but this processor is prolly as quick as a mid range AMD Phenom X4 if not quicker, if those AMD users are happy with that performance, this chip should give plenty of power.

 

[gjelly]

Well yeah, Intel is the obvious choice for pretty much any computer. But I'm just wondering about why put a quad-core chip in a laptop right now with such low clock speeds. The dual-core chips that Apple and every other computer manufacturer out there offer are better for pretty much every application with their high clock speeds. I was just wondering why people get so hyped about putting quad-core chips in notebooks when the only good ones that would offer performance increases over dual-cores are only available for desktops.

 

[apache_lives]

Perhaps pitched at more future application? Same as the original dual cores for notebooks, seemed silly at the time, and same as desktops - quads useless? Dont think so! - average usage on my system is 70% total - GTA IV thrashes 4 cores (not that it would run on that laptop), I WANT MORE POWER THEN WHAT MY QUAD @ 3.5GHZ CAN OFFER - WELCOME TO TEH FUTUR!

Perhaps on the other hand a 4 threaded laptop chip would have been a wiser plan - 2 cores + 2 threads to initially boost the market...

 

[pocketdrummer]

Ok, so if could squeeze out a higher clock speed and FOR THE LOVE OF GOD MORE USB PORTS, I might consider one. I run a home studio and use a laptop to run the electronics on my hybrid drum set at live shows. More cores = more fun for me, but only if those cores aren't slow.

And I hate USB hubs with a passion... 3 usb ports is pathetic on a 17" laptop.

 

[apache_lives]

Ummmmm if your software scales properly then those 4 cores will be more powerfull then a dual core 3ghz using the same architecture, if you think about it - 100% more cores vs what, 20% more clock speed? and this is only a budget model of the mobile quad series.

USB port ammounts are insufficent even on the desktop front! Using a gigabyte with 2 front usb's, 2 for card reader (card + usb) plus 8 rear and just about all are used, plus a 4 port hub, something needs to be done here - perhaps smaller ports to pack more in or something or a port multiplier (or micro hub, or splitter cables or something....)

 

[armistitiu]

ok first of all why put a quad core in a notebook? i mean who in the world is gonna do 3dsmax rendering on his notebook? second why buy a MBP?..i know i know..it has an apple on the back..other than that it sux. And for the intel's no1 fanboy here apache : you have to remember that intel just released this quad and AMD's 65W quad is based on 65nm technology they should really refresh their list this year with 45nm tech(they will be Athlon X4 http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=11172&Itemid=1) so AMD really did have more energy efficient quads until this year.

 

[apache_lives]

[citation][nom]armistitiu[/nom]ok first of all why put a quad core in a notebook? i mean who in the world is gonna do 3dsmax rendering on his notebook? second why buy a MBP?..i know i know..it has an apple on the back..other than that it sux. And for the intel's no1 fanboy here apache : you have to remember that intel just released this quad and AMD's 65W quad is based on 65nm technology they should really refresh their list this year with 45nm tech(they will be Athlon X4 http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php? [...] &Itemid=1) so AMD really did have more energy efficient quads until this year.[/citation]

Some people have to demo stuff on the run and all sorts, or have little time to sit at home on a full system but need the power to get things done - it will come in handy for sure, i know it would come in handy in my line of work!

Why delay the future? The more performance the better.

Ummmm the website you quoted also mentions 45w desktop quads - whats your point? And besides, that 45w Athlon X4 you mentioned will perform even worse then the current Phenoms - its lacking the shared L3 cache! Makeing the already poorer clock for clock performer even worse?

And the age old BS of comparing tech and time eg 45nm vs 65nm etc - RIGHT HERE RIGHT NOW is all that matters - Intel has the goods, and im sure by the time AMD has 45nm in full swing Intel would have 32nm out the door.

Im excited about the release of cheaper and power efficent quads in laptops etc cause they are the way of the future etc - performance is a good thing, and the more the better? or doesnt that apply for AMD and its fanboys when AMD is behind well over a year?

 

[aggrressor]

Umm yeah well, such enthusiasts as guys at Toms Hardware should know better to check on Alienware site first and more over - check your own posts from NOV 3rd. http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Alienware-ATI-Crossfire-Gaming-Laptop,6553.html

Alienware M17 laptop offers 2 Quads.... Q9100 and an Extreme version QX9300.... I wonder what Jane was thinking about when she wrote this article... I have a feeling that she meant to say "the first Mac Book Pro" instead of ""... Get your stories straight tom's....

Also, everyone who's such an Intel Fanboy, don't forget that Amd was whooping Intel's behind 2002-2006... Also Intel and AMD have an agreement to share intellectual property, that's why Intel is able to use technology for I7 that AMD came up with in 2002... don't get me wrong, I'm not an AMD fanboy, I love intel and AMD cpu's, but I prefer the best bang for the buck, and so far it has been Intel. Maybe AMD's Desktop version of Shanghai(Deneb) will change that, but that is something yet to be seen.

 

[aggrressor]

Umm yeah, I was so surprised that forgot to add "first out the gate with a machine running Intel’s latest mobile chip" in between the quotes LOL!
I'm gonna grab a beer and take a nap... I think i'm just way too shocked LOL

 

[apache_lives]

aggrressor - what tech with the i7? If you mean the IMC go and google "Intel Timna" and see who was first with that matter, not that that tech is needed to beat AMD (hence the late adoption).

AMD in 2002-2006 had faster CPU's sure, but Intel sold more because of a cunning market strategy, the GHz simple sold more, but if you check out THG's review of the Pentium M vs Desktop chips Intel always had that ace up its sleeve - P6 tech was always king.

 

[tipoo]

well, its not a quad core after all, just a plain old C2D in the new MBP.

 

[apache_lives]

tipoo what you mean not a quad? it has 4 cores - QUAD! core 2 duo as it sugests only has a "duo" (DUAL) core etc.