Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

OreoCookie · Jul 9, 2009, 04:58 AM

I'll probably have to get a new notebook next spring (unless something unforeseen happens and I'm allowed to keep my ProBook). I'd really like to wait until quad core mobile cpus are available. Can we expect quad core cpus in ProBooks by then?

Spheric Harlot · Jul 9, 2009, 05:05 AM

Probably.

Simon · Jul 9, 2009, 06:41 AM

You will see quad-core next-gen notebooks in 4Q09, but not from Apple.

Intel just reported on progress with Clarksfield (the quad-core to replace Penryn). They anticipate a Quad Extreme at 2.0 GHz with a whopping 55W TDP. There's two regular models at 1.6 and 1.73 GHz but they still have a 45W TDP instead of the 35W they were originally planned to have.

Apple usually puts a 35W (or less) CPU in the 15 and 17" MBPs. They have had higher-clocked parts as BTO but as it turned out those were usually not the 44W TDP XE parts, but Intel's very first batches of the 35W parts they would later sell as regular Txx00 series.

I would definitely not totally rule out the possibility of a quad-core MBP in spring 2010, but it's not very likely. And Intel also seems eager to go to 32nm as fast as possible. Arrandale (the 32nm Core i3 mobile CPU) could be launched as early as 4Q09, but of course only as dual-core.

awcopus · Jul 9, 2009, 07:35 AM

Now would be a great time to pick up a 17" Macbook Pro. I just spent some time with this beast at an Apple Store yesterday, not coincidentally right after selling my Macbook Pro (early 2008) for just under $1400. The only thing keeping me from stimulating the economy with a purchase of the anti-glare version of this beauty is NY's brutal sales tax, which now affects even mail order from other states.

Likely solution will involve a NH Apple Store later this month when I'm up north visiting my parents or arranging for a B&H shipment to a friend's apartment in NJ or CT (much trickier, since B&H doesn't have the machine I want "in stock" on a reliable basis).

OreoCookie · Jul 9, 2009, 09:33 AM

Great, so there is still hope

To be honest, if I can keep my first-gen ProBook, I will do so for another year or so.

Simon · 02:49 AM

As a follow-up here's part of a recently leaked Intel mobile CPU roadmap.

As you can see there's a big fat gap at Apple's usual 35W TDP for 2010. Penryn isn't being developed further while Intel hasn't managed to get the power down in the new performance mobile CPUs. The quad-core i7x20QM (Clarksfield) would be nice in a MBP, but they run <45W. Maybe Apple could get a low-power batch from Intel, but I don't think that's very likely.

There's also a dual-core option called Arrandale. Since Intel canned Auberndale (the original Clarksfield counterpart at 45nm) and went right to the 32nm process (Westmere) for dual-core mobile CPUs we can expect to see them in a portable Mac in early 2010. At only 25W TDP they'd make for an excellent CPU in the Mac mini and 13" MBP. They're inexpensive too.

The real question is what Apple does on the high end. Stick with Penryn and go to 3.06/2.8 GHz, remain dual-core but migrate to Westmere/Arrandale, or find a way to get that hot quad-core Clarksfield into the MBP? And I'm not at all convinced yet that a majority of MBP users would benefit from these quad-core CPUs since they come with a significantly lower clock. The i7-720QM is still hot at between 35W and 45W, yet it only runs at 1.6 GHz. Sure with TurboBoost it can in principle clock up a single core to 2.8 GHz, but I doubt that serves the average MBP user better than a 3.06 GHz Penryn at 35W or a 2.66/3.33 GHz Arrandale at 25W.

Spheric Harlot · Jul 16, 2009, 06:39 AM

"TurboBoost"?

Oooh.

Do we get one of those snazzy "Turbo" buttons like on those early '90s PC cases?

Simon · Jul 16, 2009, 08:46 AM

Not really.

This time the button's built right into the CPU.

Basically the CPU monitors its own TDP in the Power Control Unit. If the PCU sees that the CPU has not reached it's envelope (for example because you're running a single thread on one core and everything else is idle) it can clock up a core. That's why in the roadmap you see Nehalem-based CPUs quoted with two clock frequencies. One is the nominal clock, the other is the max clock Turbo Boost can crank up to.

If you're interested in more details, AnandTech has a good explanation of Nehalem's Turbo Boost here.

Big Mac · Jul 16, 2009, 09:14 AM

I need a turboboost Kit!

Spheric Harlot · Jul 16, 2009, 09:26 AM

That's "KITT", I believe.

Big Mac · Jul 16, 2009, 10:08 AM

Sorry, it's still early here.

OreoCookie · Jul 16, 2009, 12:16 PM

So basically the message is that by next spring, there is pretty much no chance of four-core mobile cpus (at least for the 13" model that I'm interested in).

Big Mac · Jul 16, 2009, 01:27 PM

Quad-core Apple laptop sounds like a fantasy to me at this point, not counting the possibility of a special 17" configuration.

Simon · Jul 16, 2009, 02:17 PM

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

So basically the message is that by next spring, there is pretty much no chance of four-core mobile cpus (at least for the 13" model that I'm interested in).

At 45W it just isn't going to happen on the 13" MBP. I'd say you'll need to wait at least until 2H10 to see quads come down to 35W TDP, let alone the safer 25W Apple will be aiming for on the 13".

mduell · Jul 17, 2009, 01:20 PM

With the elimination of the northbridge, 45W TDP CPU is the new 35W TDP CPU.
I predict i7-820 in 17", i7-720 and i7-820 mix in the 15", and Arrandale (i5) in 13".

Simon · 12:21 AM

That's commonly known. But the problem with Clarksfield is there's no 35W/45W part. There was supposed to be. But they didn't manage.

The best shot is a <45W/45W part. It runs at 1.6GHz.

mduell · Jul 18, 2009, 01:41 PM

Originally Posted by Simon

That's commonly known. But the problem with Clarksfield is there's no 35W/45W part. There was supposed to be. But they didn't manage.

The best shot is a <45W/45W part. It runs at 1.6GHz.

35W/45W and -45W/45W are the same thing when you're talking about the Nehalem side of the TDP bucket. Only the Penryn generation TDP buckets differ.

1.73Ghz quad Nehalem is great for content creators and other CPU demanding users.

colourfastt · Jul 18, 2009, 04:32 PM

I personally don't see a quad-core CPU in an Apple notebook until the heat issue is resolved. Several years at least; tho I do expect Windows-based laptops will have them sooner due to different design structures.

Simon · Jul 19, 2009, 03:02 AM

Originally Posted by mduell

35W/45W and -45W/45W are the same thing when you're talking about the Nehalem side of the TDP bucket. Only the Penryn generation TDP buckets differ.

Nope. Hence the gap. Intel themselves had different plans. Now they realize that it's not going to happen at 45 nm.

1.73Ghz quad Nehalem is great for content creators and other CPU demanding users.

For one, there is no such part. Secondly, unless SL changes the game entirely I'd say about 95% of MBP users would be better off with 2 Penryn cores at 3.06 GHz than four Clarksfield cores at 1.6 GHz. It's cheaper too.

Simon · Jul 19, 2009, 03:07 AM

Originally Posted by colourfastt

I personally don't see a quad-core CPU in an Apple notebook until the heat issue is resolved.

I wouldn't rule it out yet. Apple has in the past managed to get Intel make parts to their specifications that Intel didn't advertise openly or sell to to others.

However, and there is no doubt here, if all Intel has is what we know so far, the MBP will not be going Clarksfield in Sep/Oct.

angelmb · Jul 19, 2009, 04:32 AM

Give me higher resolution displays instead of more cores.

mduell · Jul 19, 2009, 03:27 PM

Originally Posted by Simon

For one, there is no such part. Secondly, unless SL changes the game entirely I'd say about 95% of MBP users would be better off with 2 Penryn cores at 3.06 GHz than four Clarksfield cores at 1.6 GHz. It's cheaper too.

It's in the roadmap you linked to, i7-820QM.

A pair of 3+Ghz Arrandale cores may be good for non-pro users, but certainly not Penryn.

Jasoco · Jul 19, 2009, 09:18 PM

Originally Posted by angelmb

Give me higher resolution displays instead of more cores.

Give me both! Give me a 1440x900 13" screen and a Quad core 2.8GHz processor in a MacBook and I'll supply the 500GB HD and 4GB RAM.

God.. such a beautiful dream I was having.

Simon · Jul 20, 2009, 04:44 AM

Originally Posted by mduell

A pair of 3+Ghz Arrandale cores may be good for non-pro users, but certainly not Penryn.

The way Apple and 95% of the mobile market define "Pro" two 3+ GHz Arrandale are more than sufficient right now. Heck, pros supposedly don't even need EC/34 on sub-17" notebooks anymore.

That said, I belong to the 5% that could actually benefit from having four Nehalem cores. But then I also know that I would never run production on a portable. That's what I have a stationary box with loads of RAM and fast i/o for.

In a year from now (with SL/GC and apps updated) that could very well be a different story. But by then Intel will have also had more time to get their quad-core mobile CPUs down to a more mobile 35W/45W TDP while retaining serious clock speeds.

Simon · Jul 20, 2009, 04:48 AM

Originally Posted by Jasoco

Give me both! Give me a 1440x900 13" screen and a Quad core 2.8GHz processor in a MacBook and I'll supply the 500GB HD and 4GB RAM.

God.. such a beautiful dream I was having.

LOL. And so unrealistic!

Jasoco · Jul 20, 2009, 08:02 PM

Originally Posted by Simon

LOL. And so unrealistic!

Maybe now. But in a few years, who knows? Not that unrealistic. The HD and RAM are already here. All we need is a 13" panel with 1440x900 resolution and those quad core laptop chips at 2.8GHz. In a few years I can see it.

Simon · Jul 21, 2009, 02:40 AM

What's really needed for that dream to come true is the quad-core chip at 25W TDP and ~$200 price. Maybe in two years.

SierraDragon · Jul 23, 2009, 02:48 PM

IMO at 17" it will be about price of the parts more than about 35w TDP per se, because the latest coding allows all kinds of cool heat reduction tricks. The 17" MBP could see 4-cores, it will all be about price of the components.

-Allen Wicks

Simon · Jul 23, 2009, 02:53 PM

And with Apple just recently having to lower prices on the 17" we can gauge the chance of them using twice as expensive parts in the next rev.