Quad core laptop processors, perhaps in a next rendition of the Mac Book Pro?

DarkKnight369 · Jul 15, 2008

http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/15/intel-bringing-quad-core-cpus-to-laptops-next-month/

Whispers in the hallways of George Washington CPU High School indicate that Intel is primed to release a batch of quad-core laptop processors next month. There apparently isn't a ton of info on the happening right now, though Pioneer Computers (an Australian PC maker) is currently taking orders on a system equipped with a 2.53GHz Core 2 Extreme chip, the QX9300. Of course, one of Intel's regional marketing managers in Singapore, Sujan Kamran, says that, "We're bringing quad-core to mobile in August," so, uh... not a lot of mystery left, is there?

the8thark · Jul 15, 2008

Actually this is rather interesting stuff. As Imacs can in theory benefit from the same technology as well. Thank you for sharing.

DarkKnight369 · Jul 16, 2008

No problem. Of course, these don't sound like true mobile processors. So they may be powerful, but not the most power efficient. I could be wrong. I just remember back to my old Toshiba Laptop that has a 3Ghz processor and eats battery. It was before this duo's.

jonnie84 · Jul 17, 2008

They may put these into the iMac's as the iMac use laptop processors, Yay Quad-Core iMac

Dysfunction · Jul 17, 2008

wow, and people think the macbook pro gets hot

Actingrude · Jul 17, 2008

Dysfunction said:
wow, and people think the macbook pro gets hot

I was thinking the same thing... All the jokes about cooking on it... not so funny anymore, now its a serious safety hazard...

bryphotoguy · Jul 17, 2008

My comment in the thread:

"I am not surprised. I think this getting a little ridiculous, no?

Does anyone need 4 cores? I would suspect 3 of the 2.8GHz cores in
my Mac Pro would be collecting dust if things ran as efficiently as
they should be.

I would prefer better written software over more processor cores or
GPU's.

"

I am also not surprised because I started this thread a few months ago when it was rumored there would be mobile quad cores in a short while.

the8thark · Jul 18, 2008

I do agree with you, more efficiently written software is the first thing needed with any multi core machine. But in the end of the day more raw power is always nice.

Cause back in the day people were saying no one needs more than 100Mhz. And look where we are now.

bryphotoguy · Jul 19, 2008

True- However, if you were to put three computers next to each other and bench them, you'll be surprised....
Put 3 computers, 1- single core, 1- dual core, 1- quad core all running the same clock speed, say 2GHz next to each other and run iTunes, a single core app. Run a file conversion. You know which computer will finish the job fastest? You know which will take the longest?

Dysfunction · Jul 19, 2008

Says the guy with the mac pro

Really, I use my portable as a primary workstation quad core would be nice for some circumstances, but they'd better figure out the heat and power issues first or it would be more of a pain than a boon for me. Now, would we all be better off if code was leaner? Sure. But that won't stop hardware manufacturers from generating new equipment. We gotta make some money too ya know

It'd be a whole lot better if we had more effecient hardware AND codestreams

bryphotoguy · Jul 19, 2008

I learned about the fault of the quad after purchase.

macwannabe · Jul 19, 2008

bryphotoguy said:
I learned about the fault of the quad after purchase.

what was that?

bryphotoguy · Jul 19, 2008

Software isn't smart enough yet. Maybe Snow Leopard will fix the problem.
Apps that aren't threaded for multiple cores work slower than on a computer with a single core. Most apps are not threaded so they don't perform as well as they could. The more cores the computer has, the slower non-threaded apps perform.

Village Idiot · Jul 24, 2008

What would make more sense regarding speed and power consumption? Quadcore chips running a slower FSB than the desktop version, or Dual Core running the same FSB as a desktop?

Unless you're utilizing the other two cores, which I'm assuming most programs aren't optimized for, wouldn't having less cores with a faster FSB speed be more efficient?