Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

2 cores or 4 cores

S

stovetop6872

macrumors regular
Original poster
Dec 27, 2007
110
0
The rumors here think that apple will use the new intel processors for the MBP right?? These are only 2 cores right?? Will they release 4 core notebooks anytime soon or will we be safe to buy at MacWorld even if they are 2 cores?? Is 4 cores noticeably different??? Sorry for all the questions. Thanks. :apple:
 
I very highly doubt that Mac will be releasing any quad-core MBP'S any time soon. That's just overkill for a notebook computer and a quad-core processor would run much too hot to put in a notebook.
 
CJRhoades said:
I very highly doubt that Mac will be releasing any quad-core MBP'S any time soon. That's just overkill for a notebook computer and a quad-core processor would run much too hot to put in a notebook.
Click to expand...

Really?? I thought I read that somewhere on here. Is 4 cores that much "better"?
 
The 4 core processors will be released twards the end of the year. I highly doubt they will be implemented right away because they conduct way to much heat for such a slim laptop.
 
CJRhoades said:
Yes, 4 cores is better but there is just too much head involved...
Click to expand...
I agree, with all four Corrs there's too much head. Two Corrs would be enough, and I'd make three my maximum before the head become too much for my liking.
Corrs.gif
 
mpw said:
I agree, with all four Corrs there's too much head. Two Corrs would be enough, and I'd make three my maximum before the head become too much for my liking.
Click to expand...
um...which three are you do you prefer?
 
stovetop6872 said:
What I mean by "better" is a significant speed increase. Twice as fast....etc???
Click to expand...

If your application is properly coded to support 4 cores then it could be up to twice as fast. But the earliest we will see the quad notebook processors in any of Apple's lineup is probably the next iMac revision after they are released later this year.
 
Entirely speculation, but I have to imagine that with mobile quad-cores Intel will perhaps take the philosophy behind speed-step technology one step further and disable cores 3 & 4 when the extra power isn't needed or when the current processes aren't multi-threaded.

In regards to quad core performance, I have a Q6600 in my desktop. The only area where I notice any speed difference from a similarly clocked dual-core is video encoding. It absolutely blazes through multi-threaded tasks like that.
 
Techguy172 said:
The plan for the Quad core CPU's is for gaming laptops not apple's little thin ones completely due to heat and power consumption.
Click to expand...

Quad core gaming is a far way away still unfortunately.


mpw said:
I agree, with all four Corrs there's too much head. Two Corrs would be enough, and I'd make three my maximum before the head become too much for my liking.
Corrs.gif
Click to expand...


AHAHHAHAHHAHA, :p you win this thread mpw!!!
 
Aren't the new quad-cores announced a few days ago desktop only? If that is the case, the MBP/MB/iMac/Mini are not candidates at this points as they all use Intel's mobile processors. I think that the mobile quads a coming online this summer?
 
I don't see quad cores being useful for at least another year. There just isn't much of anything they can be useful for aside of gaming, which is not a MAC objective. There's nothing out there right now that could take advantage of a quad core mac in every day use IMO.
 
one1 said:
I don't see quad cores being useful for at least another year. There just isn't much of anything they can be useful for aside of gaming, which is not a MAC objective. There's nothing out there right now that could take advantage of a quad core mac in every day use IMO.
Click to expand...

You better call Apple and tell them to pull out their Mac Pro Octocore product line now then. :p


The fact is that quad and octocores right now are useful for anything BUT gaming. Most pro apps take advantage of multiple cores right now, no games AFAIK do that now.
 
Oh I agree that they are USEFUL on a MAC for things such as photoshop, but the kind of person that NEEDS a quad core machine needs it in a desktop that can take full advantage of it IMO.
 
Jiddick ExRex said:
You better call Apple and tell them to pull out their Mac Pro Octocore product line now then. :p


The fact is that quad and octocores right now are useful for anything BUT gaming. Most pro apps take advantage of multiple cores right now, no games AFAIK do that now.
Click to expand...

Sadly, it is not true that most Pro apps take advantage of multiple cores, but that should be changing soon, and you are right that Pro apps are the first place that we should see this further embraced, along with OS X, of course, which will hopefully address access to multiple cores and SSE4 instructions in the 10.5.2 release that we are all expecting at MacWorld in 5 days, 7 hours and 20 minutes.
 
one1 said:
Oh I agree that they are USEFUL on a MAC for things such as photoshop, but the kind of person that NEEDS a quad core machine needs it in a desktop that can take full advantage of it IMO.
Click to expand...

Why would a desktop take more advantage of quad cores than a laptop would?

If I was a pro user on the road I most certainly wouldn't mind having more performance in my laptop. First and second season of Scrubs was edited on two 17" Powerbooks in various hotel suites across the US for instance. :)

And Photoshop is an app that really doesn't need more than 2 cores and a sh*tload of RAM in order to work properly. By pro apps I am talking about the heavy duty Logic apps and Final Cut apps. I do believe but am not certain that they are multicore aware at the time (in response to the previous posters statement) but at least recognizes and utilizes two cores.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back