9to5Mac is reporting that Apple may be rolling out Macbook Pros featuring quad core processors later this year–coinciding with upcoming quad core laptop chips from Intel. Let me repeat: Quad core CPUs, in laptops. Given that we’re still waiting for quad core CPUs to be fully utilized on the desktop, the notion of bringing it to the mobile market seems utterly premature.
I’m not denying that quad core chips will ever find a home in laptops, but as of today it seems we’ve got a long way to go before they’re a viable option. Here are a few reasons why I think this is a wasted effort:
Real World Benefit
Even on desktops, the benefits of using quad core CPUs are currently focused on a few specialized applications–namely, 3D rendering and heavy-duty media encoding. This is primarily because there is a sad lack of multithreaded software optimized to utilize four CPU cores. We’ve only recently started seeing software optimized for dual cores, so you can imagine how long the transition to quad core will take. Games and the vast majority of processor intensive applications will simply not see any benefit from these chips.
In addition, dual core chips generally have the capability of running at higher clock speeds than their quad core counterparts. This leads to speed benefits that you can take advantage now, which is why many gamers still prefer to run dual core chips. For a primer on why dual core chips are still a good choice, check out Anandtech’s gushing review of Intel’s first next-generation (codenamed: Wolfdale) desktop CPU, the 45nm Core 2 Duo E8500.
Battery Life
The quad core CPU that Apple would end up using in the Macbook Pro would be built using 45nm transistors. It would ultimately use less power than today’s 65nm chips, due to its smaller and more efficient design. But despite the power-saving benefits of 45nm architecture, a quad core chip is still going to be a strain on traditional laptop batteries.
As is generally the case, we’re seeing incredible technological leaps when it comes to processors, but batteries simply don’t evolve at the same pace. Stuffing a quad core chip into laptops that still have trouble running today’s dual core CPUs would most likely be a step backwards for battery life.
Heat Issues
The 45nm technology would also lead to less head dissipation than we’re used to in today’s 65nm processors–but any headway made in reducing heat output would be nullified by using a quad core chip in a laptop. The reasoning for this is pretty much the same as the “battery life” section above.
Given that I’m currently finding my Core 2 Duo Macbook Pro dangerously hot at times, it seems somewhat insane to make things even potentially hotter with quad core chips.
Wrapping Up
So if you haven’t gotten the message yet, I’m not so keen on the idea of quad core chips in laptops. I understand that these sorts of laptops would be aimed at high-end users, but it seems to me that they would do better to get themselves an 8 core setup in a high end workstation rather than stressing the limits of laptop hardware.
We also haven’t heard much about the actual hardware specs for Intel’s upcoming mobile CPUs, so they could very well turn out a mobile quad core chip that runs no hotter than today’s dual core CPUs. This outcome is far from likely though.
Personally I don’t think quad cores belong anywhere near mobile computers until we can actually take advantage of all those cores in software. At this point, dual core processors are fast enough for decoding and encoding 1080p high-definition video–ergo, they’re sufficient for 95% of mobile users. Hardware manufacturers would be better off digging into the infinite ways they could utilize smaller, cooler, and cheaper processors to combat the rise of computers like Asus’s breakout hit, the Eee.
In my opinion, innovations like Intel’s latest tiny-CPU platform, “Atom”, (whose potential I’ve already discussed) would lead to far more interesting and desirable computing devices than simply trying to squeeze the fastest desktop chip into a mobile platform. Just consider how much more popular a $500 Apple competitor to the Eee would be rather than a $2,500+ Macbook Pro with quad core. In a way we’re already seeing that battle taking place between Apple’s Macbook Air and the Asus Eee–and for the most part I think the Eee comes out on top.
As an aside, I should mention that I’ve recently decided to jump on Intel’s latest dual core processor for my next desktop upgrade. I’d much rather have a dual core chip I can overclock to 3.5-4Ghz and actually use all that power, rather than a quad core that’s clocked slower with cores that remain mostly unused. If quad core CPUs can’t match my needs on the desktop today, then they have no business being in laptops within 2008.
Similar Posts
- Intel’s New "Atom" Chips Bring Us Closer to Ubiquitous Mobile Computing March 2008
- Amherst Bytes #7: Apple Makes a Switch October 2005
- Apple Air versus Asus Eee: A Comparison January 2008
- Amherst Bytes #26: Windows on Macs November 2006
- HD-DVD’s Secret Weapon? HD-DVD Standard on Toshiba Laptops Come 2008, And Why It Probably Won’t Matter June 2007
I’m thinking that Quad Cores in a laptop would definetely drain the battery life more and that a laptop has limited cappabillites with expansion, they should just stick to dual cores.
Trent
Bizarre article. I use a cluster of Macs to do mathematical work with GridMathematica and the sooner one of these comes out the better - that way I can travel and do demos of parallel computation applications without replying on a local setup. I rarely work off batteries, and the benefits of four processors massively outweigh slightly faster clock speed. Can’t wait for quad myself!
William, it’ll certainly be useful for users like yourself, my point is that it’s not that wise of a release among general computer users. Most laptops today already run obscenely hot, and battery life hasn’t been improved much recently, on dual core chips.
Unless significant changes occur to quad core chip architecture, they won’t be a good addition to laptops. I’m sure it will happen eventually, just not sure if that will be this year.