No Quad core laptops

Why are most laptops now only dual core?
Looking for a new laptop to run VMs on but most I see are only dual core, gaming laptops seem to have them but the battery is awful

Thinkpad T460P

Buy ayymd and you will got a bunch of cores.

Any laptop above 700€ is 4c8t

You answered your own question Eisenstein

I beg to differ

shut up jordan

Most people care about battery life over processing power. Facebook machines aren't crunching numbers.

Look after laptops with i7-xxxxQM

I have an older Asus N56 with a quad i7 Ivy Bridge and a Nvidia 650M. Not a gayming laptop (not advertised a one) and wasn't expensive either.

/thread
Kys poorfag OP

The T460P with a quad core gets up to 12 hours of battery life with a 72Wh battery.

Quad core Kabby Lake wont be available in laptops till the new year.

My T420 has a quad core CPU.

Now there are a few i5 Quad cores for laptops iirc, ending with HQ

>no quad core
>most dual core

Really rustled me m8

might as well ask here

What's better, a laptop with the i5/i7-6500u, or the AMD A12-9700P? Oh and for grafix the intel laptop has some low end nvidia shit.

>No Quad core laptops
try the Thinkpads with Xeons

15" MacBook Pro, always been quad-core.

>four cores at 800 mhz
wew

>800 Mhz

What?

I'm seeing the same thing. Any ultrabook with 4 cores? Need to weigh below 1.5kg.

Because the vast majority of people utilize the last two cores like 1% of the time, they cost more, they take up more space in a laptop, and are less energy efficient, the latter two points making them undesirable in ultrabooks.

moarcores and cpu power in general is honestly a huge fucking meme, I got an athlon x2 running my mothers tax & email machine and it runs FASTER than most computers out there because I also got a motherboard with SATA3 and threw an old SSD in there. Sure it takes a year to fucking install anything but CPU power isn't nearly as important as people think.

Anyways pretty much the only time I use moarcores is when using VMs and gaming and my desktop at this point has the screenspace to display 7 1080p desktops simultaneously and is far better than any laptop at gaming so my ideal laptop at this point is a dual core ultrabook.

Power and weight and size generally keep quad cores to a niche market (portable workstations)


People don't want a laptop with weighs as much as a cinder block or dies after 2 hours of use


>i'm a dumb faggot that wants a 30 minute battery life

You're not going to find a laptop that has 4 cores and good battery life. Choose one or the other.

probably not
the reason these thin and light laptops use dual cores is because it takes a hell of a lot less space for the cooling, and uses a lot less power.

>Are there ultrabooks out there with CPUs that drain more power and take up more space

You're missing the point. Get a portable workstation if you need a portable workstation. Ultrabooks mean compromising performance, and if you're gonna cut something to make ultrabooks more efficient, cutting MOARCOARS is one of the smartest things to cut.

Why do you even think you need 4 cores? If you're ACTUALLY doing something needing MOARCOARS you usually also need more memory and hard drive space than an ultrabook provides.

>>i'm a dumb faggot that wants a 30 minute battery life
I'm close to an outlet most of the time. I still expect 4 to 5 hours even with 4 cores.

I spend my life living out of hotel rooms and airplanes so I need to pack light. A quad core is nice for running a VM with dev tools. I don't always have access to internet on remote sites for access to build computers.

If you are running VMs than ultrabooks are also shitty in that they have memory limitations largely to make them energy efficient. People that work with VMs also typically want to have a bunch of differant copies of OSes, which ultrabooks don't have space for. The great battery of ultrabooks also somewhat goes in the toilet when you start running VMs on them because the reason they're so battery efficient is largely they sip power and the laptops is mostly battery, using VMs sort of throws that in the toilet.

What it actually sounds like you need is a portable workstation with a giant battery, quad core, shittons of memory, HDD space, and a form factor that can be used on an airplane seat, but for some reason you're trying to buy an ultrabook because of memes.

basically this

Get some sort of dell for around $1000, their price:performance ratio is probably the best on the market

Like a machine capable as a portable workstation at running VMs in an ultrabook form factor just doesn't really exist. You either have to comprimise in size/weight, or you have to deal with being limited in how many VMs you can run simultaneously/cycling files on and off of your computer/lower VM performance.

If you're just going to be running ONE VM or otherwise have very limited VM needs, than a dual core ultrabook can work, but if you're going to actually be using VMs a shitton trying to run them using an ultrabook is like slamming a pickaxe into your face.

I have this with the quad core i7 and it has been fantastic, battery life is pretty good too

I would know, I'm a guy that tried running 5 VMs simultaniously on an 8gb ram ultrabook.

Running one VM on a dual core is not as much as a problem as it would seem because the fact you're using a laptop means you're only going to typically be stressing the VM or the host significantly at any given time. HDD space and memory are not big issues. It's when you desperately need to do something requiring you to run a bunch of VMs simultaneously ultrabooks start making you really mad at how horrible their performance is.

Also I only mentioned OS files, VM files can get fucking big, windows VMs can easily be 30gb a pop to store on your computer and you might not want to delete them so you can use them later. My Windows Server labs took up OBSCENE amounts of space.

Basically ultrabooks are not appropriate for heavy VM usage, especially heavy WINDOWS VM usage.