Intel's Mac-bound Ivy Bridge CPUs expected to go on sale 8-10 weeks late

2

Comments

  • tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 40,379member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by donkoller View Post


    Actually, twice the width AND twice the height mean that the diaplay will be exactly four times the number of pixels.



    STOP IT.



    The article is not wrong. You are not wrong. PLEASE understand this. It certainly wasn't worth breaking your eight year vow of silence to erroneously correct.



    Also, who the frick actually thought we'd be getting retina Macs this early? No way.
  • apple ][apple ][ Posts: 8,132member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    It certainly wasn't worth breaking your eight year vow of silence to erroneously correct.



    2004 and one comment? Is he posting from a monastery?
  • Quote:
    Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post


    2004 and one comment? Is he posting from a monastery?



    ISTM that there are many, many accounts on AI that are held in reserve by some people. Are they the same person?
  • nedricknedrick Posts: 65member
    Does this delay have any bearing on the pending iMac release?
  • tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 40,379member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Nedrick View Post


    Does this delay have any bearing on the pending iMac release?



    Since we never had a launch date for Ivy Bridge desktop chips and never expected it earlier than summer, I'd imagine those are pushed back, too.
  • nedricknedrick Posts: 65member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    Since we never had a launch date for Ivy Bridge desktop chips and never expected it earlier than summer, I'd imagine those are pushed back, too.



    Afraid of that -- thanks. (Guess it give me more time to save up!)
  • jlanddjlandd Posts: 832member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post


    Are you saying that Apple is one of the dogs, and is getting wagged by Intel?



    Is that the best possible position for Apple to be in?





    That's like saying wouldn't GM be in a better position if they made their tires and had their own steel mills and refined their own gas. Talk about boat anchors.



    There are exactly two possible sources of chips for Apple in 2012, AMD and Intel. What is your solution? Apple making their own chips is the complete polar opposite approach of their ascent to uber profitability. And you called Macs boat anchors?
  • backtomacbacktomac Posts: 4,579member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Conrail View Post


    I wonder what would happen if they bought AMD?....



    They'd just be pissing away money on a dying company.



    AMD don't fabricate chips any more. Global Foundry does this for them. AMD designs generally have been a poor match for the computers Apple make. LLano may be an exception, we don't really now. But the fabrication deficiencies, poor yields and lagging Intel as far as shrinking the process, that have plagued AMD would still continue even if Apple bought them.
  • chiachia Posts: 576member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Conrail View Post


    I wonder what would happen if they bought AMD? Apple management style and corporate philosophy should be able to turn them into a serious threat to Intel. All the pieces are there, they just need to be brought into the proper focus.



    Apple focuses on making excellent consumer electronics, not on supplying processors and chipsets to competitors.



    Apple with a fraction of its cash could have purchased AMD yesterday if it led to greater Apple products.



    AMD allegedly had an opportunity to impress Apple last year and they blew it, they failed to deliver a better product.



    Some posters seem to have already forgotten why Apple switched to x86 in the first place, it was because neither IBM nor Motorola could deliver enough suitable and competitive chips for Apple's computers.



    None of the people moaning about Intel can point to any credible, superior alternatives.
  • s4mb4s4mb4 Posts: 267member
    i am more excited about the new ipad than the new macbooks.

    with apps like iTeleport, i am finding myself using my Mac less and less everyday ;-)
  • market_playermarket_player Posts: 140member
    I just hope they release new MacPro's soon, I need to replace 4 of them that are feeling their age.
  • Quote:
    Originally Posted by jlandd View Post


    That's like saying wouldn't GM be in a better position if they made their tires and had their own steel mills and refined their own gas. Talk about boat anchors.




    If GM products were held up by tires, steel or gas, then it might be an equivalent.



    As of now, that would be senseless.
  • rcfarcfa Posts: 638member
    Will you guys EVER learn math?

    A retina display that has double the dpi has FOUR TIMES THE RESOLUTION, not double the resolution, because resolution goes by the square. e.g. You have a 1 by 1 square pixel and now that will become a 2 by 2 square if you double the dpi; but a 2 by 2 contains 4 pixels while a 1 by 1 contains 1 pixel; as you see the resolution, i.e. pixel count is quadrupled not doubled.

    As you can see, this can be solved without the use of advanced math; yet AI gets this CONSISTENTLY WRONG. Would the editors please take note?
  • tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 40,379member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by rcfa View Post


    Will you guys EVER learn math?

    A retina display that has double the dpi has FOUR TIMES THE RESOLUTION, not double the resolution



    Twice the resolution = four times the pixels.



    Super Hi-Vision, for example, has four times the resolution and 16 times the pixels as 1080p. Get it?
  • hattighattig Posts: 787member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by zunx View Post


    This has nothing to do with manufacturing process issues. Intel could go straight to 11 nm and beyond (nanotechnology) if they wanted right now. It is just milking the process as much as possible.



    Sometimes you read a thread and you see something so utterly stupid that you just want to become a hermit away from all the rest of humanity.



    This is nearly one of those times.
  • hattighattig Posts: 787member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by karmadave View Post


    Only Intel knows the reason for Ivy Bridge delays.



    Problems with the 22nm process:



    "Maloney attributes the "adjustment" to "the new manufacturing process needed to make the smaller chips."
  • shaun, ukshaun, uk Posts: 1,050member
    The Mac accounts for an increasingly smaller percentage of Apple's revenue each year so why waste money buying Intel or AMD. Apple probably wouldn't get the chips any sooner anyway.



    Any such takeover would almost certainly be blocked by the US and EU regulators as being anti-competitive.
  • foundersfounders Posts: 1member
    From Forbes.com:



    I reached out to Intel this morning and received the same feedback. Jon Carvill, at Intel Media Relations, reiterated via email that the reports of an eight week delay were inaccurate and that the schedule had only been impacted a few weeks. He went on to say that they were on track with their launch guidance to be in-market for spring and they expected to ship 50% more units of Ivy Bridge in the first two quarter of production as compared to Sandy Bridge parts.



    http://www.forbes.com/sites/patrickm...ase-calm-down/



    And a few other blogs are updating their reports (well, re-reports) consistent to this timeline.
  • d-ranged-range Posts: 396member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Hattig View Post


    Quote:
    Originally Posted by zunx


    This has nothing to do with manufacturing process issues. Intel could go straight to 11 nm and beyond (nanotechnology) if they wanted right now. It is just milking the process as much as possible.



    Sometimes you read a thread and you see something so utterly stupid that you just want to become a hermit away from all the rest of humanity.



    This is nearly one of those times.



    I second that. The technology to profitably mass-produce chips at smaller feature sizes than 22 nm simply does not exist yet. It's all still experimental. That Intel is even managing to produce at 22 nm can almost be called a miracle (and considering these delays, apparently they aren't actually managing it all that well, at least not yet).



    Source: my employer, who makes about 80% of the optical lithography gear used by foundries and chip manufacturers around the world, including Intel.
  • jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by d-range View Post


    I second that. The technology to profitably mass-produce chips at smaller feature sizes than 22 nm simply does not exist yet. It's all still experimental. That Intel is even managing to produce at 22 nm can almost be called a miracle (and considering these delays, apparently they aren't actually managing it all that well, at least not yet).



    Source: my employer, who makes about 80% of the optical lithography gear used by foundries and chip manufacturers around the world, including Intel.



    I agree. The continued ability to produce finer and finer lines absolutely astounds me.



    I remember when all the experts were saying that 100 nm might be the limit - and the same statement has been made half a dozen times since then.
Sign In or Register to comment.