Intel's 'Core M' chip announcement suggests Broadwell-based MacBook Pros won't arrive until 2015

2456

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 112
    maestro64maestro64 Posts: 4,570member

    Translated - the quality if going to be crap so Apple is not going to risk their reputation on it and the only customers who Intel could convince to take it are those stupid convertible table bunch who have yet to prove they actually have a market for their product.

  • Reply 22 of 112
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 3,057moderator
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by koop View Post

     

    Other than being better on battery life and perhaps ushering in thinner devices, is there anything else about this chips that make this a must have? I mean, MBA's and MBPs are pushing north of 10 hours with moderate use.

     

    I know most people want a MBA with Retina, but I feel like Apple is holding back that technology to differentiate the MBPs. When the Air's get Retina, it's going to cannibalize the more expensive and profitable MBP lineup.


     

    Actually, I think we see the return of the long-gone MacBook (neither Air nor Pro).  That's what I think the 12" Retina model will be, slotted in between the existing line-up.

  • Reply 23 of 112
    brlawyerbrlawyer Posts: 828member

    I understand the desire to break free from Intel, but who is going to fab this hypothetical ARM chip for Apple?

    14-nanometer is the bleeding edge right now and is the reason Broadwell is late, and all the talk is that the Apple's A8 chip will be 20nm. Apple would be going a generation backwards by adopting ARM for their Desktop/Laptop machines...unless they could convince Intel to make the chips for them, and then they're right back in the same situation.

    I just can't see Apple adopting ARM for anything but iOS.

    Far from being a desire; just a sad reality again. As much as Apple wanted to keep the PPC, it clearly saw the writing on the wall with IBM.

    Now the same ghost shows up again, this time to haunt Apple about Intel and its "preference" for non-PC devices...cheap shot at Apple for not using Intel on iOS? Perhaps. The absence of Steve Jobs and his RDF won't help either.
  • Reply 24 of 112
    macxpressmacxpress Posts: 4,885member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by RadarTheKat View Post

     

     

    Actually, I think we see the return of the long-gone MacBook (neither Air nor Pro).  That's what I think the 12" Retina model will be, slotted in between the existing line-up.




    This! I think the next new thing from Apple in terms of notebooks will be a 12" MacBook, dropping the Air name. 

  • Reply 25 of 112
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Bluestone View Post

     

    It struck me at the time and have wondered about it since - Phil Schiller at the introduction of the 5S last year, in reference to the A7 CPU:  "A desktop class processor."

     

    I can't conceive that the statement was just an idle, throwaway hype line.  Apple doesn't do that.   But no follow up on it, until?

     

    And this fiasco with Broadwell just feeds into that.


     

    I assure you, Intel is being reminded every week by Apple of the time when Apple switch from the POWER series to x86.  Just like you're reminded that mosquitos may draw a couple drops of blood from you from their incessant buzzing.

     

    But from Intel's perspective, it's just a flesh wound, not fatal, if Apple leaves the fold.  At least in 2014 frame of reference it is. (POWER didn't die, and Apple is still a small player in the total x86 based PC/laptop market, itself a just one of many profit centers in the huge Intel x86 processor line (servers, embedded, etc).  Smart people at Intel will say this is serious, but other smart people will say that moving to 14nm dies isn't rocket science... it's much, much harder, and they have to get it right than rush it.   

     

    I still see about 3 years before Aseries chips compete performance and power (not performance/power, but Performance AND Power) envelope with a broadwell chip.   And that is assuming a better compiler and OS technologies that can expose better parallelism (8-16 cores).

  • Reply 26 of 112
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by brlawyer View Post





    Far from being a desire; just a sad reality again. As much as Apple wanted to keep the PPC, it clearly saw the writing on the wall with IBM.



    Now the same ghost shows up again, this time to haunt Apple about Intel and its "preference" for non-PC devices...cheap shot at Apple for not using Intel on iOS? Perhaps. The absence of Steve Jobs and his RDF won't help either.

    but the lithium licks are still in the staff cafeteria.

     

    There is no benefit to being beholden to  sole source provider of your technology core.  Intel was a necessary evil as they moved off PPC, and in a 10 year run, not a bad show.   Intel is now running into problems.... not the least of which is maintaining 18 year old compatibility  modes.

     

     

    the iOS/OSX core technology is chipset independent.  And now with even more skillz applied to LLVM/CLANG swift/objC, the migration between platforms, especially on Mac (Fat Binaries, anyone?) is fairly mundane.  Apple had OSX running on Intel from the very beginning (heck, it was OPENSTEP, as far back as 1992).   It's had OSX running on ASeries now for almost 7 years, and ASeries is not only clean, but effectively only has to maintain support FUTURE operating systems, never backwards, since Apple is the sole customer and integrator.   A clean slate every chip release, so to speak.   This allows for keeping the chips quite lean and simple.

     

    The decision point is, can Apple design a chip and find a foundry that can make it in 2016, that is as effective as What Intel is slated to do in 2018.  A one year advantage isn't worth the risk.  It's not profits Apple has to maintain, but it's technical capabilities at a  price point.   Right now, Intel can hit those price points, just not the date points.   If it's hitting the 14nm die size, I doubt Apple can design something better without hitting the same fab issues, therefore, it's a industry problem, not an Intel problem, and therefore there is no alternative.  If it's not that, and 

  • Reply 27 of 112
    undefined
  • Reply 28 of 112
    nikon133nikon133 Posts: 2,600member
    brlawyer wrote: »
    What Intel is doing is just a repeat of the PowerPC debacle (i.e., IBM not doing its job) - just watch and wait until Apple finally ditches Intel for ARM.

    Problem here is that Apple is not such a big customer of Intel's. iDevices are not using Intel logic, and laptops/desktops volume is not as big as HP's or Dell's, regardless of Apple's higher profit. In addition, all these talks about Apple moving away from x86 probably don't make Apple any more loved in Intel campus. All in all, it makes sense to me that Intel is counting more on their more traditional partners than on Apple.
  • Reply 29 of 112
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by macxpress View Post

     

     

    Never gonna happen! As much as I want a Mac mini update, we all know Apple's obsessiveness with small, thin, quiet things. The Mac mini will be no exception. I'd all but guarantee if there will indeed be a Mac mini update it will be smaller, use even less power, and possibly be fanless. The only way to do this is to use something like a Broadwell based chip. As much as people are hoping for a smaller Mac Pro type Mac (headless Mac) I seriously doubt the Mac mini will be it. 

     

    That being said...I hope I'm wrong about everything! :)


    Never say never....  I think that model will be scaled down for the mini.  without the need for a DVD player and the the eventual elimination of the spinning drive (and/or the continued used of 5400rpm 2.5" drives).  the footprint of the mini will likely morph into either the Airport Extreme or the Mac Pro forms at 1/3 or 1/2 height.

     

    BTW, in terms of 'small' and powerful... the Mac Mini (4 core 2.6ghz i7) is nearly 60% more powerful (GeekBench3) per cubic inch than the Mac Pro (12Core 2.7Ghz), and 2.4X more cost effective ($ per benchmark unit).

     

    So, if you want small quiet powerful... the current mini is the flagship system.

     

    We'd all love a mac mini for what it can could be, but for what it does, it's a cost effective little beastie.

  • Reply 30 of 112
    jexusjexus Posts: 373member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by brlawyer View Post

     

     

    What Intel is doing is just a repeat of the PowerPC debacle (i.e., IBM not doing its job) - just watch and wait until Apple finally ditches Intel for ARM.


     

     

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by macxpress View Post

     



    Exactly! Its gotta be pissing Apple off to no end (again!) that their product lineup is held up by a 3rd party (Intel). This alone will make them want to use their own hardware inside and out so they don't have to rely on a co-dependent. 


    Except that the situations are no where near the same

     

    IBM was failing to meet Apple's Power envelopes and took monstrous equipment to cool. Intel is suffering from neither issue.

    IBM was losing competitive performance. Intel is far from skyrocketing, but they maintain a commanding performance lead.

    IBM's chipset was fading in popularity. Intel if even taking hits on the desktop is a formidable force in the server world.

     

    Intel is not IBM. The only issue here is that Intel can't make enough chips.

     

    The specs are done

    The Prices are final

    The power envelope is in.

     

    There are simply not enough chips to go around.

  • Reply 31 of 112
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TheOtherGeoff View Post

     
     If it's hitting the 14nm die size, I doubt Apple can design something better without hitting the same fab issues, therefore, it's a industry problem, not an Intel problem, and therefore there is no alternative.  If it's not that, and 


    Intel was on a 12-18 month refresh cycle  to consecutively shrink their dies, but now the laws of physics are increasing the difficulty to maybe 24 months or more as they approach smaller and smaller dies. As you say, Apple would likely run into the same issues if they tried to make their own 14nm CPUs.

     

    Until Apple comes out with their own high end graphics suite that equals CC and runs on ARM, they are pretty much stuck with Intel. Perhaps they could partner with Adobe to make sure the pro suite runs natively on ARM, but if Apple expects Adobe to run out and release ARM compatible versions of all their software within, say, a 6 month period, I don't think that is going to happen. I doubt that is even possible. 

     

    OS X without Adobe CC would be a disaster for people like me. As much as I dislike Windows, I would have no choice if Apple bailed on Intel. I still remember how much we suffered with Rosetta the last time. I don't know if I could put up with it again.

  • Reply 32 of 112
    macxpressmacxpress Posts: 4,885member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Jexus View Post

     

     

     

    Except that the situations are no where near the same

     

    IBM was failing to meet Apple's Power envelopes and took monstrous equipment to cool. Intel is suffering from neither issue.

    IBM was losing competitive performance. Intel is far from skyrocketing, but they maintain a commanding performance lead.

    IBM's chipset was fading in popularity. Intel if even taking hits on the desktop is a formidable force in the server world.

     

    Intel is not IBM. The only issue here is that Intel can't make enough chips.

     

    The specs are done

    The Prices are final

    The power envelope is in.

     

    There are simply not enough chips to go around.




    Its more than that. All year long, Apple has been unable to update its products because Intel kept delaying the release of its new processors. It goes much further than Intel just not having enough chips.  How many people here do you read about them them whining that Apple never updates its Macs, or that it updates its Macs in late Fall all the time. This isn't necessarily Apple's fault. Nothing is ever available, new technologies keep getting pushed back more and more just like they did with PPC G4 and G5. Yes, technology is advancing, but I bet at a much slower pace than Apple would like. So instead, we get to see these basically wasteful updates like the recent iMac and MacBook Air updates because their hands are tied. We saw the same things with the PowerBook and PowerMacs back in the PPC days. This is what were referring to. 

  • Reply 33 of 112
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by macxpress View Post

     

    we all know Apple's obsessiveness with small, thin, quiet things.


     

    Small and thin, yes. Quiet? Only if it isn't working hard. Since the point of a computer is to do work...

     

    Not that I care. I'd MUCH rather tolerate some fan noise when the machine is under load than put up with trying to work on a glorified Apple TV.

     

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Misa View Post



    I have two of them and I can only make the cooling in them engage by either running Prime95 or some of the various CPU-burning @HOME projects.

     

    I don't know what you do with your minis, but mine spin up to full-fan almost every time I use them. I guess if all you do is browse and email it's probably quiet. If you rip, edit, render, and transcode video, you'll get the fan.

     

    That doesn't mean I want a lower-powered mini though. I figure if it's gonna make noise anyway, it might as well be powerful. Obviously quieter is desirable, but not at the expense of performance.

  • Reply 34 of 112
    mstone wrote: »
    I am so ready for some new iMacs but the buyers guide says don't buy. When are the next iMac chips going to arrive? I looked at the new low end iMac but couldn't talk myself into it even though it was just for the guest room. I also need a new 27" for my home office.

    Look, if you need a new 27", just buy it and be happy. If Apple bring out a revolutionary new iMac three months later, then so be it. It mattereth not.
  • Reply 35 of 112
    misa wrote: »
    No no no.

    What we need is a Mini, based on the highest-performing laptop chip, because the entire point of the Mini is for it to be quiet. I have two of them and I can only make the cooling in them engage by either running Prime95 or some of the various CPU-burning @HOME projects.

    The missing piece of the puzzle is that Apple doesn't have something between the Mini and the Mac Pro that isn't a iMac with a upgradable GPU.

    Literately, there is nothing that a PCIe graphics card can be put in. But to stick a 600$ video card in a box requires something 10 times larger than a Mac Mini.
    It they created something maybe just simple "Mac" that fit between mini and pro it would fit.

    There's a Mac called the iMac which fits between the Mini and the Pro; Apple have been selling it for a few years, now.
  • Reply 36 of 112
    mpantonempantone Posts: 1,383member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Lorin Schultz View Post

     

    That doesn't mean I want a lower-powered mini though. I figure if it's gonna make noise anyway, it might as well be powerful. Obviously quieter is desirable, but not at the expense of performance.


    The basic fact is that the current Mac mini is designed to handle a specific TDP (thermal design power). Shoving in a much more powerful processor would require a redesign in terms of airflow and fan size/speed. It's not designed to be running at full bore 24x7.

     

    In any case, it appears that Apple has prioritized quiet/low power for the Mac mini in the very manner that they have spec'ed out a certain TDP and install processors that fit within those design parameters.

  • Reply 37 of 112
    go4d1go4d1 Posts: 34member
    I'm 70 years old and still writing code. I want a Mac Pro - DDR4 - 4K screens - my last computer - How long do I have to wait:

    http://FlyOurMenu.com
  • Reply 38 of 112
    danoxdanox Posts: 386member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by TheOtherGeoff View Post

     

    but the lithium licks are still in the staff cafeteria.

     

    There is no benefit to being beholden to  sole source provider of your technology core.  Intel was a necessary evil as they moved off PPC, and in a 10 year run, not a bad show.   Intel is now running into problems.... not the least of which is maintaining 18 year old compatibility  modes.

     

     

    the iOS/OSX core technology is chipset independent.  And now with even more skillz applied to LLVM/CLANG swift/objC, the migration between platforms, especially on Mac (Fat Binaries, anyone?) is fairly mundane.  Apple had OSX running on Intel from the very beginning (heck, it was OPENSTEP, as far back as 1992).   It's had OSX running on ASeries now for almost 7 years, and ASeries is not only clean, but effectively only has to maintain support FUTURE operating systems, never backwards, since Apple is the sole customer and integrator.   A clean slate every chip release, so to speak.   This allows for keeping the chips quite lean and simple.

     

    The decision point is, can Apple design a chip and find a foundry that can make it in 2016, that is as effective as What Intel is slated to do in 2018.  A one year advantage isn't worth the risk.  It's not profits Apple has to maintain, but it's technical capabilities at a  price point.   Right now, Intel can hit those price points, just not the date points.   If it's hitting the 14nm die size, I doubt Apple can design something better without hitting the same fab issues, therefore, it's a industry problem, not an Intel problem, and therefore there is no alternative.  If it's not that, and 


     

     

    Intel  is going to be history, the writing is on the wall.

  • Reply 39 of 112
    danoxdanox Posts: 386member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mstone View Post

     

    Intel was on a 12-18 month refresh cycle  to consecutively shrink their dies, but now the laws of physics are increasing the difficulty to maybe 24 months or more as they approach smaller and smaller dies. As you say, Apple would likely run into the same issues if they tried to make their own 14nm CPUs.

     

    Until Apple comes out with their own high end graphics suite that equals CC and runs on ARM, they are pretty much stuck with Intel. Perhaps they could partner with Adobe to make sure the pro suite runs natively on ARM, but if Apple expects Adobe to run out and release ARM compatible versions of all their software within, say, a 6 month period, I don't think that is going to happen. I doubt that is even possible. 

     

    OS X without Adobe CC would be a disaster for people like me. As much as I dislike Windows, I would have no choice if Apple bailed on Intel. I still remember how much we suffered with Rosetta the last time. I don't know if I could put up with it again.


     

    Bye Bye!

  • Reply 40 of 112
    mpantonempantone Posts: 1,383member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by go4d1 View Post



    I'm 70 years old and still writing code. I want a Mac Pro - DDR4 - 4K screens - my last computer - How long do I have to wait:

    Maybe about a year for DDR4 (which should arrive with Broadwell).

     

    The current Mac Pro supports 4K video, as does the current MacBook Pro.

     

    That said, perhaps you can clarify how faster memory will help your programming endeavors. Writing code typically isn't memory intensive. Likewise, a super high resolution screen probably won't help most programmers either. Good for people who work with video and photo, plus it looks nice, but it's not going to make your code any better.

Sign In or Register to comment.