BTW people this is exactly why Apple hasn't updated their Mac lineup. There's nothing significant to upgrade to! What do you expect Apple to do if nothing is available that makes a difference? Would a 200 MHz speed bump satisfy you just for the sake of Apple releasing updated products? This has nothing to do with Tim Cook, and everything to do with the fact that there isn't anything to update to. And to me, it makes no sense for Apple to release a totally new iMac or MacBook Pro with last years technology inside it which would basically be what they'd have to do if they were to release any significant updates to their Mac lineup.
The quad core Skylake chips with Iris Pro 580 (6770/80/90-HQ) which have been widely speculated to be destined for the next MBP only recently seems to have emerged, so far as I'm aware only in the Intel Skull Canyon NUC and nothing else yet. THAT, and AMD Polaris just coming out is why I believe they haven't been updated yet.
I'm confused as to why this is not reported at all despite AI previously reporting these would be the ones to watch for. All signs point to Kaby Lake chips suitable for the MBP later in 2017.
We talked about GPUs over this last weekend. A CPU article is forthcoming.
May be it's time for Apple to design/build it's own multi-core ARM M-Processor(Macbook) like current A-processor (iPhone/iPad) and migrate MacOS to it. No need to reply on Intel's CISC processor schedule though Intel can build both Apple's processors in it's 10nm fab. Intel can also help build integrated A-processor CPU/GPU/Wifi/LTE.BT/GPS/etc on single chip like this news --- Samsung launches first Exynos chip with all radios built in( to handle LTE, FM, Bluetooth, WiFi and GPS.)
It's clear that Apple's looking down the road with a plan for their own chips. It's like the G4-G5/X86 "Secret double life" that OSX lived under Steve. They must have a contingency or be limited by the chipset vendors. Right now, it's perfectly obvious that MB, MBA, MBP evolution has been slowed by Intel's issues. The really big news on the 7th may be a reveal of this new roadmap. I hope so.
Further evidence that Quiller Media needs to be sent packing by AI. These forums suck so bad it is beyond belief. I wanted to do a preview post but instead got a submission that left out all the text I had written. This software is destroying what was once an interesting and active forum.
Yes I agree. This forum software is completely and total crap! Its slow, doesn't function correctly most of the time, etc. About 7/10 times it doesn't do quoting correctly and doesn't submit right away which creates double posts.
Report says besides higher clock speed, Intel's Kaby lake U/Y dual core processors has built-in much better power/performance implementation of 4K encode/decoder. And It is known that Intel makes version of dual core i5 and i7 for Apple's Macbook Pro. Hope, upcoming MBP includes Kaby lake in them..
Report says besides higher clock speed, Intel's Kaby lake U/Y dual core processors has built-in much better power/performance implementation of 4K encode/decoder. And It is known that Intel makes version of dual core i5 and i7 for Apple's Macbook Pro. Hope, upcoming MBP includes Kaby lake in them..
I'm really hoping that this is the case. Even if it took an extra month or two for the new MacBook Pro to be released, the Kaby Lake architecture has quite a few advantages over Sandy Lake, one of which (if I remember correctly!) is built-in Thunderbolt 3/ISB-C functionality. I'd love it if every USB-C port (which is in my opinion an almost certainty) was also a TB3 port. That'd just be awesome.
Here's hoping that the MBP event comes sooner rather than later.
I smell a rehash of WWDC 2005. Just take the script from there, change all uses of “IBM” to “Intel” and all uses of “Intel” to “our new, in-house chips.”
I mean, I get it. Intel is just stretching out “Moore’s Law” as long as possible so they have more time to come up with something to increase performance once Tigerlake is eventually released (in 2020, if they keep pushing everything else back). But it’s causing everyone to suffer for it.
Why can’t things just be like the good old days.
Intel is not stretching out improvements - they are just trying to fill in gaps as the silicon shrink is running up against a finite point where they will not be able to improve it. As they get closer to that point -- the improvements are more costly and slower and more problem prone. The number of fabricators that are competing in the market have dropped and the cost for each generation is skyrocketing. Intel has had an advantage in their fabrication plants, but that is evaporating and this is beginning to hit the bottom line.... I am sure they are not doing that on purpose....
May be it's time for Apple to design/build it's own multi-core ARM M-Processor(Macbook) like current A-processor (iPhone/iPad) and migrate MacOS to it. No need to reply on Intel's CISC processor schedule though Intel can build both Apple's processors in it's 10nm fab. Intel can also help build integrated A-processor CPU/GPU/Wifi/LTE.BT/GPS/etc on single chip like this news --- Samsung launches first Exynos chip with all radios built in( to handle LTE, FM, Bluetooth, WiFi and GPS.)
It's clear that Apple's looking down the road with a plan for their own chips. It's like the G4-G5/X86 "Secret double life" that OSX lived under Steve. They must have a contingency or be limited by the chipset vendors. Right now, it's perfectly obvious that MB, MBA, MBP evolution has been slowed by Intel's issues. The really big news on the 7th may be a reveal of this new roadmap. I hope so.
"It's clear that Apple's looking down the road with a plan for their own chips."
Actually, it's clear as mud. Personally, I don't see any indication Apple is doing such a thing.
It's clear that Apple's looking down the road with a plan for their own chips. It's like the G4-G5/X86 "Secret double life" that OSX lived under Steve. They must have a contingency or be limited by the chipset vendors. Right now, it's perfectly obvious that MB, MBA, MBP evolution has been slowed by Intel's issues. The really big news on the 7th may be a reveal of this new roadmap. I hope so.
"It's clear that Apple's looking down the road with a plan for their own chips."
Actually, it's clear as mud. Personally, I don't see any indication Apple is doing such a thing.
You've seen no indication that Apple will buy a company and then start designing their own chips to power their own devices? I feel like we're back to when Apple bought PA Semi and no one understand what Apple do with that company.
May be it's time for Apple to design/build it's own multi-core ARM M-Processor(Macbook) like current A-processor (iPhone/iPad) and migrate MacOS to it. No need to reply on Intel's CISC processor schedule though Intel can build both Apple's processors in it's 10nm fab. Intel can also help build integrated A-processor CPU/GPU/Wifi/LTE.BT/GPS/etc on single chip like this news --- Samsung launches first Exynos chip with all radios built in( to handle LTE, FM, Bluetooth, WiFi and GPS.)
I think that's inevitable, at least with the lower-end of the Mac (or Mac-like) range, within 5 years.
So how would you get all your Macbook Pro software to run on the ARM machine?
May be it's time for Apple to design/build it's own multi-core ARM M-Processor(Macbook) like current A-processor (iPhone/iPad) and migrate MacOS to it. No need to reply on Intel's CISC processor schedule though Intel can build both Apple's processors in it's 10nm fab. Intel can also help build integrated A-processor CPU/GPU/Wifi/LTE.BT/GPS/etc on single chip like this news --- Samsung launches first Exynos chip with all radios built in( to handle LTE, FM, Bluetooth, WiFi and GPS.)
I think that's inevitable, at least with the lower-end of the Mac (or Mac-like) range, within 5 years.
So how would you get all your Macbook Pro software to run on the ARM machine?
None of Apples devices run on ARM processors. They run on Apple processors that use ARM machine/assembly code standard instructions to execute. ARM is basically a RISC instruction set (Power series is another; Intel is CISC). All applications written for the Mac go through LLVM bit code which is translated into either Intel or ARM instructions depending on the target device. ARM based processor niche has focused on low power chips (sub 5watt) within a thermal environment with no fans -- hence the power tends to be lower. Even with these restrictions the A9X (2-core) processor is a little more powerful than the Core-M.
A single core on the A9X has a geekbench benchmark of around 3,000 (2.5 watts per core and no fan). The very top end of the Macbook Pro line has a single core benchmark of around 4,200. (and runs at 11 watts/core and a fan).
If you have the same thermal restrictions with similar fan technology between them -- it would be well within Apples expertise to build a Macbook Pro chip based on the ARM instruction set.
The Macbook pro is not that difficult. Where it might be more of an issue is trying to build a Xeon chip at the very top end of the line.... though would be no problem running several different processors in the same line as long as they take a few years to plan and make sure it is not an issue. They could in fact have the laptops based on ARM and then use Power 9 in workstation class if they wanted to.
The issue comes down to people that have to run other operating systems (either bootcamp or VMWare based) -- having to emulate Intel processor would half the performance of Windows or Linux Intel applications (I run Oracle in Linux/Intel -- though Power would be an option.... there is no option for Oracle on ARM yet).
I think that's inevitable, at least with the lower-end of the Mac (or Mac-like) range, within 5 years.
So how would you get all your Macbook Pro software to run on the ARM machine?
Mac App Store and the number of units being sold would allow for an even easier transition than Apple had when moving from PPC to x86. But since we're talking about an entry-level model, we're not talking about Adobe or MS suite of apps needing to be available. Most users would just use Apple's offerings, and the more nimble developers would use Apple's tools to recompile for ARM with relative ease.
Why do you think this is an insurmountable task when Apple has done this many times before?
Comments
Yes I agree. This forum software is completely and total crap! Its slow, doesn't function correctly most of the time, etc. About 7/10 times it doesn't do quoting correctly and doesn't submit right away which creates double posts.
Here's hoping that the MBP event comes sooner rather than later.
--Lex
Actually, it's clear as mud. Personally, I don't see any indication Apple is doing such a thing.
A single core on the A9X has a geekbench benchmark of around 3,000 (2.5 watts per core and no fan).
The very top end of the Macbook Pro line has a single core benchmark of around 4,200. (and runs at 11 watts/core and a fan).
If you have the same thermal restrictions with similar fan technology between them -- it would be well within Apples expertise to build a Macbook Pro chip based on the ARM instruction set.
The Macbook pro is not that difficult. Where it might be more of an issue is trying to build a Xeon chip at the very top end of the line.... though would be no problem running several different processors in the same line as long as they take a few years to plan and make sure it is not an issue. They could in fact have the laptops based on ARM and then use Power 9 in workstation class if they wanted to.
The issue comes down to people that have to run other operating systems (either bootcamp or VMWare based) -- having to emulate Intel processor would half the performance of Windows or Linux Intel applications (I run Oracle in Linux/Intel -- though Power would be an option.... there is no option for Oracle on ARM yet).
Why do you think this is an insurmountable task when Apple has done this many times before?