Well, it's Apple's fault that they keep using Intel processors instead of something based on their wind-storm ARM cores.
ARM still has not caught up to Intel in terms of performance, so claiming about the performance of Apple's Intel-based machines and wishing for ARM instead is an odd position to be taking.
I disagree. Apple's wind-storm cores demonstrate that Apple very likely is capable of designing a CPU that can meet or beat Intel in terms of performance.
Intel's Skylake processor is 2015 story. Kaby lake is 2016. Intel will release ICE lake 10nm end of 2017. If I was Apple, I would skip Kaby lake and pick up ICE lake in 2017 for Spring 2018 release of Macbook pro that Apple can design without any compromise.
I wouldn't be surprised if they skip Kaby Lake (but then we'll get complaints about how out of date the MacBook is next year). At the same time, the latest specs are out, and as predicted, the Skylake chips aren't significantly faster than the Broadwell chips they replaced. That's also the case with Kaby Lake vs Skylake (almost all the gains are from clock speed increases, except for h.265 encoding).
They got the basics right with the new MacBooks. If the price were $200 less about 80% of the complaints on web forums would go away.
Maybe not 80% of the complaints - forum people have to complain about something - but fully agree that the effective price bump across the board (for which currency exchange makes that much worse for many of Apple's big markets) was the biggest issue. Last year (or was it 2014?), you could buy the entry level 13" MBP for $1300 USD, and now that is $1500. The entry level with the Touch Bar is $1800 USD. For many people, especially in FX challenged currencies, the decision to purchase has become a lot more difficult.
In the end, Apple has been in this business for a long time, they are the only ones with the real data on who buys what, at which prices, for what reasons. They have been successful in their approach for the last two decades. At the macro level, they should be afforded the benefit of the doubt. They made clear these machines were for "pro" users, so I certainly hope that 2017 brings in options for mainstream that have more size than the ultra-super-slim-portable 12" MacBook, or the aging-almost-no-updates-no-retina Air.
And if Apple does determine that sales were below expectation, they always have the ability to lower prices later in 2017.
Well, it's Apple's fault that they keep using Intel processors instead of something based on their wind-storm ARM cores.
I am pretty sure you would complain about the 3rd party application compatibility problems and / or performance impact from x86 emulation.
macOS today has shed all of the legacy stuff that once made switching processors challenging. A switch from Intel to ARM would be much, much easier for developers and users than the switch from PPC to Intel. In fact, for many apps in the app store, developers wouldn't have to lift a finger.
Well, it's Apple's fault that they keep using Intel processors instead of something based on their wind-storm ARM cores.
ARM still has not caught up to Intel in terms of performance, so claiming about the performance of Apple's Intel-based machines and wishing for ARM instead is an odd position to be taking.
I disagree. Apple's wind-storm cores demonstrate that Apple very likely is capable of designing a CPU that can meet or beat Intel in terms of performance.
Not yet. If they're willing to dump all x86 stuff than sure, okay, but since that's unlikely they need ARM cores that can handle the heavy lifting of running Rosetta 2.0. In a few more generations they might be able to consider it.
That being said I can almost guarantee they have ARMac prototypes in a lab in Cupertino.
Intel's Skylake processor is 2015 story. Kaby lake is 2016. Intel will release ICE lake 10nm end of 2017. If I was Apple, I would skip Kaby lake and pick up ICE lake in 2017 for Spring 2018 release of Macbook pro that Apple can design without any compromise.
Intel do staggered releases now, quad core mobile Skylake with pro graphics didn't come out until 2016. Same thing with Broadwell, Intel didn't release quad core mobile until 2 weeks after Apple released the 2015 15" MBP. Only the 13" got Broadwell.
So Apple's using CPUs that're a year behind. Will they still be using the same CPUs in 500 days? Why didn't they update the MacBooks in Q4 2015 with Skylake? If they'd updated in Q4 2015 they could have waited until Q1 2017 for Kaby Lake. They're completely out of sync with Intel's release cycles now, couldn't really have released the 2016 MBPs at a worse time. Sadly, it seems to me like they're trying to let the Mac die.
Just because one Skylake chip launched does not mean the entire family launched. The better CPU's, which Apple picks, come later, and Intel has had (and probably still continues to have) yield issues at 14nm. The Kaby Lake chips they need aren't out yet either.
Intel's Skylake processor is 2015 story. Kaby lake is 2016. Intel will release ICE lake 10nm end of 2017. If I was Apple, I would skip Kaby lake and pick up ICE lake in 2017 for Spring 2018 release of Macbook pro that Apple can design without any compromise.
LOL no. Intel isn't even releasing high-end (higher than 15W) Cannonlake now in 2018. They're doing a 4th CPU on 14nm, Coffee Lake. Ice Lake coming before 2019 would be a shocker.
Intel didn't release quad core mobile with pro graphics until jan 2016, Apple stopped playing their game and only selected CPUs from the sept 2015 launch. Means we took a 20% graphics hit on the 15" but those models have GPUs anyway. Plus the 2016 CPU cost $100 more, never mind the fact the 2.9Ghz dropped to 2.8Ghz so Apple probably made the right choice this time. Something weird is going on between Apple and Intel, from the outside it looks like they aren't getting along.
I have read some article on MobileGeeks (german page), and they totally don't get the point that Kaby Lake doesn't offer enough PCIe capabilities and CPU cores (up to 2). And beyond that, they didn't even think about the implications of the new CPU-GPU combo that consumes less energy (less battery volume and more battery lifetime at the same time), even their use of Argumentum Ad Populum shows that's it rather a "troll blog".
I think other media will try everything to support their (not) self-fulfilling prophecies.
Well, it's Apple's fault that they keep using Intel processors instead of something based on their wind-storm ARM cores.
ARM still has not caught up to Intel in terms of performance, so claiming about the performance of Apple's Intel-based machines and wishing for ARM instead is an odd position to be taking.
I disagree. Apple's wind-storm cores demonstrate that Apple very likely is capable of designing a CPU that can meet or beat Intel in terms of performance.
Not yet. If they're willing to dump all x86 stuff than sure, okay, but since that's unlikely they need ARM cores that can handle the heavy lifting of running Rosetta 2.0. In a few more generations they might be able to consider it.
That being said I can almost guarantee they have ARMac prototypes in a lab in Cupertino.
Well, it's Apple's fault that they keep using Intel processors instead of something based on their wind-storm ARM cores.
ARM still has not caught up to Intel in terms of performance, so claiming about the performance of Apple's Intel-based machines and wishing for ARM instead is an odd position to be taking.
I disagree. Apple's wind-storm cores demonstrate that Apple very likely is capable of designing a CPU that can meet or beat Intel in terms of performance.
Not yet. If they're willing to dump all x86 stuff than sure, okay, but since that's unlikely they need ARM cores that can handle the heavy lifting of running Rosetta 2.0. In a few more generations they might be able to consider it.
That being said I can almost guarantee they have ARMac prototypes in a lab in Cupertino.
And the whole Boot Camp thing is, what, ignorable? You also forget that there is an entire ecosystem of Mac apps that aren't in the Mac App Store because it's a disaster of Eddy Cue's making.
I keep seeing people post unrealistic expectations with HW. Just because Intel has released a Kaby Lake chip doesn't mean they've released the ones needed for the MBP. Just because Intel has a release date for the Kaby Lake chips that will be useable for the MBP does mean that Intel will have them in the quantity that Apple needs. Are people actually confusing HW with SW? There is no "as soon as it's available to one person it's available to everyone" when it comes to HW.
Well, it's Apple's fault that they keep using Intel processors instead of something based on their wind-storm ARM cores.
ARM still has not caught up to Intel in terms of performance, so claiming about the performance of Apple's Intel-based machines and wishing for ARM instead is an odd position to be taking.
I disagree. Apple's wind-storm cores demonstrate that Apple very likely is capable of designing a CPU that can meet or beat Intel in terms of performance.
Not yet. If they're willing to dump all x86 stuff than sure, okay, but since that's unlikely they need ARM cores that can handle the heavy lifting of running Rosetta 2.0. In a few more generations they might be able to consider it.
That being said I can almost guarantee they have ARMac prototypes in a lab in Cupertino.
And the whole Boot Camp thing is, what, ignorable? You also forget that there is an entire ecosystem of Mac apps that aren't in the Mac App Store because it's a disaster of Eddy Cue's making.
I suspect Boot Camp is ignorable in terms of the proportion of Mac users who really use it. But I've never seen data on that, so if somebody can demonstrate that more than, say, 5% of Mac Users use Boot Camp, I'd reconsider my view.
Yes, there are a lot of apps outside of the app store. But most of them use the exact same development tools -- it's not like those guys are hand coding x86 assembler.
Sure -- there will be some apps out there that are used by a nontrivial number of people that require a bit more work to port. But the ecosystem-wide effort needed to switch from Intel to ARM is at least an order of magnitude less than the switch from PPC to Intel. Everything from Microsoft Office to Civilization will be much, much easier to move over.
I think the major let down, aside from the absurd pricing, is the default RAM/SSD specs. With starting prices at $1800 and $2400, I would expect 16GB RAM and 512GB SSD standard. That it costs $2600 to have a 13" MBP with decent specs and $3000 for a 15" inch with decent specs is a lot higher than in the past. I don't expect to get 8GB RAM and 256GB SSD in a laptop unless I'm paying $500 for it.
Well, it's Apple's fault that they keep using Intel processors instead of something based on their wind-storm ARM cores.
I would like to see this happen, but this needs to start with the low-end traditional PC offerings, not their Pro-level machines where VMs, Adobe, MS, and other large and complex apps will be used. This needs to happen with a MacBook or Mac mini-like machine where we can have a sub-$800 12" notebook of sub-$500 mini-desktop where you get more performance on their ARM-based SoCs for more users that will most use the default apps and Mac App Store apps.
Well, it's Apple's fault that they keep using Intel processors instead of something based on their wind-storm ARM cores.
ARM still has not caught up to Intel in terms of performance, so claiming about the performance of Apple's Intel-based machines and wishing for ARM instead is an odd position to be taking.
I disagree. Apple's wind-storm cores demonstrate that Apple very likely is capable of designing a CPU that can meet or beat Intel in terms of performance.
Not as simple as that. Overriding the patent barrier with pure tech and physics is not a simple endeavour.
I have read some article on MobileGeeks (german page), and they totally don't get the point that Kaby Lake doesn't offer enough PCIe capabilities and CPU cores (up to 2). And beyond that, they didn't even think about the implications of the new CPU-GPU combo that consumes less energy (less battery volume and more battery lifetime at the same time), even their use of Argumentum Ad Populum shows that's it rather a "troll blog".
I think other media will try everything to support their (not) self-fulfilling prophecies.
I would have taken 32GB RAM in the existing form factor with reduced battery life and been happy. As is, the constraints induced by their thinner machine required them to reduce battery capacity from 99.5 WHr to 76 WHr and that, coupled with Intel shipping issues, pretty much prevented any increase whosoever in RAM capacity.
Bottom line is that I'm not completely letting Apple off the hook here. They chose the form factor, with all of the tradeoffs that choice entailed....
As to which CPU is best for you, it all depends on what you need. Most people don't ned the fastest CPU. Most people don't even need the slowest CPU they offer because most people don't process data that ever spikes the CPU. I prefer the 15" model (and I'd even go for a 17" model if they offered it again) but I'd be fine with a dual-core CPU with Intel's Iris Pro integrated GPU and no discreet GPU. That would increase my battery life tremendously, potentially even allowing for a larger battery that would increase the battery life in another way, but that's not an option so I'll go with what is available.
* Apple would cheaper because they buy millions, but there's been talk for years that Apple also buys the more power efficient versions within a specific product number which would result in an increase, so it's impossible to know how much Apple pays for each cheap. Regardless, this does show a price difference from Intel.
Comments
Maybe not 80% of the complaints - forum people have to complain about something - but fully agree that the effective price bump across the board (for which currency exchange makes that much worse for many of Apple's big markets) was the biggest issue. Last year (or was it 2014?), you could buy the entry level 13" MBP for $1300 USD, and now that is $1500. The entry level with the Touch Bar is $1800 USD. For many people, especially in FX challenged currencies, the decision to purchase has become a lot more difficult.
In the end, Apple has been in this business for a long time, they are the only ones with the real data on who buys what, at which prices, for what reasons. They have been successful in their approach for the last two decades. At the macro level, they should be afforded the benefit of the doubt. They made clear these machines were for "pro" users, so I certainly hope that 2017 brings in options for mainstream that have more size than the ultra-super-slim-portable 12" MacBook, or the aging-almost-no-updates-no-retina Air.
And if Apple does determine that sales were below expectation, they always have the ability to lower prices later in 2017.
macOS today has shed all of the legacy stuff that once made switching processors challenging. A switch from Intel to ARM would be much, much easier for developers and users than the switch from PPC to Intel. In fact, for many apps in the app store, developers wouldn't have to lift a finger.
That being said I can almost guarantee they have ARMac prototypes in a lab in Cupertino.
Intel didn't release quad core mobile with pro graphics until jan 2016, Apple stopped playing their game and only selected CPUs from the sept 2015 launch. Means we took a 20% graphics hit on the 15" but those models have GPUs anyway. Plus the 2016 CPU cost $100 more, never mind the fact the 2.9Ghz dropped to 2.8Ghz so Apple probably made the right choice this time. Something weird is going on between Apple and Intel, from the outside it looks like they aren't getting along.
thanks for clarifying things on this matter.
I have read some article on MobileGeeks (german page), and they totally don't get the point that Kaby Lake doesn't offer enough PCIe capabilities and CPU cores (up to 2). And beyond that, they didn't even think about the implications of the new CPU-GPU combo that consumes less energy (less battery volume and more battery lifetime at the same time), even their use of Argumentum Ad Populum shows that's it rather a "troll blog".
I think other media will try everything to support their (not) self-fulfilling prophecies.
There will be very limited need for Resetta 2.0.
This is not 2006, folks.
Yes, there are a lot of apps outside of the app store. But most of them use the exact same development tools -- it's not like those guys are hand coding x86 assembler.
Sure -- there will be some apps out there that are used by a nontrivial number of people that require a bit more work to port. But the ecosystem-wide effort needed to switch from Intel to ARM is at least an order of magnitude less than the switch from PPC to Intel. Everything from Microsoft Office to Civilization will be much, much easier to move over.
That's for dang sure. $300 cheaper is about where I expected it to start,
Also, I am ordering the top end graphics, but not able to find specific spec differences. The delta for 4gb was only $100, so thinking a easy choice.
Bottom line is that I'm not completely letting Apple off the hook here. They chose the form factor, with all of the tradeoffs that choice entailed....
@macplusplus gave us the model numbers in post 4 of this thread.
As to which CPU is best for you, it all depends on what you need. Most people don't ned the fastest CPU. Most people don't even need the slowest CPU they offer because most people don't process data that ever spikes the CPU. I prefer the 15" model (and I'd even go for a 17" model if they offered it again) but I'd be fine with a dual-core CPU with Intel's Iris Pro integrated GPU and no discreet GPU. That would increase my battery life tremendously, potentially even allowing for a larger battery that would increase the battery life in another way, but that's not an option so I'll go with what is available.
* Apple would cheaper because they buy millions, but there's been talk for years that Apple also buys the more power efficient versions within a specific product number which would result in an increase, so it's impossible to know how much Apple pays for each cheap. Regardless, this does show a price difference from Intel.