Rumor: 2020 13-inch MacBook Pro rates 10nm Intel Ice Lake processor

Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited June 2020
Supposedly leaked benchmark data posted online last week suggests Apple plans to integrate Intel's 10th generation Core processors, dubbed "Ice Lake," in variants of a refreshed 13-inch MacBook Pro line.




Serial leaker "_rogame" on Saturday posted to Twitter screenshots of a 3DMark Time Spy benchmark that appears to reveal operating details of an unreleased "2020 13" MacBook Pro" model, reports wccftech.

Of note, the supposed Apple laptop is seen running a quad-core Intel Core i7-1068G7 processor clocked at 2.3GHz with Turbo Boost up to 4.1GHz. The 10nm, chip could be a custom package for Apple, as its SKU is not currently listed on Intel ARK. Alternatively, Intel could officially add the processor to its consumer offerings following a MacBook Pro debut later this year.

According to the tests, Intel's next-generation silicon offers modest improvements over last year's 13-inch MacBook Pro running Intel's 8th generation i5-8279U, a quad-core chip clocked at 2.4GHz with maximum Turbo frequency of 4.1GHz. Beyond sharing a TDP of 28W and similar base frequency, the two chips expectedly differ in terms of sheer performance due in large part to design improvements between generations.

The 3DMark evaluation shows the i7 ahead of the i5 by 12% in CPU testing and up to 29.2% more powerful in graphics testing. It is assumed that the 13-inch MacBook Pro will continue to rely on Intel's integrated graphics, though it remains unclear whether the supposed next-gen chipset integrates Intel Iris Plus or Intel UHD technology. For reference, the higher specification 2019 13-inch MacBook Pro included in _rogame's benchmark leverages an Iris Plus 655 GPU, a step above the Iris Plus 645 that debuted with the entry-level 13-inch MacBook Pro last year.

Apple is rumored to launch an updated 13-inch MacBook Pro later this year with scissor switch "Magic Keyboard," 32GB of addressable RAM and minor design tweaks.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 20
    cpsrocpsro Posts: 2,900member
    32GB RAM, 4TB SSD needed
  • Reply 2 of 20
    You mean 14"?
  • Reply 3 of 20
    Weak. I hope that's not real. Why does Apple continue to make these highly under-powered, overheating terrible boxes!?  ... MacBook NO! 
  • Reply 4 of 20
    If Apple continues with the 13” MacBook Pro, it would be stupid on their part. If they want to keep a 13” laptop, keep the MacBook Air as the 13” laptop. The new smaller MacBook Pro should be 14”. 

    The 16” MacBook Pro is not a portable laptop. It’s too big. It’s a great machine to use as a desktop replacement, but it’s not something I would want to carry with me when walking around town.

     The 13” screen is too small to have several windows side by side. The 14” is a perfect combination of portability and screen space. 
    edited February 2020 commentzillapscooter63caladanian
  • Reply 5 of 20
    cpsro said:
    32GB RAM, 4TB SSD needed
    In a 13” version? 
  • Reply 6 of 20
    chabigchabig Posts: 640member
    cpsro said:
    32GB RAM, 4TB SSD needed
    Not enough. 128GB and 16TB!
    baconstangiHycornchipchia
  • Reply 7 of 20
    chabig said:
    cpsro said:
    32GB RAM, 4TB SSD needed
    Not enough. 128GB and 16TB!
    Still not enough! 64TB and 4PB!!!!
    space2001mknelsonchia
  • Reply 8 of 20
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    sirozha said:
    cpsro said:
    32GB RAM, 4TB SSD needed
    In a 13” version? 
    Yes that would be most reasonable for the prices Apple charges.  
  • Reply 9 of 20
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    Sadly it will be out performed by a laptop half the price running an AMD processor.  
    cornchip
  • Reply 10 of 20
    sirozha said:
    If Apple continues with the 13” MacBook Pro, it would be stupid on their part. If they want to keep a 13” laptop, keep the MacBook Air as the 13” laptop. The new smaller MacBook Pro should be 14”. 

    The 16” MacBook Pro is not a portable laptop. It’s too big. It’s a great machine to use as a desktop replacement, but it’s not something I would want to carry with me when walking around town.

     The 13” screen is too small to have several windows side by side. The 14” is a perfect combination of portability and screen space. 
    Or, you could just plug in a monitor.  The 13” being small/portable is the whole point...
    commentzilla
  • Reply 11 of 20
    32GB 3733LPDDR4X RAM will be plenty in 2020 for this 14" beast
  • Reply 12 of 20
    I’ve been waiting so long for you baby!
  • Reply 13 of 20
    digitol said:
    Weak. I hope that's not real. Why does Apple continue to make these highly under-powered, overheating terrible boxes!?  ... MacBook NO! 
    Friend, this is a story from 2020, why are you posting about the Mac situation in 2018?

    The current 16-inch MacBook Pro has been lauded by reviewers around the Internet for fixing basically all the thermal problems afflicting earlier models. It has the same CPU as before, but achieves higher benchmarks more in line with expectations, because the redesigned cooling system now lets it. A number of reviewers who heavily criticized the last 15-inch have turned their opinions around based on the current 16-inch, and now recommend it.

    Troll posts based on thermal issues are officially old news.

    I have a 13-inch MacBook Pro and I've measured it with Intel PowerGadget, and it doesn't throttle either. Under load and high CPU temperature, it performs above base clock speed. It's a great little super-portable daily workhorse, the best Mac laptop I've ever owned, and I've been buying them for 25 years. And yes I do edit raw photos and 4K video with it, not just checking email.
    edited February 2020 roundaboutnowliketheskychia
  • Reply 14 of 20
    sirozha said:

    The 16” MacBook Pro is not a portable laptop. It’s too big. It’s a great machine to use as a desktop replacement, but it’s not something I would want to carry with me when walking around town.
    It’s almost exactly the same size of the 15.4” that preceded it.
  • Reply 15 of 20
    Good, but the **real question** is, will it have a physical ESC key?! Please leakers, get us this detail! :wink: 
  • Reply 16 of 20
    sirozha said:
    If Apple continues with the 13” MacBook Pro, it would be stupid on their part. If they want to keep a 13” laptop, keep the MacBook Air as the 13” laptop. The new smaller MacBook Pro should be 14”. 

    The 16” MacBook Pro is not a portable laptop. It’s too big. It’s a great machine to use as a desktop replacement, but it’s not something I would want to carry with me when walking around town.

     The 13” screen is too small to have several windows side by side. The 14” is a perfect combination of portability and screen space. 
    Or, you could just plug in a monitor.  The 13” being small/portable is the whole point...
    Well, carrying a monitor around town is not very convenient either. 
    edited February 2020
  • Reply 17 of 20

    sirozha said:

    The 16” MacBook Pro is not a portable laptop. It’s too big. It’s a great machine to use as a desktop replacement, but it’s not something I would want to carry with me when walking around town.
    It’s almost exactly the same size of the 15.4” that preceded it.
    I owned a couple 2015 15” MacBook Pros. They were great machines but a little too bulky to carry around. The 16” looked a lot bigger to me when I tried it at the local Apple store. 

    I like the portability of the 13” laptops, but the screen real estate is too small for those who need to run multiple applications whose windows should be visible at the same time. The 14”  MacBook Pro would be a perfect size. 

    The MacBook Air can remain 13” for those who prefer even more portability over performance.  
  • Reply 18 of 20
    I like the portability of the 13" too. I adjusted the UI resolution to 1680 x 1050, which gives me the same screen real estate as my old 15", just physically smaller. Everything I used to fit on screen on my 15" still fits on my 13". As long as I keep my optical prescription up to date, readability is fine. But a larger screen would be more readable, so I agree: If Apple comes out with a 14" with upgraded internals, I might trade this in for that. Bonus points if Apple gives the 14" a discrete GPU and 32GB RAM, then I might not need the 16" ever again.

    The people saying the 16" are too big are nuts. Me and thousands of other users carried 15" MacBook Pros all over the world for years; the 16" is thinner and lighter than those.

    At home I plug the 13" into a dual display setup. Best of both worlds. Super-portable reasonably powerful, battery-efficient quad core on the road, fully functional multi-screen desktop at home. Can't lose.
  • Reply 19 of 20
    thttht Posts: 4,042member
    The clamshell laptop is so refined these days it is hard for to get excited for it, especially a refresh. I’m much more excited over the iPad Pro refresh than the MBA or MBP13 refreshes. 

    Not sure what they could do with a MBA or MBP13 to get me excited for it, especially over a refreshed iPad Pro 12.9.  An Ice Lake or Comet Lake or what ever body of water code name Intel is using with a 14” display is basically status quo. Boring in its maturity. They should do it, and do it like clock work. But. 

    The dual display clamshell should be tried. MS is trying, but they have unfortunately chosen too small of a form factor for it. Apple could have a 13.3” 16:10 laptop with an 13” “iPad” for the input surface, with a A12X ”T3” coprocessor powering it if they want to, but it is probably too niche for them, or they can’t see a market for it. 

    This would be very interesting to me as I’m all in on typing on glass, using stylus input and all the flexibility of a touchscreen display as input. 

    Otherwise, a different industrial design with a clamshell is all that’s left. One of the things that bugs me about my MBP15 is that it gets hot when plugged into an external monitor. The Touch Bar and the top row of keys are hot because it is using the discrete GPU when an external monitor is plugged in. 

    So, maybe put the compute board (CPU, GPU, RAM) and fan behind the display, then have an IO board (storage, I/O chips) on the base. This will free up about 1/3 of the floor plan on the base for bigger batteries or a keyboard with more key travel. It won’t have the super thin display look of the 4th gen MBP, but the keyboard and Touch Bar will be nice and cool. 


  • Reply 20 of 20
    Clarus said:
    I like the portability of the 13" too. I adjusted the UI resolution to 1680 x 1050, which gives me the same screen real estate as my old 15", just physically smaller. Everything I used to fit on screen on my 15" still fits on my 13". As long as I keep my optical prescription up to date, readability is fine. But a larger screen woulud be more readable, so I agree: If Apple comes out with a 14" with upgraded internals, I might trade this in for that. Bonus points if Apple gives the 14" a discrete GPU and 32GB RAM, then I might not need the 16" ever again.

    The people saying the 16" are too big are nuts. Me and thousands of other users carried 15" MacBook Pros all over the world for years; the 16" is thinner and lighter than those.

    At home I plug the 13" into a dual display setup. Best of both worlds. Super-portable reasonably powerful, battery-efficient quad core on the road, fully functional multi-screen desktop at home. Can't lose.
    I have a 15” now and it’s really to big for international travel unless your in first class.
Sign In or Register to comment.