New Intel 10th-gen H-series chips launched, suitable for 2020 MacBook Pro refresh

Posted:
in General Discussion
Intel has revealed specifics on a new line of 10th-generation Core processors for premium laptops -- although the improvements over what is presently available are actually relatively small.

If Apple goes with Intel processors for its MacBook Pros this year, Intel's 10th-gen chips are a likely choice.
If Apple goes with Intel processors for its MacBook Pros this year, Intel's 10th-gen chips are a likely choice.


Apple already uses 10th-generation Intel chips in its latest MacBook Air, though the ones that Intel announced today at 45W H-series processors that are aimed for higher-end notebooks like the MacBook Pro.

On the whole, the new H-series chips, part of the Comet Lake series, are fairly muted as far as upgrades. They feature minor changes to clock speed and support for Wi-Fi 6, but are still built using Intel's 14nm architecture.

Across the lineup, the base clock speeds are exactly the same as the 9th-generation chips used in the current 16-inch MacBook Pro. Turbo Boost speeds, however, now exceed 5GHz for the first time.

For example, the highest-end Core i9 chip sports a 2.4GHz clock speed but a maximum Turbo Boost of 5.3Ghz, up from 5.0GHz in the previous iteration. Intel calls the Core i9 the "world's fastest mobile processor."

Similar bumps to Turbo Boost clock speeds can be seen across the lineup. The lowest-end Intel Core i5 has a clock speed of 4.5GHz, up from 4.1GHz. A 10th-generation Core i7 clocks in at 5GHz, compared to 4.5GHz in the year-ago processor.




The Core i7-9850H and the Core i7-9750H also pack Intel's "thermal velocity boost," a feature that was restricted to the Core i9 chips last year. The highest-end Core i9 is still the only one that ships unlocked.

Intel's latest chips also feature support for two-channel DDR4-2993 memory. The previous generation supported DDR4-2666.

The chips also feature support for the 802.11ax standard, also known as Wi-Fi 6. It's a new Wi-Fi technology that should delver better speeds, increased power efficiency and lower latency than past standards, though devices must have Wi-Fi 6-compatible chips to use it.

Apple's latest iPhones and iPad Pro models already feature support for Wi-Fi 6, but none of the company's Macs do -- even the 16-inch MacBook Pro and the 2020 MacBook Air.

Of course, because Apple only launched the 16-inch MacBook Pro in November, it's likely that we're still months away from a refresh.

Furthermore, oft-accurate analyst Ming-Chi Kuo has also forecast that Apple will release its first ARM-based MacBook model with custom silicon in the fourth quarter of 2020 or the first quarter of 2021, with more ARM devices to come later that year.


«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 22
    mdriftmeyermdriftmeyer Posts: 7,503member
    These are not suitable for Mac. They are slower, hotter and far more power hungry than AMD. Results already show they are 14nm retreads.


    The base frequency of this chip is 2.4 GHz, and it has a regular 45 W TDP (sustained power), which can be run in cTDP up mode for 65 W. Two other plus points on this chip is that it is unlocked, for when an OEM provides more thermal headroom, and it supports DDR4-2933, which is an upgrade over the previous generation. Intel's recommended PL2 (turbo power) for the Core i9 is 135 W, and Intel says the recommended 'Tau' is set to 56 seconds for the i9, and 28 seconds for all the other CPUs. OEMs don't often adhere to these values for notebooks, but they are provided as a guide. It does mean that in order to hit 5.3 GHz, the Core i9 is by default allowed to take 135 W across two cores, or 67.5 W per core. Even at 60W per core, you're looking at 50A of current per core... in a laptop.


    edited April 2020 canukstormthtneo-techvannygeewatto_cobra
  • Reply 2 of 22
    thttht Posts: 5,444member
    They aren't suitable for PCs either. If you want more performance, mind as well put an i9-9900K in your laptop. It's not that far removed from putting an i9-10980HK into your laptop. Or, buy an AMD 4000-series APU laptop.
    mdriftmeyerwatto_cobra
  • Reply 3 of 22
    baka-dubbsbaka-dubbs Posts: 175member
    These are not suitable for Mac. They are slower, hotter and far more power hungry than AMD. Results already show they are 14nm retreads.

    I was shocked by the performance were seeing out of the 4000 series AMD chips.  They destroying Intel chips in multicore performance while maintaining really good batter life and reasonable thermals.  AMD has been killing it in the desktop space, but this is the first time(ever?) I have seen them ahead of intel in mobile.  Intel is going into the fight with the higher boost clock, but AMD has better IPC and I'm willing to bet they can stay at a higher clock speed under load than intel with the smaller manufacturing process.   

    I know that they found references to AMD chips in a recent MacOs beta, I would love to see them shock everyone and introduce a 14 inch Macbook pro with an amd 4000 series chip.
    edited April 2020 MisterKitmdriftmeyerwatto_cobra
  • Reply 4 of 22
    thttht Posts: 5,444member
    These are not suitable for Mac. They are slower, hotter and far more power hungry than AMD. Results already show they are 14nm retreads.
    I was shocked by the performance were seeing out of the 4000 series AMD chips.  They destroying Intel chips in multicore performance while maintaining really good batter life and reasonable thermals.  AMD has been killing it in the desktop space, but this is the first time(ever?) I have seen them ahead of intel in mobile.  Intel is going into the fight with the higher boost clock, but AMD has better IPC and I'm willing to bet they can stay at a higher clock speed under load than intel with the smaller manufacturing process.   

    I know that they found references to AMD chips in a recent MacOs beta, I would love to see them shock everyone and introduce a 14 inch Macbook pro with an amd 4800h or the unreleased 4900 series chip.
    It's basically the first time ever AMD has a fabrication tech advantage over Intel. AMD's Zen 2 chips are fabbed on TSMC 7 nm fabs while Intel is stuck on 14nm for the vast majority of their processors. That's about a 2x transistor density advantage for AMD to work with, and they are outperforming Intel at every Zen 2 SKU accordingly.

    Apple will transition away from Intel CPUs. It's inevitable because TSMC has lapped Intel in fab tech.


    watto_cobra
  • Reply 5 of 22
    tipootipoo Posts: 1,142member
    I'd be more interested in Renoir making it into Apple laptops! At 50W vs 90 it still destroys Intel, tuned down to the 45W Apple needs for the 16 it would still do so 


    https://www.digitaltrends.com/laptop-reviews/asus-rog-zephyrus-g14-review/

    https://www.laptopmag.com/reviews/asus-rog-zephyrus-g14

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYqG31V4qtA&feature=emb_logo






    That's top end, overclocked, massive Intel laptop beating performance in a thin and light 
    edited April 2020 mdriftmeyer
  • Reply 6 of 22
    fastasleepfastasleep Posts: 6,417member

    I know that they found references to AMD chips in a recent MacOs beta, I would love to see them shock everyone and introduce a 14 inch Macbook pro with an amd 4000 series chip.
    Weren’t those GPUs?
  • Reply 7 of 22
    mdriftmeyermdriftmeyer Posts: 7,503member
    tht said:
    They aren't suitable for PCs either. If you want more performance, mind as well put an i9-9900K in your laptop. It's not that far removed from putting an i9-10980HK into your laptop. Or, buy an AMD 4000-series APU laptop.

    Apple has its answer: AMD. The Zen 3 is PCI-4.0 and it's successor in 2021 is PCI-E 5.0. Dr. Lisa Siu and company have hit it out of the park, and with the upcoming Infinity Architecture debuting this Fall with Zen 3 the RDNA 2.x/CDNA 1.x ecosystem will just continue to evolve and it makes no sense for Apple to do anything but use AMD.

    People don't have to worry about production as Apple will ensure production is solid with their usual approach to large orders.

    TSMC 7 nm is 7nm+ and mature.

    iOS devices will see the 5nm for the A series.

    We aren't moving to ARM when AMD is spanking Intel at half lower prices.
    canukstormhodar
  • Reply 8 of 22
    baka-dubbsbaka-dubbs Posts: 175member

    I know that they found references to AMD chips in a recent MacOs beta, I would love to see them shock everyone and introduce a 14 inch Macbook pro with an amd 4000 series chip.
    Weren’t those GPUs?
    I could be wrong, but I believe it had references to both GPU and CPU's, specifically Renoir(as well as Navi and others).  
  • Reply 9 of 22
    mcdavemcdave Posts: 1,927member
    So not ditching intel just yet. Apple should grow some stones, cut to its own ISA whilst emulating ARM/intel ISAs for 3rd-party library compatibility.  This way only developers adopting 1st-party Apple tech (ISA, frameworks, IDE etc.) can provide a truly 1st class experience for their customers whilst the laggards will fall foul of their platform politics.
  • Reply 10 of 22
    EsquireCatsEsquireCats Posts: 1,268member
    Reminds me of what IBM were doing in the last days of PPC on mac. 
  • Reply 11 of 22
    wood1208wood1208 Posts: 2,913member
    Year 2020 turning out 2 horses race with good competition between AMD and Intel. By the way, these new chips are still on 14nm vs 10nm node even Intel call it 10th gen processors. Next year, Apple won't care as Apple will have it's own ARM processor for MACs.
    edited April 2020
  • Reply 12 of 22
    hodarhodar Posts: 357member
    tht said:
    These are not suitable for Mac. They are slower, hotter and far more power hungry than AMD. Results already show they are 14nm retreads.
    I was shocked by the performance were seeing out of the 4000 series AMD chips.  They destroying Intel chips in multicore performance while maintaining really good batter life and reasonable thermals.  AMD has been killing it in the desktop space, but this is the first time(ever?) I have seen them ahead of intel in mobile.  Intel is going into the fight with the higher boost clock, but AMD has better IPC and I'm willing to bet they can stay at a higher clock speed under load than intel with the smaller manufacturing process.   

    I know that they found references to AMD chips in a recent MacOs beta, I would love to see them shock everyone and introduce a 14 inch Macbook pro with an amd 4800h or the unreleased 4900 series chip.
    It's basically the first time ever AMD has a fabrication tech advantage over Intel. AMD's Zen 2 chips are fabbed on TSMC 7 nm fabs while Intel is stuck on 14nm for the vast majority of their processors. That's about a 2x transistor density advantage for AMD to work with, and they are outperforming Intel at every Zen 2 SKU accordingly.

    Apple will transition away from Intel CPUs. It's inevitable because TSMC has lapped Intel in fab tech.


    Umm, not to be a nit-picker (while doing some nit-picking), One square at 7nm (x and y dimentions) yields 49 nm^2, while Intel is at 14 nm, or 196 nm^2, which is 1/4 the size, not half.  This means on a wafer, ASSUMING comparable yields, AMD is realizing 4x the number of processors per wafer, on each wafer.  Thus, if they all have similar processes, the cost to make a boat load of wafers is about 1/4 the cost for AMD, as it is for Intel.  This is significant, let alone that the smaller geometries tend to have lower effective inductance, thus have the potential to not only use less power, but clock faster.
  • Reply 13 of 22
    thttht Posts: 5,444member
    hodar said:
    tht said:
    These are not suitable for Mac. They are slower, hotter and far more power hungry than AMD. Results already show they are 14nm retreads.
    I was shocked by the performance were seeing out of the 4000 series AMD chips.  They destroying Intel chips in multicore performance while maintaining really good batter life and reasonable thermals.  AMD has been killing it in the desktop space, but this is the first time(ever?) I have seen them ahead of intel in mobile.  Intel is going into the fight with the higher boost clock, but AMD has better IPC and I'm willing to bet they can stay at a higher clock speed under load than intel with the smaller manufacturing process.   

    I know that they found references to AMD chips in a recent MacOs beta, I would love to see them shock everyone and introduce a 14 inch Macbook pro with an amd 4800h or the unreleased 4900 series chip.
    It's basically the first time ever AMD has a fabrication tech advantage over Intel. AMD's Zen 2 chips are fabbed on TSMC 7 nm fabs while Intel is stuck on 14nm for the vast majority of their processors. That's about a 2x transistor density advantage for AMD to work with, and they are outperforming Intel at every Zen 2 SKU accordingly.

    Apple will transition away from Intel CPUs. It's inevitable because TSMC has lapped Intel in fab tech.
    Umm, not to be a nit-picker (while doing some nit-picking), One square at 7nm (x and y dimentions) yields 49 nm^2, while Intel is at 14 nm, or 196 nm^2, which is 1/4 the size, not half.  This means on a wafer, ASSUMING comparable yields, AMD is realizing 4x the number of processors per wafer, on each wafer.  Thus, if they all have similar processes, the cost to make a boat load of wafers is about 1/4 the cost for AMD, as it is for Intel.  This is significant, let alone that the smaller geometries tend to have lower effective inductance, thus have the potential to not only use less power, but clock faster.
    TSMC N7FF/N7FF+ (7 nm) has transistor densities of 100m transistors/mm^2 while Intel 14 nm is 37m transistors/mm^2.  The 5 nm, 7 nm, 10 nm names has ceased to have much meaning as they mostly are used as branding. So on average with densities, TSMC 7nm has about a 2.5x advantage over Intel 14nm in terms of transistors per square mm, which enables them to have 2x the cores at less power.

    Cost-wise, I can't really parse that as Intel has its own fabs, a whole lot of mature 14nm capacity while AMD is essentially competing for TSMC's fab capacity. How the costs play out with those two situations, who knows.

    Bear in mind that Apple is about to get TSMC N5FF (5 nm) A14 SoCs for iPhones that Fall. The decider between AMD or ARM is whether Apple can outcompete others for TSMC 5 nm capacity and how long it will take AMD to get 5 nm capacity. I think Apple will be about 6 to 12 months ahead as long as iPhones are selling hundreds of millions of units per year.
    muthuk_vanalingamhodarEsquireCats
  • Reply 14 of 22
    sflocalsflocal Posts: 6,093member
    It's just embarrassing the current state of Intel's offering.  AMD is just womping Intel, and Intel is just sitting on its laurels.  What must they be thinking in those conference rooms as AMD continues to dominate the CPU segment?

    In a perfect world, I would love to see Apple introduce a AMD-powered Mac with PCI4.0.  The tech is there, it works, and Intel is just sitting in the corner sucking its thumb.
    tipoorundhvid
  • Reply 15 of 22
    cpsrocpsro Posts: 3,198member
    I'm greatly enjoying an Ubuntu 20.04-based 64-core/128-thread AMD 3990X Threadripper system that trounces my 28-core Mac Pro -- well over 3X faster on computational loads for half the price. And I'm able to swap Thunderbolt 3 drive arrays as needed between Linux and Mac using OpenZFS. The 3990X is almost able to keep up with the native throughput of 6xSSD striped array in computing ZFS checksums, whereas the MP is less than half the throughput. Downside to Threadripper is support for only 256GB RAM. For a couple thou more, an AMD Epyc would support more.
    edited April 2020 PShimi
  • Reply 16 of 22
    mdriftmeyermdriftmeyer Posts: 7,503member
    From TechPowerUp



    it appears DDR5 will give us much more in the baseline Mac across the board. When Apple goes LPDDR5 no more 8GB systems. They'll just use 16GB, but seeing DDR5 going up to 64GB per DIMM is sweet. That's a four fold increase. The Mac Mini should be up to 128GB and so should the Macbook Pro future models. The iMac if it has 4 slots we get 256GB, etc.





    fastasleepmuthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 17 of 22
    mdriftmeyermdriftmeyer Posts: 7,503member
    cpsro said:
    I'm greatly enjoying an Ubuntu 20.04-based 64-core/128-thread AMD 3990X Threadripper system that trounces my 28-core Mac Pro -- well over 3X faster on computational loads for half the price. And I'm able to swap Thunderbolt 3 drive arrays as needed between Linux and Mac using OpenZFS. The 3990X is almost able to keep up with the native throughput of 6xSSD striped array in computing ZFS checksums, whereas the MP is less than half the throughput. Downside to Threadripper is support for only 256GB RAM. For a couple thou more, an AMD Epyc would support more.

    TR cap at 256GB is an OEM cap. Zen supports up to 2TB.  If you have a new Mac Pro and don't buy the Afterburner you're nuts. That card will eat up TR's benefits, but together would be stunning in a future Mac Pro.
  • Reply 18 of 22
    Some sleuthing on AppleInsider.com reveals that Apple has, indeed, been meeting with AMD engineers to discuss AMD CPUs. What a prescient article this could be!
  • Reply 19 of 22
    loquiturloquitur Posts: 137member
    Isn't the decider about Intel vs. AMD not technology, but the 15- or 20- year exclusive contract they have?
    (Just like with ye olde Motorola.)
  • Reply 20 of 22
    EsquireCatsEsquireCats Posts: 1,268member

    I know that they found references to AMD chips in a recent MacOs beta, I would love to see them shock everyone and introduce a 14 inch Macbook pro with an amd 4000 series chip.
    Weren’t those GPUs?
    I could be wrong, but I believe it had references to both GPU and CPU's, specifically Renoir(as well as Navi and others).  
    Apple isn't a stranger to AMD's chips, way back in PPC days Apple were testing Marklar+FCP on Athlon processors (from little birdy source). Intel is the chosen partner for business and platform reasons, we're much more likely to see Apple switch to their own chips rather than take two risky moves in a short span.
Sign In or Register to comment.