More on Intel's Ivy Bridge Notebook Chip Delays [Updated]

[MacRumors]

Several weeks ago, a report from Digitimes claimed that Intel would be delaying mass availability of its forthcoming Ivy Bridge processors until "after June", generating concerns about extended waits for new Mac models. Those fears were tempered a bit just a few days later when a new report claimed that the delay affected only dual-core mobile chips, which Apple would be using either only in its 13" MacBook Pro or not at all in its next round of updates.

Financial Times now reports that an Intel executive has confirmed delays in Ivy Bridge notebook chips, although it is still unclear exactly which processors the delay applies to. But with the executive claiming that the new manufacturing process is to blame, it is possible that it could affect all mobile Ivy Bridge processors.

In his first interview to discuss Intel's business in China, [Intel executive vice president Sean] Maloney told the Financial Times that the start of sales of machines equipped with Ivy Bridge - the 22nm processor set to succeed Sandy Bridge in notebooks this year - had been pushed back from April. "I think maybe it's June now," he said.

Mr Maloney said the adjustment was not caused by a lack of demand but came because of the new manufacturing process needed to make the smaller chips.

While Intel is officially still sticking to its "Q2" launch schedule for Ivy Bridge, the question is whether Mac users can expect chips for updates to their favorite machines to become available closer to the beginning or end of the quarter. Digitimes' original report had claimed that Intel may still be planning an April launch of the chips but with mass availability not coming until the end of the quarter, although this dynamic is actually fairly typical for Intel's chip launches, as shortages are common in the early weeks after a debut.

Update: VR-Zone reports on a new Ivy Bridge launch timeline posted by SweClockers.com. According to the timeline, quad-core desktop processors such as those used in the iMac are scheduled to launch on April 29. The report does not mention quad-core mobile processors such as those used in Apple's larger MacBook Pro models, but given that they are based on the same die as the desktop chips, the mobile chips could appear at the same time. Dual-core mobile processors such as those found in the MacBook Air and 13-inch MacBook Pro are not estimated to ship until late June.

Update 2: CNET offers some clarification from an Intel spokesman, who reports that the delays are in reality only a few weeks for each chip type.

"Reports of an eight-week delay to the Ivy Bridge launch are inaccurate and our schedule has only been impacted by a few weeks," spokesman Jon Carvill told CNET today.

So, for instance, if a desktop Ivy Bridge product was slated for an April launch, that would be pushed to May. And a mobile product scheduled for May, would launch in June. Intel always staggers production schedules. For example, Intel's most power-efficient ULV (ultra-low-voltage) parts typically ship later than other (e.g., desktop quad-core) parts.

Article Link: More on Intel's Ivy Bridge Notebook Chip Delays [Updated]

[LondonCentral]

“I think maybe it’s June now,”


....this chap isn't exactly confidence inspiring.

[YapperJ]

Starting to get confused here

[Marx55]

This has nothing to do with manufacturing process issues. Intel could go straight to 11 nm and beyond (nanotechnology) if they wanted right now. It is just milking the process as much as possible.

[Fried Chicken]

Wish AMD had serious competence.

[toddybody]

All good, they'll get here when they do.

[gpat]

Originally Posted by Fried Chicken

Wish AMD had serious competence.

Agreed. In the Phenom II (2009) and Athlon 64 (2004) days, it used to give Intel serious competition, so they had to release better chips in order to keep up.

[xVeinx]

Originally Posted by Marx55

This has nothing to do with manufacturing process issues. Intel could go straight to 11 nm and beyond (nanotechnology) if they wanted right now. It is just milking the process as much as possible.

Let's not kid ourselves here. Intel's 22nm process is ambitious, and will require a greater degree of fine-tuning than previous processes, particularly for establishing the appropriate yield.

[Bear]

Originally Posted by Marx55

This has nothing to do with manufacturing process issues. Intel could go straight to 11 nm and beyond (nanotechnology) if they wanted right now. It is just milking the process as much as possible.

And your source for this is? And what would the yeild be at 11nm? If the yield is too low, the chips would be very expensive.

[thejadedmonkey]

So in a real-use scenario, this just means "Apple announces no USB 3.0 until June". I guess I may as well as not wait for that air...

[mBox]

They can delay the Xeons too since Ive ordered a half-dozen Mac Pro's last week :P
I like a little space between my purchase and next release
Like thatll make me feel better :P
LOL!

[nikhsub1]

Hmm, new fab's from Intel always make me a bit weary... I'll take the end of last gen fab over troubled new fab any day.

[kjs862]

I've been waiting to get a new IB iMac. Maybe I'll just wait for the next iteration for intel chips, especially if they are on time.

[usptact]

Originally Posted by gpat

Agreed. In the Phenom II (2009) and Athlon 64 (2004) days, it used to give Intel serious competition, so they had to release better chips in order to keep up.

Now we see that Intel succeeded to make better chips than AMD. Now it's AMD's turn to get back into business!

[Lesser Evets]

The quotes and info are a tad threadbare. I'd like to know how these chips compare to which models of Macs, which Macs might be affected, are they just notebook processors or higher-powered processors as well? Someone needs to be thorough with interviews.

Seems as if the person interviewed was playing Solitare or viewing net-porn by the indefinite framing of answers. Ah well. So it life.

Originally Posted by Marx55

This has nothing to do with manufacturing process issues. Intel could go straight to 11 nm and beyond (nanotechnology) if they wanted right now. It is just milking the process as much as possible.

This is about as divorced from reality as someone can be. It's like the nuts claiming there are free-energy devices being held by the government and Exxon, but they are there. There is also amazing alien technology discovered at the Roswell crash hidden in Area 51... but we still use bullets and jet engines.

Get real. These leaps in miniaturizing mean more and more time to manufacture without a high percentage of trashed product, more and more time to get the process worked out. They can make them, but MASS PRODUCING is not the same as doing 7 or 8 in R&D.

[techsmith]

Originally Posted by Marx55

This has nothing to do with manufacturing process issues. Intel could go straight to 11 nm and beyond (nanotechnology) if they wanted right now. It is just milking the process as much as possible.

It's mind blowing that 22nm is even possible using today's technology let alone 11nm. Every die shrink that is done is EXTREMELY difficult to achieve. Look at 1mm on a ruler, and imagine after splitting it into over 45000 slices (over 72000 slices per 1/16" for you imperial folk) how thick each slice would be. That's how thin 22nm is. It takes an incredible amount of research and development to make this possible.

[Consultant]

Apple typically gets Intel's latest processor first for the Mac Pro.

[Swain]

Originally Posted by Lesser Evets

The quotes and info are a tad threadbare. I'd like to know how these chips compare to which models of Macs, which Macs might be affected, are they just notebook processors or higher-powered processors as well? Someone needs to be thorough with interviews.

Seems as if the person interviewed was playing Solitare or viewing net-porn by the indefinite framing of answers. Ah well. So it life.



This is about as divorced from reality as someone can be. It's like the nuts claiming there are free-energy devices being held by the government and Exxon, but they are there. There is also amazing alien technology discovered at the Roswell crash hidden in Area 51... but we still use bullets and jet engines.

Get real. These leaps in miniaturizing mean more and more time to manufacture without a high percentage of trashed product, more and more time to get the process worked out. They can make them, but MASS PRODUCING is not the same as doing 7 or 8 in R&D.

Give this guy a medal.

[b11051973]

I'll be buying the base 13" MacBook Air whenever Ivy Bridge comes out. I'm not dying for the upgrade, but look forward to it. I might even wait until Amazon sells them so I can avoid tax. That is of course until I file my taxes where I claim everything I bought online.

[Nielsenius]

Hopefully these new chips are worth the wait. I'm looking forward to getting a new Macbook Pro, but I can wait an extra month.

[cxny]

Any news here relevant to the next iMac refresh? I am so sick of cramming all my work on my 21" aging iMac, but I'd really like to take advantage of a refresh to the line before going to 24"

[Mad-B-One]

Originally Posted by Fried Chicken

Wish AMD had serious competence.

Originally Posted by gpat

Agreed. In the Phenom II (2009) and Athlon 64 (2004) days, it used to give Intel serious competition, so they had to release better chips in order to keep up.

Originally Posted by usptact

Now we see that Intel succeeded to make better chips than AMD. Now it's AMD's turn to get back into business!

I think the issue is that AMD just rushed into the market with their current processor lineup. There are certain bugs but they seem to be more BIOS/Kernel related - but other than that, you cannot beat a true octocore with on-demand variable speeds for every second core with a quadcore HT. I think the real issue is the yield on ULV chips. Apple wants to keep their laptops fanless and needs enough chips on a large scale to power them.
From where AMD comes from, copying Intel chips under license, and where they are now, pioneered x64 achitecture, brought own all-in-one chip (APU VISION) solution for laptops/mobile devices, they are not too bad.
Who knows? Maybe Apple is still open to go AMD. Heck, that would be a feast for me - I would have a Hackintosh within hours of Apple supporting FX990 - I would even go with the FX 8150 processor and dump my Phenom II 1100T hexacore.

[Hakone]

Please release me from the Core 2 Duo family of chips so hurry up, intel!

[justperry]

On Off On Off Flip Flop Flip Flop

[nikhsub1]

Originally Posted by Lesser Evets

This is about as divorced from reality as someone can be. It's like the nuts claiming there are free-energy devices being held by the government and Exxon, but they are there. There is also amazing alien technology discovered at the Roswell crash hidden in Area 51... but we still use bullets and jet engines.

Get real. These leaps in miniaturizing mean more and more time to manufacture without a high percentage of trashed product, more and more time to get the process worked out. They can make them, but MASS PRODUCING is not the same as doing 7 or 8 in R&D.

Exactly. If Intel could just right to 11nm and beyond right now they would. They would yield way more CPU's per wafer - which means more product.