Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Dec 12, 2012, 02:28 PM   #26
wizard
macrumors 68040
 
Join Date: May 2003
The problem is crap clock rates.

Anybody can achieve lower power levels buy lowering clock rates. Clock rates directly affect power usage in CMOS electronics. In this regard these chips suck.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pgiguere1 View Post
I think a lot of people are waiting for the mobile CPUs more than this.

I'm especially interested in seeing the kind of performance the 10W Haswell CPUs will be able to achieve.

The upcoming 10W Ivy Bridge Y series already gives us an idea:

Image

They went for the same iGPU and same L3 cache as the 17W series which is a good thing.
On the flip side Intel apparently still has a ways to go with their 22nm process so we can always hope that Haswell will do better. In the end if performance isn't there low wattage means nothing.
wizard is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 12, 2012, 02:28 PM   #27
termite
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peace View Post
Wouldn't it be weird if Apple put the top of the line Haswell in a new Mac Pro ?

Anybody know if you can have dual or triple quad cores in Haswell ?
I think you are asking if you can put more than one Haswell processor onto a motherboard. The answer is no, at first.

Even worse: you couldn't put more than one Sandy Bridge into a motherboard until Sandy Bridge had been out for a full year. Ivy Bridge has now been out for nearly a full year, and you still can't put more than one into a motherboard. The trend is clear: Intel multiprocessors will now ship a full year after each architecture is introduced. As a result, the Mac Pro will permanently be stuck a year behind on architecture.
termite is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 12, 2012, 02:31 PM   #28
chrmjenkins
macrumors 603
 
chrmjenkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: CA
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard View Post
Anybody can achieve lower power levels buy lowering clock rates. Clock rates directly affect power usage in CMOS electronics. In this regard these chips suck.
Lowering clock rates but increasing performance is a good sign because it means IPC is going up. Remember the good old netburst days? The pentium 4 was at these very same frequencies. For power saving, lowering voltages and making architecture improvements is the name of the game.
__________________
Twitter: @anexanhume
chrmjenkins is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 12, 2012, 02:32 PM   #29
Colpeas
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Prague, Czech Rep.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CIA View Post
What's after Haswell?
Farewell
Colpeas is offline   7 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 12, 2012, 02:33 PM   #30
alfistas
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Helios Prime
This is all well and good with the new cpus!

...but how do people put up with the hideous intel integrated graphics?
alfistas is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 12, 2012, 02:38 PM   #31
wizard
macrumors 68040
 
Join Date: May 2003
Honestly I think you are wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 0815 View Post
While I am sure, there are power users that need faster and faster processors, I think the majority does not.
I'd have to call baloney on this. My MBP is never fast enough and I'm far from a power users.
Quote:
If I would have the choice of upgrading a HDD to SSD or getting the latest, greatest, fastes processor, I would get the SSD - as a matter of fact, I upgraded all my machines to SSD and the effect is much better than getting a faster processor. Just wish they drives would get bigger and cheaper faster.
That is a totally different issue. SSDs address system performance they do not help at all with CPU bound usage.
Quote:
Nevertheless, good to see the processor technology is not standing still, even though it is no longer the big bottleneck in computers these days.
Who says it isn't a bottleneck? It might not be fore you but it is for many. Consider too that modern processor improvements aren't just about the ALU, there is much within the chip that is outside the ALU improving user experience. For on the GPU in these units are supposedly vastly improved. I say supposedly because I have no faith in Intel when it comes to GPUs. Beyond that you have improved vector processors, video decode units and other functional units. All of these work together to drive a far better user experience.

As other have already indicated, mobile versions of Haswell ought to make for very nice Mac Book AIR chips. Why. Because many of the improvements, in Haswell, focus on things that make the current Mac Book AIRs poor performers.
wizard is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 12, 2012, 02:38 PM   #32
shaunp
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
I wish ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peace View Post
Wouldn't it be weird if Apple put the top of the line Haswell in a new Mac Pro ?

Anybody know if you can have dual or triple quad cores in Haswell ?
I would love them to do this so it didn't have a £2000 starting price for a machine that hasn't been updated in 2 years. Come one Apple, make a core i7 desktop that's not an appliance.
shaunp is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 12, 2012, 02:41 PM   #33
wizard
macrumors 68040
 
Join Date: May 2003
That isn't what they are doing here. These are still Ivy Bridge chips (see the referenced graphic) that are sorted to run at low power levels. Intel may have made some process changes to lower power a bit more but in the end the are Ivy Bridge cores running real slow. So relatively speaking they suck.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrmjenkins View Post
Lowering clock rates but increasing performance is a good sign because it means IPC is going up. Remember the good old netburst days? The pentium 4 was at these very same frequencies. For power saving, lowering voltages and making architecture improvements is the name of the game.
wizard is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 12, 2012, 02:44 PM   #34
Renzatic
macrumors 604
 
Renzatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Who puts the washers in the woods?
Quote:
Originally Posted by alfistas View Post
...but how do people put up with the hideous intel integrated graphics?
Cuz starting with Haswell, they're going from crappy to "...eh, pretty alright". The high end integrated GPUs of the line are supposedly a little over twice as powerful as the HD4000.
Renzatic is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 12, 2012, 02:45 PM   #35
chrmjenkins
macrumors 603
 
chrmjenkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: CA
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard View Post
That isn't what they are doing here. These are still Ivy Bridge chips (see the referenced graphic) that are sorted to run at low power levels. Intel may have made some process changes to lower power a bit more but in the end the are Ivy Bridge cores running real slow. So relatively speaking they suck.
Not sure what you're talking about. It's the process that's the problem. Their finFETs don't behave like normal planar transistors. One symptom of this is poor overclocking.
__________________
Twitter: @anexanhume
chrmjenkins is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 12, 2012, 02:46 PM   #36
Renzatic
macrumors 604
 
Renzatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Who puts the washers in the woods?
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard View Post
That isn't what they are doing here. These are still Ivy Bridge chips (see the referenced graphic) that are sorted to run at low power levels. Intel may have made some process changes to lower power a bit more but in the end the are Ivy Bridge cores running real slow. So relatively speaking they suck.
No they're not. They're built on top of the tech introduced with Ivy Bridge, but the way it takes advantage of the tech and balances power usage is vastly different.

It's not just an Ivy Bridge slowed down.
Renzatic is online now   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 12, 2012, 02:49 PM   #37
kitsunestudios
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by alfistas View Post
This is all well and good with the new cpus!

...but how do people put up with the hideous intel integrated graphics?
They don't play games, at least not above medium or low graphics settings.
kitsunestudios is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 12, 2012, 02:51 PM   #38
thekev
macrumors 603
 
thekev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peace View Post
Wouldn't it be weird if Apple put the top of the line Haswell in a new Mac Pro ?

Anybody know if you can have dual or triple quad cores in Haswell ?
You'd have to go with LGA2011 to use multiple cpu packages. The top or second best Haswell cpu out of the ones that are referenced here will end up in the imac anyway, so I don't think Apple would go that redundant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gpat View Post
Behold as the new iMac gets the shortest life cycle ever.
This isn't necessarily true. They've always released notebooks first. This means the imac could launch several months after this date. That will at least give them time to make design and process corrections with what they learn from this generation.
__________________
world's largest manufacturer of tin foil hats, none of that aluminum foil crap.
thekev is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 12, 2012, 03:00 PM   #39
alfistas
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Helios Prime
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renzatic View Post
Cuz starting with Haswell, they're going from crappy to "...eh, pretty alright". The high end integrated GPUs of the line are supposedly a little over twice as powerful as the HD4000.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kitsunestudios View Post
They don't play games, at least not above medium or low graphics settings.
Games are only half of it. Most new CAD programs require a decent GPU. What am I to do with an intel HD4000??

This is an inconvenience for me as the cheapest mac with modern day graphics costs almost €1500.
alfistas is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 12, 2012, 03:01 PM   #40
lilo777
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by gpat View Post
Behold as the new iMac gets the shortest life cycle ever.
Why? More likely, Apple just falls even farther behind their PC counterparts in adopting the latest CPUs.
lilo777 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 12, 2012, 03:05 PM   #41
gpat
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Italy
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilo777 View Post
Why? More likely, Apple just falls even farther behind their PC counterparts in adopting the latest CPUs.
That would be even worse.
__________________
13" MBA 2013, Nexus 7 2013, LG G2 (oh noes i automatically become an apple hater)
(Sorry for bad english, not my mother tongue!)
gpat is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 12, 2012, 03:08 PM   #42
iChrist
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: 3 countries for tax benefit
Quote:
Originally Posted by snacksfarlin View Post
guess i can wait a few more months for an imac

Indeed.

Now we'll get some real performance out of those rMBP betas.

.
__________________
"We should think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone--an image made by man's design and skill."
iChrist is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 12, 2012, 03:10 PM   #43
LagunaSol
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by 0815 View Post
While I am sure, there are power users that need faster and faster processors, I think the majority does not.
You can never have too much processor speed. Pro or layman.
LagunaSol is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 12, 2012, 03:12 PM   #44
Rocketman
macrumors 603
 
Rocketman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Claremont, CA
The low power socket 35 watt units are of the greatest interest. I presume the only reason you would not opt for the i7 version is the lower cost of the i5 version. Discuss.

Mac-Mini 4 chip version? MacCoLoCo would hoard them.
__________________
Think Different-ly!
All 357 R or D House jobs bills over 4 years died in the D Senate, ordered by the D President. Buy a model rocket here: http://v-serv.com/usr/instaship-visual.htm Thanks.

Last edited by Rocketman; Dec 12, 2012 at 03:29 PM.
Rocketman is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 12, 2012, 03:12 PM   #45
Wuiffi
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Austria
Don't know if this has been mentioned, but there is an i7 quad core with 35W TDP in the list. As far 35W is the limit Apple has set (themselves) for the Processor of the 13" Macbook Pros. I can see a quad core 13" MBP and rMBP coming

Awesome!!!
Wuiffi is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 12, 2012, 03:15 PM   #46
Badagri
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by alfistas View Post
This is all well and good with the new cpus!

...but how do people put up with the hideous intel integrated graphics?
Quote:
Originally Posted by kitsunestudios View Post
They don't play games, at least not above medium or low graphics settings.
http://www.lucidlogix.com/technology...-graphics.html
Badagri is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 12, 2012, 03:16 PM   #47
MatthaiosSaraj
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
How about a Sandy Bridge-E in Mac Pro. I would buy that. I don't need a server cpu.
MatthaiosSaraj is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 12, 2012, 03:29 PM   #48
jomirrivera
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
So, I'm all in for the 2gen rmbp!
jomirrivera is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 12, 2012, 03:30 PM   #49
Eidorian
macrumors Penryn
 
Eidorian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Cuidad de México
Send a message via AIM to Eidorian
I caught the Intel Mobile Y Series at the end of the last Intel thread. I also forget that something like this would be news for MacRumors. I would have submitted it two days ago, d'oh!

Anyways, Xbitlabs and some others are pointing to an APRIL 2013 release. Geez, Ivy Bridge was not around for long. But keep in mind these are going to be the mainstream desktop LGA 1150 chips. I have not seen a mention of mobile yet.

I will be on the bandwagon for a new system come tax time and I am glad I waited for Haswell!

Quote:
Originally Posted by MatthaiosSaraj View Post
How about a Sandy Bridge-E in Mac Pro. I would buy that. I don't need a server cpu.
Maybe when Ivy Bridge-E is out.
__________________
Core i5 750 / 16 GB RAM / 500 GB SSD / HD 7950 / Windows 8.1
13" Retina MacBook Pro
Eidorian is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 12, 2012, 03:32 PM   #50
Badagri
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by eidorian View Post
maybe when ivy bridge-e is out.
Q3 - 4 2013. What the heck, capital Q ends up lower case after every edit.
Badagri is offline   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Intel's New Haswell Desktop CPUs Could Arrive in May, Allowing for iMac Updates MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 122 May 6, 2014 08:09 AM
Intel to Supply Apple with Special High-End Haswell Processors for MacBook Pro MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 587 Sep 3, 2013 11:27 PM
Intel Launches Haswell Processors Ahead of WWDC Mac Updates MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 169 Jun 18, 2013 09:27 AM
2013 Intel Haswell on R-MBP? sojha MacBook Pro 73 Mar 23, 2013 11:58 AM
Intel 'Haswell' chips potentially bound for 2013 iMacs maxira iMac 1 Dec 13, 2012 01:15 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:44 PM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC