The June prediction is in line with the timeframe for release of Haswell processors. The latest news are that Intel is delaying Haswell until June: http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/di...ll_Microprocessors_Expands_Mobile_Lineup.html
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple to Update MacBook Pro and MacBook Air in June 2013 with New Processors, All Retina?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Intel's marketing team still has yet to comprehend the intended use of white papers.
I haven't seen many articles on the Atom socs in some time. Did you find this in a review or benchmark testing? If it was a decent review I'd like to read it.
If they really really wanted to do this, they could look at a design that would provide flat or slightly regressive performance growth at the time of release. If it ran like sludge, that wouldn't be so great. I disagree with the mentality of painting these things into consumer and professional tools. Apple went away from that mentality a long time ago. They're still separated in terms of performance, but with the possible exception of the mac pro, there isn't a line that is designed for specialty use cases. I would imagine the Air has been leveraging a number of macbook pro tasks much like the macbook pro has leveraged former imac users. Apple probably has a lot of market data on these things.
At the high end the intel models were reasonably fast even through Rosetta. The mac pros were sometimes faster than the quad G5s.
Not entirely - Whilst switching to ARM would mean that (in theory) all apps would go through the App store, if programs like Photoshop etc were not available, people would just switch to windows. Then apple arn't getting any money, either through the computer sales, or through the app store.
...but QuickTransit is gone, no chance of "Rosetta II" to run x64 and x86 code on ARM.
Which also brings up the issue that Apple OSX only runs on 64-bit CPUs, and there are no 64-bit ARM CPUs.
I've been selling Macs (Apple Product Specialist) for nearly 2 years, and using them for 15. I don't own a Retina model by choice. They're pretty to look at, and spectacular for certain professions, but for individuals like myself who need to squeeze out as much GPU performance as possible out of their machines... it is important to factor the necessary from the non-necessary (which is what Retina is to me at the moment, unnecessary compared to better performance).
I don't own a desktop because I frankly don't have the space for one right now. I'm dependant on my Macbook Pro (non Retina), but prefer using my 2010 Macbook Air for as much as it can handle... I just wish it could handle more. I'm a graphic designer by trade and I play a few high end games casually. Yes, the idea that I can possibly do all of that on an 11 inch Air excites me and quite frankly, I'd love to replace the heavier unit with one entirely... but the technology isn't quite there yet. Retina detracts from performance significantly enough when you are sporting machines that already meet the bare minimum for certain specifications.
At the end of the day, while integrated graphics cards are getting better, they certainly aren't dedicated and that becomes a factor when looking at including GPU sucking elements such as Retina display. This technology is acceptable in machines like the current Macbook Pro 15 inch where a dedicated card can handle the extra load when needed, but I personally believe the 13 inch model is useless (due to the lack of a dedicated card) for anyone that does more than dabble in iLife apps, surf the web, check email, and draft the odd letter or spreadsheet... and want the luxury of getting more resolution out of that 13 inch screen.
The Haswell micro-architecture has the potential to be a very exciting boost to the Air line, but I'm concerned that the addition of Retina will undermine the overall potential to the performance boost.
Last edited:
You tell us. Why are you answering questions with more questions? Any idea how annoying and uninformative that is?So Apple and ARM are incapable of improving the performance/battery life? OS X can't be re-optimized for ARM?
Again, OS X and its applications can't be re-compiled and optimized for ARM?
Do you understand that a lot of people made similar arguments when Apple switched to x86 from PowerPC? Are you so unimaginative that you can't conceive that it's even possible that Apple could introduce a new architecture into ONE of their notebook lines? Are you so narrow-minded that you can't even allow that there might be *some* benefits in doing so?
If you need to resort to cursing to make your point, you haven't made it very well.
----------
If it makes you feel any better, I'll be jealous of you until the next one comes out.
Of course - less than 30 days after I purchased my 2012 MBA, a rumour of Haswell/retina appears!
As its likely to see a price bump with retina, glad I purchased when I did though...
Computers tend to get updated once or twice a year. Not exactly a huge surprise.
They are rhetorical questions. Oletros claims Apple wouldn't (or couldn't...or shouldn't?) use ARM because OS X would run really slow on it. That makes the assumption that OS X can't be recompiled and optimized to run on ARM architecture and that the performance of ARM chip cannot scale to be competitive with any of the Intel chips. I don't know of any reason why any of that couldn't happen. So I simply asked if there's a reason it couldn't. I thought I was pretty clear before (but apparently not) about stating that I think that IF Apple were to release a MBA with ARM processor and OS X, it would be because they designed a processor that was fast enough to run some future version of OS X that has been re-compiled and optimized for ARM. I don't think that's out of the realm of possibility.
I think I'm asking pretty reasonable questions that allow for the possibility of MBA with ARM. Sorry if you find that annoying.
How do people get themselves so worked up over speculation?
If you read my post really, you'd see that Retina is a non-issue. Running my game, it runs at the same speed on my external as it does on my Retina internal screen, at the same 1440x900 resolution and it runs at the same speed on the external with the Retina display also displaying content.
Basically, the Retina isn't affecting the GPU's performance like some people seem to think. There is an issue with HiDPI mode and certain tasks not being smooth when doing the scaling, but the actual GPU's performance doesn't seem to be the cause, nor is it really impacted.
These are tests I've run on my very own Retina MacBook Pro. And you know what ? What you call pretty, I can pretty damn required now, I can't stand non-retina screens up close anymore, and my external is barely adequate at a far distance. I'm starting to wish I had a much higher PPI external monitor that this 23" 2048x1156 affair I own.
----------
There is no answer. The laws of physics still apply. ARM or x86 ? They're languages, instructions sets, not processors/chips. People need to stop talking about power consumption when talking about instruction sets, that is irrelevant. It's the chip design that's important and physics plays a role here. Intel is already pushing the boundaries on this front, except they're gearing their chips for performance while ARM is tuning their designs for mobile SoC that are battery friendly.
Less power consumption = Less performance. Intel can make low power chips too and guess what, they don't drain the battery more than ARM designs, but they don't perform any better. ARM can make chip designs that will rival Intel in terms of performance, but they will also draw as much power.
People think a switch to ARM would result in more battery life. Sure, but so would a switch to Intel Atom processors, or even Intel's Medfield x86 SoC. Likewise, if Apple were to use ARM designs that were equivalent in performance to current generation Ivy Bridges or next generation Haswell deisgns, they wouldn't gain any power consumption benefits at all.
But the thing is, an ARM switch would introduce something that sticking to Intel doesn't : Software incompatibility. x86 enabled a lot of things for Macs. Suddenly, you could virtualize x86 OSes in packages like VMWare, or you could run Windows software under WINE. It greatly opened the floodgates of software available to Macs and made transitioning to the platform easier for consumers (no need for shoddy emulation, especially since Microsoft had bought the company making the original Mac x86 emulator known as Virtual PC). It also quite helped the Mac in getting game ports of PC games through things like Winelib (Cedega and other WINE enabled porting librairies).
ARM Macs would in one fel swoop completely erase all of this. No more VMware (unless it's to run Windows RT... which is itself incompatible with Windows software as a whole except Windows RT apps sold through the Microsoft store for the Surface), no more WINE, no more games. All Mac software suddenly needs porting because while the more powerful x86 processors could emulate the slower PPC processors, the opposite isn't quite true without a big performance hit. Slower ARM processors trying to emulate code written for faster x86 chips would just be horrendous.
That is why I don't think such a switch, if it does happen, would be a good thing. Quite the contrary, this might end up killing the Mac or relegating it to being glorified iPads with multi-tasking and closed eco-systems.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6529/busting-the-x86-power-myth-indepth-clover-trail-power-analysis
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/atom-z2760-power-consumption-arm,3387.html
These two took a look at it. And this is with 2008's Atom architecture in 32nm.
Exactly this. Apple would commit suicide if they decided to alienate Macs from the rest of the world, especially at this point of time where most s/w houses start to include native Mac ports on their plans. Such thing would also affect, in a negative manner, iOS evolution too.
Also, emulation like Rosetta or virtual machines would not be an option this time. And bootcamp would not be an option, either.
More infos on Haswell processors
http://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/column/kaigai/20121226_580154.html
translation:
http://translate.google.fr/translat...co.jp/docs/column/kaigai/20121226_580154.html
![11.png]()
![02.png]()
http://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/column/kaigai/20121226_580154.html
translation:
http://translate.google.fr/translat...co.jp/docs/column/kaigai/20121226_580154.html
Glad to see the line go retina
if the retina quality is too nice then you can also adjust to a setting that doesn't look very good but that you'll enjoy.
DVD drives needed to go 3 years ago, wasted space.
At least people still using can opt for a cheap apple external dvd drive.
Once you go retina it's hard to go the past.
if the retina quality is too nice then you can also adjust to a setting that doesn't look very good but that you'll enjoy.
DVD drives needed to go 3 years ago, wasted space.
At least people still using can opt for a cheap apple external dvd drive.
Once you go retina it's hard to go the past.
Sorry, but that 2nd sentence, just no...
Apple's external superdrive is grossly overpriced. However, you can find a number of 3rd party USB external drives that are both just as good and about half the price of Apple's.
What I meant was as i said a processor for the MBP range based on the iPhone5 chip... in what way would that downgrade the performance to the iPhone5 processor?......
Because currently no processors based on something like the ARM designs found in the iPhone 5/iPad can even start rivaling the performance of the processors used in the MBP.
same here. I don't really need a high res display but I'd consider upgrading my '11 macbook air when they go to haswell.
Is a dual CPU MBP a possible BTO option? An Apple and an Intel CPU. I guess size and heat are a problem these days but many of us still need to run VMs now and then.
Meanwhile I am still waiting/hoping to upgrade my 2010 i7 MBP to a new Mac Pro now I have iPad for portability.
----------
I just stuck my own internal optical in an external case with dual USB and it cost next to nothing to do that.
Then put a half TB SSD in the MBP 15" i7 and made it the start up drive with apps and OS leaving the spinner drive (a 1 TB 5400) as the data disk. It's a sweet set up. To be honest it made more difference to my Mac than any update I have ever done and I've owned almost every Mac since 1984 and upgraded most one way or another.
Apple isn't switching to ARM.... it is severely underpowered.
The reason ARM processors are so power efficient is the simplicity of the architecture and the huge tradeoff in raw performance. There is no way ARM will be able to match the power of a very low voltage Intel CPU once Intel really "wakes up".
In the mobile space, ARM is king. But just wait for all the Ultraportable laptops, notebooks etc. and even some tablets having a massive performance increase at relatively similar power envelopes of ARM processors very soon.
Intel has massive resources, and state of the art fabrication facilities.
The reason ARM processors are so power efficient is the simplicity of the architecture and the huge tradeoff in raw performance. There is no way ARM will be able to match the power of a very low voltage Intel CPU once Intel really "wakes up".
In the mobile space, ARM is king. But just wait for all the Ultraportable laptops, notebooks etc. and even some tablets having a massive performance increase at relatively similar power envelopes of ARM processors very soon.
Intel has massive resources, and state of the art fabrication facilities.
While I agree with your assessment, I think that a stronger reason that Apple won't go with ARM is the fact that no Apple OSX Intel apps will run on ARM.
Unless, of course, Apple doesn't care about Apple OSX users, and thinks that it can make more money selling IOS laptops to the Iphone users who want a bigger screen with a keyboard.
I'm sure that Cook's bean counters are looking at the profit potential.