Intel CEO 'Guarantees' Broadwell Chips by This Holiday Season

wizard · May 19, 2014

Repeating something again and again doesn't make it right.

mabhatter said:
We go over this every time... Basically the only thing you get from these new chips is battery life.. And even then maybe only 10%. The CPU increase is only 10% for a cost increase and supply shortage.. When a Mac mini is just plugged into the wall anyway.

Wrong! First; the GPUs, depending upon the model, are remarkably good! Second; there is no supply shortage, you do realize that Intel laid off people this year due to the lack of sales. Third power usage is always significant, for many of us low power usage leads to far lower electric bills.

"New" Intel processor upgrades since the Core 2 updates have only been 10% performance /battery boosts at the best conditions... There's no value in the 18-month upgrade anymore.

If you focus on CPU core speeds and IPC then no it doesn't make sense to upgrade every 1-2 years. However for most people these days that is of minor concern. The GPU upgrade in Haswell is certainly a good reason to upgrade an old system running Intel integrated graphics.

Unless you NEED a new feature like thunderbolt 2 or bluetooth 4 there just isn't a lot of REAL improvements versus the Core 2 days... In fact Intel still sells those old Core 2 chips as NEW to poor schmucks which is why the PC market is shrinking.

I don't buy this either, if you compare an original Core 2 to today's Haswell there is a big jump in performance. Granted we are talking several years here compared to a big jump over two years but it just highlights how bogus your claims are. Beyond all of that Intel has done this while drastically dropping power usage in its chips, in the mobile world that is golden. Sadly they have let desktop chip development slip, but they also have had little choice because of the loss in mobile.

In the end your claims are just bogus.

----------

kazmac said:
Binary code crossed my 2010 iMac can limp along until new machines are released (hopefully) later this year.

That is for sure, I've been limping for years now.

At least, Safari feels a bit faster in 10.9.3. Hope this nicks beachballs and kernel panics too. Until then I may have to keep saying:

If Safari feels sluggish for you seriously consider testing the latest WebKit night lies. They have made some amazing strides in performance that will hopefully make it into the next Mac OS release and maybe even better into the next iOS release. Sometimes sluggish is a software problem not a hardware one.

As for kernel panics I can't say I've seen a lot of them. However stability is always important.

"You hear me sweetheart? Hold together!"

My old MBP is beat up pretty bad. I'd love to replace it but the house needs a new roof and Broadwell really looks good for next year.

proline · May 19, 2014

keysofanxiety said:
Is there any need to be so rude?

Oh, you mean like your 'joke'? Exactly what was supposed to be funny about it? Your used of tired old gripes? Your denigration of other people's motivations? Your use of neologisms like 'Maglock'?

keysofanxiety · May 19, 2014

proline said:
Oh, you mean like your 'joke'? Exactly what was supposed to be funny about it? Your used of tired old gripes? Your denigration of other people's motivations? Your use of neologisms like 'Maglock'?

It's okay proline, I've had a quick look through your previous posts and realise there's a continuity in all of your comments, so now I know it's nothing personal against me. Sorry I took it to heart.

Genuinely, I hope that one day you find some release for all the built-up anger you have. I think if you look objectively at all your comments you'll see it's perhaps giving a bad impression and comes across a little childish. I'm sure you're an intelligent person, and it's very easy to come across aggressive when there's only text to judge somebody by. With any luck you can phrase things in a way that won't alienate everybody -- and if you're trying to make points, people tend to stop considering what you're saying if you insult them.

Best wishes and please have a great evening (settle down with a glass of red? It's only a forum, a drink may help).

wizard · May 19, 2014

Parasprite said:
Yes, this would be very much illegal. Even if it wasn't, it still wouldn't work.

Why would it be illegal? Apple can leave Intel anytime they wanted.

I have to agree it wouldn't work, buying companies is a strange process as it is. In this case Intel is already suffering from the effects of anti conglomerate thinking in Washington. Beyond that they would have massive excess capacity, so would have to stay in the chip making business to serve others.

Parasprite · May 19, 2014

wizard said:
Why would it be illegal? Apple can leave Intel anytime they wanted.

I have to agree it wouldn't work, buying companies is a strange process as it is. In this case Intel is already suffering from the effects of anti conglomerate thinking in Washington. Beyond that they would have massive excess capacity, so would have to stay in the chip making business to serve others.

Apple deliberately dropping them with the intention of lowering market value to acquire them would likely fall within antitrust law (market abuse). I don't mean to imply that Apple is legally obliged to use Intel processors.

thekev · May 19, 2014

JosephAW said:
Actually apple did this very thing. They went from a 64 bit G5 2.7ghz to a 32 bit Intel core duo 2.3 ghz which was a little slower than my dual G5. To match the speed of my G5 I had to buy a quad core macpro 1,1 32 bit system at that time.

True the A7 isn't ready but give it a few more revisions and the A10 may be ready for prime time as Intel keeps slipping delivery dates.

Knowing apples track record to switch CPUs I'm sure in some back room they have osx mavericks running on an assortment of boxes from an A8 multi core to a Power 7 or 8 multicore and others.
I'd love to be a fly on the wall and heard the yelling and screaming going on when these other chisp are now out performing their current lineup. ;-)

I can't find a 2.3 ghz core 2 duo on the first generation of macbook pros or mac pros. The notebooks were stuck with G4 chips prior to that. Those were much slower than intel core 2 duo, and even slower than the original core duo. The G4s only outperformed intel chips when the intel chips were running non-native code. The same goes for the first mac pros. In this case you would still have emulated code, but this time it would be running on slower hardware rather than hardware that is in fact faster yet saddled by having to run an emulation layer.

mtneer said:
I've always wondered why doesn't Apple announce that they are dropping Intel processors from their portfolio, watch Intel stocks tank 90 - 95%; then swoop in buy Intel for dirt cheap, get rid of the operations which it doesn't like and start punching out A-series processors on Intel's latest fab technologies??

Is that illegal in the US??

It would be illegal attempting to tank intel, and it would be bad overall. There's nothing good about shutting down such a big company just to acquire their fabs.

vault · May 19, 2014

mtneer said:
I've always wondered why doesn't Apple announce that they are dropping Intel processors from their portfolio, watch Intel stocks tank 90 - 95%; then swoop in buy Intel for dirt cheap, get rid of the operations which it doesn't like and start punching out A-series processors on Intel's latest fab technologies??

Is that illegal in the US??

You're overestimating Intel's dependence on Apple.
Apple's Intel based products are a niche, even for Apple itself, let alone Intel.
The idea that Intel's stock would fall by 90 - 95% is laughable, Intel was doing fine for decades, back when Apple was still using it's super slow Motorola cpus, and when it had some actual competitors in the cpu market. Even the Pentium 4 fiasco did nothing to them, and now their only real competitor, AMD, is facing similar situation with it's Bulldozer chips.

Apple needs Intel more than Intel needs Apple.
And before you say ARM... it would be like replacing powerful i7/5 with Atom cpus - totally ridiculous.

casperes1996 · May 19, 2014

...No

wikiverse said:
Why not a mini Mac Pro? Coke can sized computing with ssds and basic IO?

Designing a Mac Mini around a thermal core would be pointless, as the parts producing heat could not be evenly split, and it would require way more space in a cylinder shape than in a box shape. Apple might find another polygon better suited, but for what the Mini is, cylindrical is a no-go.

----------

vault said:
You're overestimating Intel's dependence on Apple.
Apple's Intel based products are a niche, even for Apple itself, let alone Intel.
The idea that Intel's stock would fall by 90 - 95% is laughable, Intel was doing fine for decades, back when Apple was still using it's super slow Motorola cpus, and when it had some actual competitors in the cpu market. Even the Pentium 4 fiasco did nothing to them, and now their only real competitor, AMD, is facing similar situation with it's Bulldozer chips.

Apple needs Intel more than Intel needs Apple.
And before you say ARM... it would be like replacing powerful i7/5 with Atom cpus - totally ridiculous.

Your statements are entirely true, however there is an alternative to Intel... Provided that Apple is willing to cut all product that cost less than $10,000. Could always go with SPARC CPUs.

Colorflies · May 19, 2014

I've always wondered why doesn't Apple announce that they are dropping Intel processors from their portfolio, watch Intel stocks tank 90 - 95%; then swoop in buy Intel for dirt cheap, get rid of the operations which it doesn't like and start punching out A-series processors on Intel's latest fab technologies??

Is that illegal in the US??

Click to expand...

You're overestimating Intel's dependence on Apple.
Apple's Intel based products are a niche, even for Apple itself, let alone Intel.
The idea that Intel's stock would fall by 90 - 95% is laughable, Intel was doing fine for decades, back when Apple was still using it's super slow Motorola cpus, and when it had some actual competitors in the cpu market. Even the Pentium 4 fiasco did nothing to them, and now their only real competitor, AMD, is facing similar situation with it's Bulldozer chips.

Apple needs Intel more than Intel needs Apple.
And before you say ARM... it would be like replacing powerful i7/5 with Atom cpus - totally ridiculous.

While Apple is a more important customer to Intel nowadays, they are still a less than 10% customer for Intel (in 2012 and 2013 at least). The impact of Apple changing suppliers for its Mac lineup would certainly not be good for Intel, but I don't believe it would have a 90-95% impact on Intel stock. It's not like Intel isn't also making billions of dollars every quarter. Intel would likely still make billions of dollars. Intel supplies a lot of cloud infrastructure and still plays a big role in the server world.

proline · May 19, 2014

keysofanxiety said:
It's okay proline, I've had a quick look through your previous posts and realise there's a continuity in all of your comments, so now I know it's nothing personal against me. Sorry I took it to heart.

Genuinely, I hope that one day you find some release for all the built-up anger you have. I think if you look objectively at all your comments you'll see it's perhaps giving a bad impression and comes across a little childish. I'm sure you're an intelligent person, and it's very easy to come across aggressive when there's only text to judge somebody by. With any luck you can phrase things in a way that won't alienate everybody -- and if you're trying to make points, people tend to stop considering what you're saying if you insult them.

Best wishes and please have a great evening (settle down with a glass of red? It's only a forum, a drink may help).

Wow, you've got nothing better to do than to read my old posts? I didn't know you had it so rough. I'll go easy on you. Feel free to go ahead and disparage the work of others for your personal pleasure.

mtneer · May 19, 2014

Parasprite said:
Apple deliberately dropping them with the intention of lowering market value to acquire them would likely fall within antitrust law (market abuse). I don't mean to imply that Apple is legally obliged to use Intel processors.

OK. That's what I had suspected. Thanks for the explanation - are you a lawyer?

----------

Colorflies said:
While Apple is a more important customer to Intel nowadays, they are still a less than 10% customer for Intel (in 2012 and 2013 at least). The impact of Apple changing suppliers for its Mac lineup would certainly not be good for Intel, but I don't believe it would have a 90-95% impact on Intel stock. It's not like Intel isn't also making billions of dollars every quarter. Intel would likely still make billions of dollars. Intel supplies a lot of cloud infrastructure and still plays a big role in the server world.

I think you are absolutely correct going by the numbers. I was basing my opinion seeing Apple as the standard bearer for the technology industry, and losing business with them is equivalent to circling the drain (if not a death blow). Intel would very much want to be where Apple is, I don't think they would be happy to share the company of H-P, Dell and their cohorts.

thekev · May 19, 2014

mtneer said:
I think you are absolutely correct going by the numbers. I was basing my opinion seeing Apple as the standard bearer for the technology industry, and losing business with them is equivalent to circling the drain (if not a death blow). Intel would very much want to be where Apple is, I don't think they would be happy to share the company of H-P, Dell and their cohorts.

I don't think you even believe that yourself. Intel makes a considerable amount of their money in server related products, even when they're contracted by ODMs. News of Apple dropping them might cause some negative PR and affect the stock price, however 10% down would be huge. No one in their right mind would suggest <50% or say they're circling the drain because of that.

AppleScruff1 · May 19, 2014

proline said:
A hilariously transparent attempt at a redirect away from your baseless claims. You aren't fooling anyone except maybe yourself.

You made a wild claim, please provide a source. I made no claim at all, my only post in this thread was asking you for a source. Just like you did with another user. See how that works?

proline · May 19, 2014

AppleScruff1 said:
You made a wild claim, please provide a source. I made no claim at all, my only post in this thread was asking you for a source. Just like you did with another user. See how that works?

I think you're capable of doing your own Google search. Of course if you or 'your friend' can back up your BS about MagSafe being unreliable, I'd be happy to do your Googling for you.

AppleScruff1 · May 19, 2014

proline said:
I think you're capable of doing your own Google search. Of course if you or 'your friend' can back up your BS about MagSafe being unreliable, I'd be happy to do your Googling for you.

I never said MagSafe was unreliable. You must be confusing me with someone else. The only comment I made in this thread was asking you for a source for your claim that MagSafe saved hundreds of millions of dollars in laptop damage. That's up to you to prove, you made the claim. I made no claims, I have nothing to prove.

KohPhiPhi · May 19, 2014

Four oF NINE said:
What will be the advantages of Broadwell? Is there anything really revolutionary here or is this just a spec bump?

I hear Broadwell is an evolution, not a revolution. Thus expect a reasonable improvement on life, speed and GPU performance, but not a ground breaking leap forward.

Parasprite · May 19, 2014

mtneer said:
OK. That's what I had suspected. Thanks for the explanation - are you a lawyer?

Nah, I'm actually pretty nice when you get to know me... *buh dum tsh*

Kaspersky · May 19, 2014

Benjamins said:
seems not a very exciting upgrade.

What about the shift to DDR4 memory? The support to DDR4 is the entire point with these new CPUs...

proline · May 19, 2014

AppleScruff1 said:
I never said MagSafe was unreliable. You must be confusing me with someone else. The only comment I made in this thread was asking you for a source for your claim that MagSafe saved hundreds of millions of dollars in laptop damage. That's up to you to prove, you made the claim. I made no claims, I have nothing to prove.

And once again, you come up with nothing but hot air. I guess you will have to do your own Googling.

AppleScruff1 · May 19, 2014

proline said:
And once again, you come up with nothing but hot air. I guess you will have to do your own Googling.

No hot air from me at all. You made the claim, why continue to deflect? Where's the link to back it up?

proline · May 19, 2014

AppleScruff1 said:
No hot air from me at all. You made the claim, why continue to deflect? Where's the link to back it up?

Here's the deal- you get the link when you can come up with a credible defense to your MagSafe nonsense.

AppleScruff1 · May 19, 2014

proline said:
Here's the deal- you get the link when you can come up with a credible defense to your MagSafe nonsense.

I made no statement about MagSafe. Obviously you made up your claim, I'm done with it. Have a good night.

dec. · May 19, 2014

AppleScruff1 said:
Maybe you could cite a source for your claim of the MagSafe charger saving hundreds of millions of dollars worth of laptop damages?

That claim has absolutely no grounds at all, typical Macrumors members

But anyway, what do you personally think of the MagSafe connectors?

CL4W · May 20, 2014

Ever since the i3/i5/i7 line of chips was put out by Intel, its been harder and harder to justify the "upgrade" towards the next iteration...

Haswell was well worth it for me because of improved battery life, so I bought first MBP 13", but its not something I will upgrade until this laptop burns down and dies.

Its understandable that technology must progress, and Intel is doing just that, but its hard to justify making upgrades these days. I bought my first desktop i7 2600k chip 3 years ago which rocks on to this day without an issue. My second machine has a 4770k and there is really no day to day difference while multi-tasking, gaming, and doing general everyday tasks. So what it all means is that people will be upgrading less and less as more efficient chips are put out.

Scarpad · May 20, 2014

hydr said:
12" retina macbook air made out of liquidmetal, with sapphire infused IGZO retina display with touch! (1/4th power of regular lcd) and broadwell 28watt processor. radical new design, only 840grams. battery life: 15 hours. performance on par with macbook pro retina. thickness: 1cm. PCI-e SSD 1GB/s read/write 256GB standard. two thunderbolt II, 1 USB 3 and TouchID. pre-order from june 17th - delivery expected august. $1999USD.

Liquidmetal? Is that like the terminator, will it be able to change shape at will ?

Intel CEO 'Guarantees' Broadwell Chips by This Holiday Season

macrumors 68040

macrumors 6502a

macrumors G3

macrumors 68040

macrumors 68000

macrumors 604

macrumors regular

macrumors 604

macrumors newbie

macrumors 6502a

macrumors 68040

macrumors 604

macrumors G4

macrumors 6502a

macrumors G4

macrumors 6502a

macrumors 68000

Suspended

macrumors 6502a

macrumors G4

macrumors 6502a

macrumors G4

Suspended

macrumors member

macrumors 68020

Our Staff