First Machines Using Kaby Lake Processors Coming This Fall, but MacBook Pro Not Likely Among Them

[Naaaaak]

As much as I want to jump on the "Apple sucks at Macs" train, look at Intel. Intel hasn't done much beyond "10-15% better performance", "requires 5 watts less", or "new integrated GPU perfect for productivity apps" every year for the last 4 years.

If there is ever a sign that a big architecture shift is needed for Apple to take control of its own destiny for CPUs / GPUs, this is it. Intel is tapped out.

Meanwhile, new iPhones and iPads every year with a new SoC. Now they are going to need a new desktop OS to match a wildly different hardware architecture. iOS is not it.

 

[Michael Scrip]

As much as I want to jump on the "Apple sucks at Macs" train, look at Intel. Intel hasn't done much beyond "10-15% better performance", "requires 5 watts less", or "new integrated GPU perfect for productivity apps" every year for the last 4 years.... Intel is tapped out.

Is this the way to the "Intel sucks at processors" train?

The good thing is... people don't buy a new computer every year.

If Intel only makes a 10% increase in performance every year... but you only buy a new computer every 4 years... you will be still be getting quite a boost when you buy your next machine.

You're right... there probably won't be that much difference between the latest mid-2015 15" Macbook Pro and one built with these new Kaby Lake chips.

But how many people here have 2012 or 2010 or even older Macbook Pros? Apparently it's quite a lot after reading the threads here.

And don't forget... Intel is able to get 10% faster every year... while typically reducing power draw. That last part can't be ignored... especially in laptops.

I don't think Intel is "tapped out" just yet. I'm interested to see what happens with the 10nm process in a few years.

 

[mdgm]

Might be finally worth replacing some of my old Mac Minis once there is a new Mac Mini with Kaby Lake. Though I guess there's not too much point till I get a 4K TV.

 

[Naaaaak]

And don't forget... Intel is able to get 10% faster every year... while typically reducing power draw. That last part can't be ignored... especially in laptops.

But it's not enough. Apple is achieving more performance, year-over-year relative to power-draw in their A-series SoCs they put in iPhones and iPads than Intel is achieving across any of their lines. Sure, the comparison is not perfect (SoC vs CPU) and raw performance is hard to compare, but it doesn't matter. Intel takes a year and produces something that's like +10% -5 watts. The A9, by comparison "has 70% more CPU performance and 90% more graphics performance compared to its predecessor" (wikipedia) and uses probably 2 watts total or something. They've been doing that kind of jump year-over-year for years now. Apple is designing hardware that is getting more performant and staying power efficient faster than Intel can cut wattage and boost performance.

At what point does Apple give Intel the finger and use them only as a manufacturer for Apple's ARM-based designs for their Mac line? Jony Ive wants a paper-thin laptop powered by a grid of batteries in the chiclet keys you type on. Intel has never produced anything power efficient enough to make that dream a reality and their current roadmap is not even suitable for it.

 

[Michael Scrip]

But it's not enough. Apple is achieving more performance, year-over-year relative to power-draw in their A-series SoCs they put in iPhones and iPads than Intel is achieving across any of their lines. Sure, the comparison is not perfect (SoC vs CPU) and raw performance is hard to compare, but it doesn't matter. Intel takes a year and produces something that's like +10% -5 watts. The A9, by comparison "has 70% more CPU performance and 90% more graphics performance compared to its predecessor" (wikipedia) and uses probably 2 watts total or something. They've been doing that kind of jump year-over-year for years now. Apple is designing hardware that is getting more performant and staying power efficient faster than Intel can cut wattage and boost performance.

At what point does Apple give Intel the finger and use them only as a manufacturer for Apple's ARM-based designs for their Mac line? Jony Ive wants a paper-thin laptop powered by a grid of batteries in the chiclet keys you type on. Intel has never produced anything power efficient enough to make that dream a reality and their current roadmap is not even suitable for it.

You make it sound so easy.

Well if Intel can't do it... maybe AMD can. Or VIA. Or maybe we can bring back Cyrix from the dead. Any takers?

You keep saying "Intel isn't doing enough" but I'm not finding anyone else making great advances in X86 processors either. So what does that say?

We know Apple is the king of ARM processors... but I don't think you can compare their gains to X86

 

[Naaaaak]

You keep saying "Intel isn't doing enough" but I'm not finding anyone else making great advances in X86 processors either. So what does that say?

It says x86 is a dead architecture when it comes to big gains year-over-year and when it comes to ultra-mobility.

We know Apple is the king of ARM processors... but I don't think you can compare their gains to X86

It's not a directly fair comparison, but you can still compare micro benchmarks under approximated use to get an idea. http://www.anandtech.com/show/9766/the-apple-ipad-pro-review/4

Look at the benchmarks between the A8X and A9X year-over-year. Intel's year-over-year improvements aren't even close to that. Then look at the A9X vs. Intel Broadwell/Skylake chart:

Ultimately what we’re measuring here is not the peak performance of each system, but rather its sustained performance under the TDP limitations of their respective designs

…Apple is closing the gap; A9X can compete with both Broadwell and Skylake Core M processors, and that’s something Apple couldn’t claim even a generation ago. That it’s only against the likes of Core m3 means that Apple still has a way to go, particularly as A9X still loses by more than it wins, but it’s significant progress in a short period of time. And I’ll wager that it’s closer than Intel would like to be…

 

[tentales]

Correlation is not causation. Soldered RAM, proprietary SSDs, glued in components are all largely driven by miniaturisation. Standard 2.5" HDD/SSDs simply could not fit into a MacBook One or an MacBook Air, even for the retina MBPs it would be very tight.

Tell me, was Jobs not into miniaturisation? Did he not release iPhones with non-removable battery in 2007? Did he not gave us the original MBA with soldered RAM and non-standard HDD/SSDs in 2008? Did he not switch MBPs to non-removable batteries in 2009? Did he not preside over the second MBA generation which moved to a completely proprietary SSD in 2010? And did we not have complaints that Apple considered any customisation as a reason to void the warranty for as long as we can remember (for sure dating back to the Jobs era)?

The Apple force is strong in this one.
Miniaturization does not mandate proprietary lock-down.
Current SSD sticks are swappable, but only Apple locks out 3rd party offerings (that cost less than half).
RAM & SSD are still upgradeable on some competitors' ultrabooks and nearly all regular Laptops.

Your Jobs comparisons are flawed. We're talking Macbook Pros here and they were fully upgradeable until the 2013 units.
Even the MBA could take 3rd party SSDs until the 2012 models, all well after T.C. took over.

Warranty issues can always be avoided by reinstalling orig. OEM parts prior to submission.

 

[BeamWalker]

As much as I want to jump on the "Apple sucks at Macs" train, look at Intel. Intel hasn't done much beyond "10-15% better performance", "requires 5 watts less", or "new integrated GPU perfect for productivity apps" every year for the last 4 years.

To be fair to Intel they are limited by physics what's Apples excuse ?

 

[pmau]

To be fair to Intel they are limited by physics what's Apples excuse ?

Here's a thing I don't get.

If you look at a MacBook, all the parts that Apple have to change to upgrade the specs really is the logic board and the cut-outs for the ports.

The form factor is totally fine. They do not have to change battery formats, even the current retina screen from the MacBookPro line would be fine.

All the other stuff, keyboard, thiner displays, terraced batteries, etc. is just not really needed to have a decent upgrade cycle.

I bet more people would buy Apple more frequently if they knew Apple would update and they could lower they prices a little. I had a MBP 2012 that died, I have not bought a new one because I cannot spend $3000 on the exact same specs.

If Apple just would communicate the update cycle, it would be so much better. Just a little bit of roadmap.

No one on earth will buy an updated MacPro (corporate spending excluded), if they have to assume that this new model will linger around for 4 years.

The same is true for the MacBook, just give me a little more recent components and I would buy more frequently.

 

[Naaaaak]

To be fair to Intel they are limited by physics what's Apples excuse ?

Apple could have cycled every time Intel did, and it's pathetic that they didn't. I don't make any excuses for them – their Mac lineup is more out-of-date than it's ever been.

 

[Michael Scrip]

It says x86 is a dead architecture when it comes to big gains year-over-year and when it comes to ultra-mobility.

It's not a directly fair comparison, but you can still compare micro benchmarks under approximated use to get an idea. http://www.anandtech.com/show/9766/the-apple-ipad-pro-review/4

Look at the benchmarks between the A8X and A9X year-over-year. Intel's year-over-year improvements aren't even close to that. Then look at the A9X vs. Intel Broadwell/Skylake chart:

You're focusing on year-over-year gains and Apple is making bigger gains percentage-wise than Intel. I understand that.

But perhaps the gains at the lower-end are easier to achieve than gains at the high-end?

If the A9X is can compete with the lower-end Intel Core-M processors... how long until Apple's A-Series chips can compete with a 45W Core-i7 ?

That's what we're talking about... big powerful X86 chips like those found in laptops like the Macbook Pro.

Are you assuming that Apple will be able to maintain their 70% year-over-year advancements until they reach the level of Intel's 45W Core-i7 chips? And surpass them?

It would be great if they did... but they'll probably run into the same roadblocks that Intel is facing once they reach that level. Apple will likely hit a wall sometime too.

Again... I understand that Apple's jump from the A8X to the A9X might be a greater gain percentage-wise than Intel's jump from Skylake to Kaby Lake.

But Intel was already at a much higher level.

 

[pmau]

their Mac lineup is more out-of-date than it's ever been.

... and people are worried that even with new models, that these ones will collect dust for the next 3 years as well ...

 

[flyinmac]

But it's not enough. Apple is achieving more performance, year-over-year relative to power-draw in their A-series SoCs they put in iPhones and iPads than Intel is achieving across any of their lines. Sure, the comparison is not perfect (SoC vs CPU) and raw performance is hard to compare, but it doesn't matter. Intel takes a year and produces something that's like +10% -5 watts. The A9, by comparison "has 70% more CPU performance and 90% more graphics performance compared to its predecessor" (wikipedia) and uses probably 2 watts total or something. They've been doing that kind of jump year-over-year for years now. Apple is designing hardware that is getting more performant and staying power efficient faster than Intel can cut wattage and boost performance.

At what point does Apple give Intel the finger and use them only as a manufacturer for Apple's ARM-based designs for their Mac line? Jony Ive wants a paper-thin laptop powered by a grid of batteries in the chiclet keys you type on. Intel has never produced anything power efficient enough to make that dream a reality and their current roadmap is not even suitable for it.

Or, one could consider that Intel has refined their processors to a point where they are already extremely efficient for the performance demands they have to meet.

Meanwhile, the Apple A series is relatively new, less refined, and therefore has a greater amount of room for improvement.

Intel doubled speed, efficiency, etc. for decades. And could probably still do so if it weren't for needing to also make CPUs smaller.

They've done a lot in the recent years. Shoving more cores into smaller and smaller spaces, decreasing power needs while also increasing performance.

Apple is just starting with a much less capable cpu design. It may have started out less efficient in its original design. Leaving more room for greater levels of annual improvement until it too is refined to a point that improvements require more effort and more time.

Consider a home built airplane. The builder could probably improve it by a hundred percent every year. But that doesn't mean that his / hers 9th improvement is going to be comparable to Boeing's latest plane. Just because the little guy improved his design by 900% in 9 years, and Boeing improved 50% in the same time period, doesn't mean his / her plane is better than Boeing. It just means his / her project plane had more room for improvement than Boeing's established commercial plane did.

 

[tentales]

Apple could have cycled every time Intel did, and it's pathetic that they didn't. I don't make any excuses for them – their Mac lineup is more out-of-date than it's ever been.

You're overlooking that Apple's gains in chip technology was/is playing catch-up with Intel's, hence the greater leaps that Intel enjoyed previously.

As "BeamWalker" has alluded, the laws of physics and its limits have more to do with this than with Intel or Apple slacking off w.r.t. chip development.
If you have the time, I found this quite an interesting read:
http://arstechnica.com/information-...ores-law-really-is-dead-this-time/?comments=1

Nevertheless, I do agree that Apple could've easily kept pace with Intel's release schedule and without other dramatic changes released newer MBPs with Broadwell or Skylake. Unless there's a TDP limitation we don't know of, coz at least the 2-core 13" MBP has Broadwell.

I'm not ready to accept MBPs with ARMs. The transition nightmare with Application software would drive lots of users away and I'm not sure that all App developers would bother porting the macOS Apps across again. Anyone remember Rosetta ?

 

[flyinmac]

You're overlooking that Apple's gains in chip technology was/is playing catch-up with Intel's, hence the greater leaps that Intel enjoyed previously.

As "BeamWalker" has alluded, the laws of physics and its limits have more to do with this than with Intel or Apple slacking off w.r.t. chip development.
If you have the time, I found this quite an interesting read:
http://arstechnica.com/information-...ores-law-really-is-dead-this-time/?comments=1

Nevertheless, I do agree that Apple could've easily kept pace with Intel's release schedule and without other dramatic changes released newer MBPs with Broadwell or Skylake. Unless there's a TDP limitation we don't know of, coz at least the 2-core 13" MBP has Broadwell.

I'm not ready to accept MBPs with ARMs. The transition nightmare with Application software would drive lots of users away and I'm not sure that all App developers would bother porting the macOS Apps across again. Anyone remember Rosetta ?

If Apple were to transition to ARM chips for the Mac line, they might as well quit making them.

It would be the kind of shift that would kill their computer division. It's taken Apple years to recover a slice of the market share that they used to dominate with the Apple II series.

A huge shift from the Apple II to the Mac caused them to dwindle from a major player into a struggling computer maker that nobody wanted to touch.

Decades later, they still don't have the market share they once enjoyed before that abrupt change in platform.

So, if they try it again, they might as well just shut down their computer operation. Which if they don't do something soon, they might as well do anyway.

The only reason they succeeded in the transition from PowerPC to Intel, is that Macs were already performing like tired dogs with the PowerPC chips, and Intel's chips were powerful enough to run both OS X and a full translation / emulation layer while still being faster at running PowerPC code than a PowerPC Mac.

Switching to ARM for OS X would be like asking a gerbil to pull a car. The gerbil is fast and powerful. But he comes up short when the load gets too heavy.

ARM is designed for light loads. Intel's x86 is designed for heavy loads, though it can move light loads very efficiently as well.

 

[Stella]

If there is ever a sign that a big architecture shift is needed for Apple to take control of its own destiny for CPUs / GPUs, this is it. Intel is tapped out.

Could Apple do any better? I doubt it - Apple will also encounter the same issues as Intel - a slow down in development pace.

 

[KPOM]

Weren't they available in April? Its now mid August.

Other manufacturers managed to get their laptops on to shop floors after these suitable processors became available...

On the 13" rMBP, it wouldn't make sense to release a Skylake update in April if they have a complete redesign coming next month as it would prompt a "premature" upgrade cycle and perhaps hurt sales of the completely redesigned product.

 

[Stella]

On the 13" rMBP, it wouldn't make sense to release a Skylake update in April if they have a complete redesign coming next month as it would prompt a "premature" upgrade cycle and perhaps hurt sales of the completely redesigned product.

Back in 2008, Apple released a Macbook Pro in March. The model was updated in October - that one was the Unibody design.

Not much difference in time frame. In one, just one month difference... if rumours are correct the MBP 2016 will be released in October time frame.

 

[manu chao]

The Apple force is strong in this one.
Miniaturization does not mandate proprietary lock-down.
Current SSD sticks are swappable, but only Apple locks out 3rd party offerings (that cost less than half).
RAM & SSD are still upgradeable on some competitors' ultrabooks and nearly all regular Laptops.

The operative word being 'some'.

Your Jobs comparisons are flawed. We're talking Macbook Pros here and they were fully upgradeable until the 2013 units.

The retina MBPs were introduced in 2012. And do you really believe that the MBPs were kept upgradeable until 2012 because Jobs thought that 'Pro' laptops should be upgradeable? Jobs would trade upgradeability for miniaturisation any time. I know that doesn't fit with your sense that things were better in the past but recognising when your sense is biased is an important skill.

Even the MBA could take 3rd party SSDs until the 2012 models, all well after T.C. took over.

There are standard 2.5" drives, less-standard 1.8" drives (the 2008 MBA used them) and non-standard SSD sticks (used in the MBA from 2010 onwards and the MBP from 2012 onwards). Already 1.8" drive availability was quite limited. The non-standard SSD sticks all were available one to two years after the corresponding Mac laptop was released. There is nothing better with the pre-2012 MBA, than with all other Macs that used non-standard SSD sticks.

Warranty issues can always be avoided by reinstalling orig. OEM parts prior to submission.

So you agree that this has not really changed under Cook compared to the Jobs era?

 

[symphara]

On the 13" rMBP, it wouldn't make sense to release a Skylake update in April if they have a complete redesign coming next month as it would prompt a "premature" upgrade cycle and perhaps hurt sales of the completely redesigned product.

I'm not sure about this. Since Apple doesn't change designs much, we can expect the completely redesigned product to have quite a long shelf life. I'd expect at least 5-6 years. A spring Skylake upgrade couldn't have hurt that much, if at all, in the long term.

In any case, I don't really understand why they don't update the laptops basically as soon as new Intel chips become available. Incremental updates - i.e. keeping the design and just putting in the new CPUs - should be in most cases trivial to make. Of course, selling outdated hardware at premium prices increases profits, but also loses potential sales, so I'm not sure if this is overall a good profit maximising strategy or just general lack of interest in the computer market.

 

[KPOM]

Back in 2008, Apple released a Macbook Pro in March. The model was updated in October - that one was the Unibody design.

Not much difference in time frame. In one, just one month difference... if rumours are correct the MBP 2016 will be released in October time frame.

OTOH, the MacBook Air essentially went from November 2008 to October 2010 without an upgrade. And when it did it still got the old Core 2 Duo chip. Apple skipped the Nehalem Core i5/i7 completely for both the MacBook Air and 13" MacBook Pro lines.

 

[Stella]

OTOH, the MacBook Air essentially went from November 2008 to October 2010 without an upgrade. And when it did it still got the old Core 2 Duo chip. Apple skipped the Nehalem Core i5/i7 completely for both the MacBook Air and 13" MacBook Pro lines.

Apple have never treated the Air very well.. don't know why people still buy them. Overly expensive and outdated. Like Mac Pros, Mini and to a lesser degree, Macbook Pros. Thats almost all Apple's PC offerings. Very sad.

 

[KPOM]

Apple have never treated the Air very well.. don't know why people still buy them. Overly expensive and outdated. Like Mac Pros, Mini and to a lesser degree, Macbook Pros. Thats almost all Apple's PC offerings. Very sad.

The October 2010 Air was the first commercial success and got great reviews. Of course, a few months later it got a silent update to Sandy Bridge (a significant upgrade).

The Retina MacBook got a silent update, probably because it is a new design and a major redesign is a few years away. My guess is that after the major rMBP redesign it will get silent updates for a while. If 28W Kaby Lake processors come out in April, an August or September silent update sounds possible, if the MacBook is any indication.

 

[wigby]

Please- just stop- you sound like a used car salesman.

So is THAT why Apple still sells some expensive computers with only a 5,400 drive? Guess we should stop being so childish and demanding and finally appreciate how Apple is really just saving us from the inevitable disappointment of having faster new components by just selling us really really old tech at high prices instead.

I have been an Apple fan for about 20 years. But it really amazes me how many people on this site these days actually argue AGAINST getting more for their money and they actually attack, mock and ridicule people who have the audacity to ask for a better deal for their hard-earned dollar. Do you guys realize YOU personally would also benefit from Apple products that are a better value?

How dare us customers ask for more for our money....

We all want more for our money. I'm explaining Apple's business model to you. If people are willing to pay more for image or status or Apple's hardware/software integration or whatever, Apple needs to protect that model. Of course they occasionally enter a lower priced market or product when they see a win for customers and them but those are rare instances. Apple doesn't appeal to shoppers looking for the latest components in a system but they do appeal to shoppers looking for the latest systems. Sorry but I'll take MacOS with slightly slower RAM or CPU or GPU over a rocketship PC any day. The power of Apple's OS hardware and software cannot be beat for my workflow by any souped up PC. You say you've been an Apple customer for 20 years. I've been one since the Apple 2 and I can tell you that they've always been this way.

 

[Ethosik]

Except Skylake processors suitable for Macbook Pros have been around since late winter. Its now late summer. No Skylake Macbook Pros, still.

Nope. The Intel processors that have Iris Pro (needed for the 15" rMBP) just recently became available. Unless you want to confuse everyone and have the 13" be Skylake and the 15" not.