Future MacBook Pros might use AMD Processors

[tubeexperience]

Looking at the above, it is clear that Intel is killing Iris Pro Graphics (GT4e). Looking at the H Processor (currently used in the MacBook Pro Retina 15"), it is clear that both Kaby Lake and Coffee Lake will only be available with HD Graphics (GT2).

This is mostly likely because Intel is seeing very low demands. There are very few PC manufacturers that buy H Processors with Iris Pro (aside from Apple).

Unless Apple is willing to release new MacBook Pro with graphics inferior to its predecessor, Apple is going to have to release MacBook Pro Retina 15" with AMD (Zen based) processors or it must ship all rMBP 15" with a discrete GPU (dGPU).

This charge does not affect the MacBook Pro Retina 13". Looking at the U Processor (currently used in the MacBook Pro Retina 13"), it can be seen that Kaby Lake and Coffee Lake will be available with Iris Graphics (GT3e).

 

[JTToft]

Intel CPUs plus either Nvidia or AMD GPUs is probably much more likely than AMD CPUs with integrated graphics.

 

[tubeexperience]

Intel CPUs plus either Nvidia or AMD GPUs is probably much more likely than AMD CPUs with integrated graphics.

I don't think so.

Apple will buy processors from AMD so as long as Apple can get them cheap.

 

[keysofanxiety]

I wish for all Apple chips. CPU and GPU.

But as that won't happen, I agree with JT. Between the two, they'd more likely keep Intel and throw in a dGPU, than suddenly ditch Intel and move to AMD.

 

[JTToft]

I don't think so.

Apple will buy processors from AMD so as long as Apple can get them cheap.

- Hm. Going by history, Apple has never used AMD CPUs, but they have often used an Intel CPU plus a dedicated GPU as the only option in 15" machines. The integrated only option is relatively new for 15" machines.

 

[tubeexperience]

I wish for all Apple chips. CPU and GPU.

I highly doubt that Apple would get x86 license anytime soon.

- Hm. Going by history, Apple has never used AMD CPUs, but they have often used an Intel CPU plus a dedicated GPU as the only option in 15" machines. The integrated only option is relatively new for 15" machines.

Apple wanted to use AMD Fusion processors in the MacBook Air, but AMD couldn't make enough of them at the time.

 

[curmudgeonette]

Looking at the above, it is clear that Intel is killing Iris Pro Graphics (GT4e). Looking at the H Processor (currently used in the MacBook Pro Retina 15"), it is clear that both Kaby Lake and Coffee Lake will only be available with HD Graphics (GT2).

This slide says nothing about the specifications of CannonLake and CoffeeLake GT2 and GT3e. The future GT2 might be as powerful as today's GT4. The Late-2018 15" MBP might use a 28W U-series quad core GT3e chip and this might still be an upgrade over previous models.

 

[ActionableMango]

Back in 2015 some rumors leaked that Apple was switching to custom x86 AMD chips for 2017-2018 Macs:

http://wccftech.com/amd-zen-soc-apple-imac/
http://www.bitsandchips.it/52-english-news/6183-apple-could-use-custom-x86-soc-made-by-amd

What a lot of people don't know is that over the last couple of years AMD has been getting into custom APUs (CPU+GPU in a single package) big time.

Being able to specify their own custom silicon might appeal to Apple in a big way.

 

[xmonkey]

AMD needs to prove itself capable of delivering on their hype before Apple should consider switching from Intel, IMO.

This slide says nothing about the specifications of CannonLake and CoffeeLake GT2 and GT3e. The future GT2 might be as powerful as today's GT4. The Late-2018 15" MBP might use a 28W U-series quad core GT3e chip and this might still be an upgrade over previous models.

Also, this.

I think it's reasonable to see dGPUs improve by becoming more powerful and progressively less power-thirsty, thereby defeating the need to really compromise on form-factor and battery life when going with dGPU as an option.

 

[ajcgn]

I'd be concerned, if I knew what all this technical stuff meant.

 

[leman]

Apple uses Intel CPUs because in the last 10 years they were faster and more efficient than those of AMD. The later didn't manage to build a well-performing CPU core. The new CPU gen could improve things. If st some point AMD can catch up with Intel, I see no reason why Apple wouldn't use their CPUs.

 

[Samuelsan2001]

Kaby lake is just about the same as skylake apart from the graphics and a few in built bits for tb3 channels etc

To be honest if they aren't going to change the iris pro graphics there is no point releasing them. They will be no better performance wise than the skylake.

 

[Closingracer]

- Hm. Going by history, Apple has never used AMD CPUs, but they have often used an Intel CPU plus a dedicated GPU as the only option in 15" machines. The integrated only option is relatively new for 15" machines.

But they do have some sort of relationship with AMD since they are using their GPU in the 15 inch. If AMD can offer a serious competitor to a comproable Intel chip that they would use than I could see them using an AMD chip if the price is right.

 

[leman]

- Hm. Going by history, Apple has never used AMD CPUs, but they have often used an Intel CPU plus a dedicated GPU as the only option in 15" machines.

They have never used AMD CPUs simply because the AMD CPUs were seriously inferior to Intel since at least the Core architecture.

The integrated only option is relatively new for 15" machines.

If I am not mistaken, the first 15" MBP without a dGPU was a 2009 model.

 

[JTToft]

If I am not mistaken, the first 15" MBP without a dGPU was a 2009 model.

- Right you are. There was the one-off "MacBook Pro (15-inch, 2.53 GHz, Mid 2009)" without dGPU.
dGPU is still far more common than iGPU only.

 

[Freyqq]

Apple uses Intel CPUs because in the last 10 years they were faster and more efficient than those of AMD. The later didn't manage to build a well-performing CPU core. The new CPU gen could improve things. If st some point AMD can catch up with Intel, I see no reason why Apple wouldn't use their CPUs.

They won't. Intel is always a step ahead on process, so that means lower power and cooler chips for the same performance, every time.

What apple can do is just do what they're already doing and add dGPU to a few lines

 

[Erasmus]

I can't see them using AMD. Apple have always been pushing Thunderbolt, which means Intel.

Maybe they could go AMD with a separate TB3 chip, but I can't see it.

 

[maflynn]

I can't see them using AMD. Apple have always been pushing Thunderbolt, which means Intel.

Agreed, and correct me if I'm wrong, but AMD based computers have always been marketed as a lower expensive model amongst the manufacturers, i.e., HP offers a lower end AMD model, but then if you want more more power it's the Intel model.

Since Apple prides itself on being a premium product, I'm not sure that reputation fits apple's marketing

 

[leman]

They won't. Intel is always a step ahead on process, so that means lower power and cooler chips for the same performance, every time.

Agreed, and correct me if I'm wrong, but AMD based computers have always been marketed as a lower expensive model amongst the manufacturers, i.e., HP offers a lower end AMD model, but then if you want more more power it's the Intel model.

You are both right of course. But there was a time when AMD CPUs were faster and better than Intel's. And if AMD is lucky, that time can come again. Maybe Intel will hit a roadblock with their architecture (and there are many hints that its happening right now) while AMD figures out a new, more efficient design. Who knows. Looking forward to those Zen benchmarks. If AMD manages to match Intel's performance per watt and in addition makes a combined core with a CPU, Polaris GPU and HBM2 RAM? Personally, I'd take that in an instant.

 

[maflynn]

But there was a time when AMD CPUs were faster and better than Intel's.

Yup, and at that time, Intel saw how they were being out performed by AMD and released a new processor that was not included in the cross licensing agreement they initially signed.

Of course early on, Moto/IBM's G3 Processor out performed Intel's as well, and look what happened there

 

[leman]

Yup, and at that time, Intel saw how they were being out performed by AMD and released a new processor that was not included in the cross licensing agreement they initially signed.

Of course early on, Moto/IBM's G3 Processor out performed Intel's as well, and look what happened there

Intel had a very successful CPU design (pentium M) that allowed it to establish dominance in the market for a decade, other's didn't. But there is still a remote possibility that someone else will luck out with a new design. Look at Apple's ARM chips, for example. They are relative newcomers to CPU design, and yet they absolutely waste the competition.

 

[Closingracer]

Intel had a very successful CPU design (pentium M) that allowed it to establish dominance in the market for a decade, other's didn't. But there is still a remote possibility that someone else will luck out with a new design. Look at Apple's ARM chips, for example. They are relative newcomers to CPU design, and yet they absolutely waste the competition.

They don't waste anything. Maybe you should lay off on the Apple Kool-aid a bit. The A10 fusion cpu? Nothing revolutionary since Samsung and even media tek have been doing that for a while now. Apple hasn't done anything revolutionary in years.

 

[JTToft]

They don't waste anything. Maybe you should lay off on the Apple Kool-aid a bit. The A10 fusion cpu? Nothing revolutionary since Samsung and even media tek have been doing that for a while now. Apple hasn't done anything revolutionary in years.

- They outperform everything else on the market with a very significant margin.

 

[Freyqq]

You are both right of course. But there was a time when AMD CPUs were faster and better than Intel's. And if AMD is lucky, that time can come again. Maybe Intel will hit a roadblock with their architecture (and there are many hints that its happening right now) while AMD figures out a new, more efficient design. Who knows. Looking forward to those Zen benchmarks. If AMD manages to match Intel's performance per watt and in addition makes a combined core with a CPU, Polaris GPU and HBM2 RAM? Personally, I'd take that in an instant.

A lot of ifs. IF it happened, I would be ecstatic that there is finally competition in the x86 world. But it won't happen. Even if AMD designed a better chip than Intel, with much less resources to do so, it is a year or more behind in process. This was not the case back during the short time period when AMD was releasing better chips than Intel. Intel wins by default on mobile, which is all about power efficiency, due to their better process.

If H-type Intel processors with Iris Pro disappear, Apple will just use processors and dGPU. As lines already have a dGPU, all the backend coding is already present so it's not much of a stretch.

What Apple needs, though, is a much better OSX GPU switching algorithm or manual control options. I have a 15" rMBP with a dGPU and it often engages on applications that have no need of a dGPU. Some sort of exceptions list would be great.