Intel Announces 8th-Generation Whiskey Lake and Amber Lake Processors Suitable for MacBook and MacBook Air

[manu chao]

Whiskey Lake is all UHD 620.
[doublepost=1535545579][/doublepost]

Yeah, my guess is the MacBook Escape becomes the 13-inch MacBook, and ends up with a lesser GPU but better CPU.

I've tried to compare the specs and benchmarks of the UHD 620 with the HD 6000 (that still current MBA has) and they seem to have quite similar specs and performance at first sight. So at least as a replacement for the 13" MBA it wouldn't be a step back GPU-wise, just a lateral move however the CPU and other things like USB and WiFi would be clear step forward (besides adding a retina screen).

Lowering the GPU capabilities would also be a good excuse for lowering the price and dropping the 'Pro' from the name of the 13" MBP escape (or vice versa).

 

[chucker23n1]

Fortunately for the consumer, AMD with their Ryzen chips are blowing Intel out of the water.

In what market segment, exactly?

Zen is fine, but other than enthusiast/gamer PCs, I don't see it gaining any foothold. It doesn't even seem to be doing that well (yet?) in the server market, unlike Opteron. And they don't have anything to compete with Core-H.
[doublepost=1535561077][/doublepost]

I've tried to compare the specs and benchmarks of the UHD 620 with the HD 6000 (that still current MBA has) and they seem to have quite similar specs and performance at first sight.

Yup. It's slightly better.

But the MacBook Escape, OTOH, has an Iris Plus 640, so if Apple kills that, it would be a significant step down.

So at least as a replacement for the 13" MBA it wouldn't be a step back GPU-wise, just a lateral move however the CPU and other things like USB and WiFi would be clear step forward (besides adding a retina screen).

Absolutely. I just don't know what they want to do about the low-end MBP.

Lowering the GPU capabilities would also be a good excuse for lowering the price and dropping the 'Pro' from the name of the 13" MBP escape (or vice versa).

Yes.

 

[DNichter]

I'll take an A12 iPad Pro over any of these, but it's good for those looking at low/mid range Apple laptops.

 

[sublunar]

I've tried to compare the specs and benchmarks of the UHD 620 with the HD 6000 (that still current MBA has) and they seem to have quite similar specs and performance at first sight. So at least as a replacement for the 13" MBA it wouldn't be a step back GPU-wise, just a lateral move however the CPU and other things like USB and WiFi would be clear step forward (besides adding a retina screen).

Lowering the GPU capabilities would also be a good excuse for lowering the price and dropping the 'Pro' from the name of the 13" MBP escape (or vice versa).

Funnily enough, there were some benchmarks knocking about expressing surprise at the GPU (which was ostensibly labelled UHD620) being significantly better than the i5-8250U. 10-20% better in many cases. And this i despite being on the face of it the same unit. Other reports about extra heat though and this is where Apple could be stuffed if they don't design for better cooling - many will say that's a pointless activity though (trying to get Apple to design for better cooling, that is ).

I'm totally for renaming the non touch bar MacBook Pro to MacBook 13" and using a cheaper CPU - might even mean losing Thunderbolt 3 though. If it has 4 USB-C 3.1 Gen 2 ports it might go some way towards compensating though. Could easily mean $150-200 off retail there.

 

[bobafett]

Intel this afternoon officially debuted its new eighth-generation U-series "Whiskey Lake" and Y-series "Amber Lake" chips, which are designed for use in thin, light notebooks like the MacBook and the MacBook Air.

The new "Amber Lake" Y-series processors, which include the i7-8500Y, i5-8200Y, and the m3-8100Y, are successors to the current chips that Apple uses in the 12-inch MacBook lineup. Apple is working on updated 12-inch MacBook models set to come out this fall that could use the new Amber Lake processors.

Intel's new 15W U-series "Whiskey Lake" chips, which include the i7-8565U, i5-8265U, and i3-8145U, would be appropriate for a refreshed MacBook Air, and rumors have suggested that such a machine is perhaps in the works.

While details haven't been entirely clear, Apple is working on a followup to the MacBook Air that features a 13-inch Retina display, and if this machine uses chips similar to the chips that MacBook Air models have used for years, the new Whiskey Lake chips are suitable.

According to Intel, its new Whiskey Lake and Amber Lake chips "raise the bar for connectivity, performance, entertainment, and productivity." The U-series chips introduce support for integrated Gigabit Wi-Fi for up to 12-times faster connectivity speeds, support for USB 3.1 Gen 2 transfer speeds, and built-in support for voice services like Alexa and Cortana.

Intel says that compared to a 5-year-old PC, the new U-series processors offer two times better performance and double-digit gains in office productivity for everyday web browsing and content creation over previous-generation chips.

The high-end Intel Core i7 8565U processor enables Intel Thermal Velocity Boost for additional single core performance, while all the U-series chips offer 16 PCIe lanes, up from 12.

Using these new chips, 2 in 1 machines can last up to 16 hours on a single charge, while power optimized systems can last as long as 19 hours. Intel says "many systems" using the U-series chips will offer over 10 hours of battery life.

Intel's Y-series chips offer faster Wi-Fi and LTE capabilities and double-digit gains in performance compared to the previous-generation, enabling new, compact notebook designs with better battery life. The chips offer Gen 3 PCIe support for higher data transfer rates, along with NVMe PCIe x4 solid state drives.

Both the new Y-series and U-series chips are considered 8th-Generation, a designation that also includes Intel's previously-announced Kaby Lake Refresh processors.

Intel says that laptops and 2 in 1s powered by the new chips will be available starting this fall.

Article Link: Intel Announces 8th-Generation Whiskey Lake and Amber Lake Processors Suitable for MacBook and MacBook Air

[doublepost=1535564283][/doublepost]I miss pen and paper.

 

[Zdigital2015]

I've been reading more about this rollout, trying to read between the lines. It appears that Whiskey is just the same Kaby-Refresh CPU die combined with a new PCH. Similarly, Amber is a Kaby die combined with the (same) new PCH.

There is a possibility that Amber is on a revised 14mm process relative to Kaby. (Kaby-R was already on the revised process.) The Amber pricing model suggests this - the different speed grades now have different prices. Previously, Y-series dies were just specially qualified 15W GT2 U-series dies. Dies that didn't make the Y-series cut could just be sold as U-series. Differing prices imply a reduced remarketability.

What other dies could be paired with the new PCH? Could an Iris Plus Kaby be thusly upgraded? Would there even be a market? With Apple being the primary purchaser of Iris Plus, If Apple doesn't want such a chip, then there's no reason for Intel to offer it.

Yes, unfortunately, the Whiskey Lake U-Series is simply a Kaby Lake-R with a higher Turbo Boost frequency. There are no other refinements as far as I know (or Anandtech knows, since their article is my source).

Even with the PCH and Whiskey Lake CPU combined onto one package, Intel could have a version in the wings that is a Kaby Lake-R with Iris Plus 645 Graphics paired with the new PCH. However, considering what a low volume oddball the Kaby Lake 7360U and 7660U actually are (who outside of Apple actually use these CPUs) and Intel's regression on iGPUs in the last few years, I have to wonder if even Apple could commission a 15w KL-R with Iris Plus GPU from Intel at this point? Or did they even want to ask?

This makes your question of whether or not there is a market for such CPUs (i5-8365U and i7-8665U, is what I call them based on their KL numbering) a crucial one. Others have posited the same theory - it just seems too niche. Can the UHD620 in these two new CPUs handle macOS? Has Apple optimized Mojave enough to mitigate the lack of Iris GPUs moving forward? Don't they sort of have to as Intel is now moving on to making their own dGPUs (Arctic Sound)?

Tune in tomorrow, when we'll hear Phil say, "There were multiple acts of courage involved...but first, listen to this Englishman explain it in his calm, cool, authoritative voice that we hope will give it more credibility!"

 

[Rigby]

How does a CPU have "built-in support for voice services like Alexa and Cortana"?
I'm not questioning it, just wondering how hardware support can help.

Just speculating, but my guess is that it's a voice recognition feature that let's the SoC listen for a wake phrase a la "Hey Siri" in low power mode.

 

[bluecoast]

In what market segment, exactly?

Zen is fine, but other than enthusiast/gamer PCs, I don't see it gaining any foothold. It doesn't even seem to be doing that well (yet?) in the server market, unlike Opteron. And they don't have anything to compete with Core-H.
[doublepost=1535561077][/doublepost]

Yup. It's slightly better.

But the MacBook Escape, OTOH, has an Iris Plus 640, so if Apple kills that, it would be a significant step down.



Absolutely. I just don't know what they want to do about the low-end MBP.



Yes.

Even if the GPU on the new MBA is a step down from the MBP Esc, I don’t think it matters too much.

I’d say that the MBP Esc is a computer aimed at business professionals who are more likely to fire up Word or Keynote than FCP etc.

You know, the kind of people who around 2010-14 would’ve had a MBA...

So if the new MBA looks sleek and professional enough, it’s likely that this machine will fill the product gap.

And importantly, the kind of people I’m describing typically go to meeting after meeting and need a machine with all day battery life.

A current MBP is not exactly great in that regard - whereas a new MBP is likely to excel here.

Yes, there maybe the risk of a pricing gap - but I wouldn’t be surprised if a specced up ‘new MBP’ suitable for business users will hit the $1250-1400 price range. Perhaps also, only the top end new MBP will only be available in space grey etc.

Finally, it’ll help Apple differentiate their Pro machines (ie ‘pro’ will mean people who create things).

 

[Zdigital2015]

I hear what you’re saying, I just have a hard time thinking they’ll release an all-quad 13” lineup at $999 when the 13” MBP quads are $1,799. And rMP at $1,299 is only dual, and 12”.

Sure the MBP is better, faster, stronger. But given the choice of a new rumored 13” Retina quad core for $999 and a 13” Retina quad core MBP for $1,799, most would probably choose the much less expensive one.

Like many entry level configs, it would be there to make a price point. It’s fast enough and there would be attractive upgrade options with i5/i7 quads.

That’s my thinking, but like the Mac mini it’ll probably be a mystery until they deliver. As usual, there are few leaks with any real detail outside of iPhone/iPad.

Honestly, my head hurts and it really should not, but Apple makes such obtuse choices that trying to figure out how they think is a discipline all its own.

I only think Whiskey Lake U-Series makes sense if they DO use the UHD 620, because then the Iris Plus GPUs become a fairly significant differentiator...maybe not a $500-$700 one, but that never seems to bother Apple. I cannot see Apple taking the time and effort to create a new 13"/14" MacBook that alienates its buyers right off the bat with just a 2c/4t CPU. The press and quite a few users would hammer them and I do not think they have recovered since 2015. It's clear from reading these forums that users still love the MBA an awful lot. Are people here just outliers? Maybe, but even if they are, how many other people are waiting for a new MBA that already own an older model (2012 springs to mind), or have wanted to hand down their old one for a new one and the 12" MacBook is just not their cup of tea? Unfortunately, Apple does not break down sales by model or we would know and maybe I would be full of crap or I would be correct in my assessment.

I sincerely believe the 12" MacBook just polarized too many people, reviewers and pundits. The "anemic" CPU (it wasn't that bad), two iterations of a pretty lousy keyboard (*2015, 2016), one USB-C (???) port, stuck at 8GB of RAM (until 2017) and that price. I think those things really put people off and that is why the MacBook Air didn't go away, EVEN after Apple stopped updating it. Apple needs to provide a decent amount of value to users with this product and I think a quad-core is pretty key to that, among other things (decent RAM, decent size SSD, Retina Display, good battery life).

I seriously looked at a 12" MacBook, but after spending a fair bit of time with one, I could not shake the sense that it was too small, too slow and too much money to really be worth it. Especially since I could have gotten a fully decked out 13" MacBook Air (i7/8GB/512GB SSD) on sale at Best Buy (and in stock) for $1299-$1349. I did not buy the MBA because while the display is not horrible, the off-axis shift would have driven me up the proverbial wall as it did with a Late 2011 15" MacBook Pro I have as a backup backup machine.

That certainly doesn't make my value judgment any better or worse than anyone else's as many people here will attest to how much they like their 12" MacBook. It's just not a MacBook Air, warts and all. At least that is what my intuition is telling me. The MacBook just left me cold, for lack of a more rational explanation.

As austere as Apple has been with the MacBook Pro and MacBook, it cannot have gone unnoticed that they sold less than 4 million machines in the past quarter. It seems like Apple knows that they have royally pissed off even their most loyal fans and then they (begrudgingly) deliver a product of real value (iPhone SE). Of course, they leave off just enough to make your blood start to boil, but mostly it is something worth the wait and expense. I truly believe that Apple needs a hit with the MacBook's target audience, mostly because people do not write apps on an iPad or an iPhone yet and if the long term goal is to get us to buy Macs with A-Series CPUs inside, they have to give users something compelling to buy on the Mac side of things. They cannot keep people inside their ecosystem with just the iPhone and iPad, there are just too many of us that use a computer (Mac or PC) to do our daily work. Even if the iPhone is now the gateway drug of choice, the iPad is not the next hit for a LOT of people, it is getting rid of Windows and moving to a Mac that is the next fix for people already hooked on their iPhone. I cannot tell if the lack of updates to the Mac is because A-Series desktop class CPUs were supposed to be shipping by now, and there were major setbacks, or if Apple truly thought the Mac was on its way out and that the iPad was going to fill that void. I can believe the former, but the latter is harder, because Apple cannot run Apple, Inc on iPads and iPhones. Macs are crucial inside of Apple for every facet of their business and all but the most enamored would not deny that truth.

I hope Apple understands just how crucial this new "whatever it's called" is to their long term success. It will never sell like the iPhone, but it is the tree trunk (or at least the roots) that Apple has to keep healthy if the branches are going to continue bearing fruit.

Long way to go for a pun...

* - "I won't say that the difference is night and day, and neither will I say that everyone who hated the old keyboard will automatically love the new one. But I'll say that going back to the first-gen version after using the second-gen version feels like trying to type on a pizza box with a keyboard drawn on it." - Andrew Cunningham, Ars Technica, 6/16/2017.

 

[manu chao]

But the MacBook Escape, OTOH, has an Iris Plus 640, so if Apple kills that, it would be a significant step down.

Absolutely. I just don't know what they want to do about the low-end MBP.

Killing it would be the most logical solution. It's not that it is a traditional offering in Apple's lineup. Of course, Apple might just continue selling it in its current configuration for a year or two with maybe a small price cut, the 13" MBA or last pre-retina 13" MBP show that Apple is no stranger to having old models hang around. And like the 13" MBA is there to hit a price point, the MBP escape might hang on to serve to fill the gap between the MBA successor and the 13" TB MBP.
[doublepost=1535571366][/doublepost]

I only think Whiskey Lake U-Series makes sense if they DO use the UHD 620, because then the Iris Plus GPUs become a fairly significant differentiator...maybe not a $500-$700 one, but that never seems to bother Apple. I cannot see Apple taking the time and effort to create a new 13"/14" MacBook that alienates its buyers right off the bat with just a 2c/4t CPU.

I might have missed the beginning of this sub-thread, but I could see Apple offering both the 2-core and 4-core Whiskey Lake processors in 13/14" MacBook. The first one will be able to hit a low price point and the second helps bridging the price gap between the former and the 13" MBP.

I sincerely believe the 12" MacBook just polarized too many people, reviewers and pundits. The "anemic" CPU (it wasn't that bad), two iterations of a pretty lousy keyboard (*2015, 2016), one USB-C (???) port, stuck at 8GB of RAM (until 2017) and that price. I think those things really put people off and that is why the MacBook Air didn't go away, EVEN after Apple stopped updating it. [...]

I seriously looked at a 12" MacBook, but after spending a fair bit of time with one, I could not shake the sense that it was too small, too slow and too much money to really be worth it.

I think the 12" MB is doing just fine (at least if it gets a second USB-C port). It's just not the right model as the entry-level Mac laptop. Screen is too small and ports are too few (and price is too high, in particular for what you get).

 

[Yvan256]

With all the problems cropping up because of the T2 chip, I'm hoping it's too expensive to put inside this new MacBook Air.

 

[laszlo182]

Intel really needs to re-think their marketing. A girl in University or a lecture room is gaming when she should be focused on the work/lecture at hand? This is a reason to upgrade?

She obviously got in the room sooner as everyone around her was walking to find a place, so the lecture haven’t started yet. She stopped when the lecturer came

 

[Zdigital2015]

Killing it would be the most logical solution. It's not that it is a traditional offering in Apple's lineup. Of course, Apple might just continue selling it in its current configuration for a year or two with maybe a small price cut, the 13" MBA or last pre-retina 13" MBP show that Apple is no stranger to have old models hang around. And like the 13" MBA is there to hit a price point, the MBP escape might hang on to serve to fill the gap between the MBA successor and the 13" TB MBP.
[doublepost=1535571366][/doublepost]
I might have missed the beginning of this sub-thread, but I could see Apple offering both the 2-core and 4-core Whiskey Lake processors in 13/14" MacBook. The first one will be able to hit a low price point and the second helps bridging the price gap between the former and the 13" MBP.

I think the 12" MB is doing just fine (at least if it gets a second USB-C port). It's just not the right model as the entry-level Mac laptop. Screen is too small and ports are too few (and price is too high, in particular for what you get).

The Core i3-8145U? Using historical guidance, it is hard for me to envision this happening. The Core i3 has not been a part of the Mac lineup since the Mid-2010 iMac, but stranger things have happened. Honestly, it just gets weirder by the day until Apple releases the MacBook and the Mac mini updates, if the rumors are true.

 

[roland.g]

Wow I was about to erase your second quoted comment because it wasn't directed at me and I didn't read it until after writing this:

It would be interesting if they switched it up and did 12"/14" variants with reduced bezels because 11" is pretty small for a MacBook.

After reading your second comment, I'm wondering if they would really do 2TB on the MBA since that's what the Pro maxes out at. They need more ways to differentiate the two for marketing. Doubt it would have TouchBar, but perhaps they could do the T2 since that handles other functions now like encryption to make it more secure? Another idea is they could implement Face ID and tie that into the T2, but I feel like that could add extra price and Apple may already be pushing the limits for production on the three new iPhone models featuring it along with the iPad Pros. But the mass production should bring down the cost to make the module so it could show up. As for me I don't care either way because my Apple Watch unlocks my Mac just as well.

The 12/14” makes sense. Another 12/13” lineup doesn’t. As far as storage, the 15” MBP can go to 4TB, and the 13” can go to 2TB. My suggestion was simply that they could choose to tier the max storage on the two sizes like the Pro models. I think the CPU power, and graphics will be big differentiations as well as not including the TrueTone display.

If they release a 14” with 16GB RAM and an option for 1TB that is lighter than the 15” Pro I may have to consider it. I’ve been using a 13” Air since 2012 and would like a larger screen. That is why I would like to see a 14”. I don’t need 6 Cores or a dGPU. And I would like a machine at 3.25-3.75 lbs. But I really do like the Touch Bar personally. If we get a 14” with the specs I mentioned but no TB and no T2 or at least T1, it will be a big decision whether to get the 15”.

 

[EightyTwenty]

So my guess is the MacBook Air gets replaced with a Whiskey Lake-U MacBook Escape for $1,099-ish. It'll have worse graphics than the current model, but twice the CPU cores. Possibly an extra-weird $999 model with 4 GB RAM. Leave the 256 GB SSD a $200 upgrade. Makes the graphics on those machines worse, but the CPU otherwise much better, and cuts overall pricing by $200. And call it the 13-inch MacBook.

Still leaves open what the heck they want to do with the 12-inch MacBook (which is basically a completely different product), though. It also leaves quite a gap from now $1,299 to the $1,799 13-inch MacBook Pro, but maybe that's OK.

I’m sorry, but those predictions are ridiculous.

 

[chucker23n1]

I’m sorry, but those predictions are ridiculous.

Thanks for your input.

 

[groovyd]

I'm not doubting that you'd benefit from a faster machine, but I don't think that what you're saying is true in the broader sense. I think more and more people are doing more and more work in their browsers. As I said:

Do you think there are more installed instances of Xcode or Word?

I do my share of big compiles and long simulations, too. I just don't think that's the bulk of the PC business. Even for those with heavy jobs, most are pushed to dedicated machines or now to clusters or AWS instances so they can stay productive locally.

Developers also drive the market for consumers since they create the apps around by which others find value. And there are way more developers coming out of college these days then ever before. In a sense a large part of the population is some form of developer around computers anymore. Here's the thing though, people who don't use all the power a computer provides still appreciate upgrading when they know the new one is that much faster or better then what they have. It is just human nature to want the best when it is an revolutionary upgrade vs evolutionary.
[doublepost=1535581727][/doublepost]

Doubling speed every other year? That’s just not going to happen with x86. I think Intel is fortunate to get 10-15% improvement through each “tick”. The time for Intel to make a shift to RISC has come and gone many tines and Intel just keeps plugging away, except they might really be coming to the end of the road. I think Apple figured that out and that’s why they are looking to move to their own in-house designed CPUs. No, Apple cannot match a 10-Core Xeon, but how much longer will it take for them to surpass every Core i-Series CPU they currently use?

Those aren't the only two cpu architectures possible, nor does change have to be entirely predictably incremental. Usually someone who really cares about something finds a way to make bigger changes and bigger differences.

 

[chucker23n1]

The time for Intel to make a shift to RISC has come and gone many tines

The RISC-CISC dichotomy is 1990s’ thinking. There is no appreciable difference today.

 

[Analog Kid]

Developers also drive the market for consumers since they create the apps around by which others find value. And there are way more developers coming out of college these days then ever before. In a sense a large part of the population is some form of developer around computers anymore. Here's the thing though, people who don't use all the power a computer provides still appreciate upgrading when they know the new one is that much faster or better then what they have. It is just human nature to want the best when it is an revolutionary upgrade vs evolutionary.

I'm not arguing that nobody needs faster machines, but your original point was about why the upgrade cycle has slowed-- I still don't think many users see the need for something faster.

It is by no means a large part of the population that is involved in development or computationally intensive tasks.

In the US, if I take a rough cut look at "Computer and Mathematical Professions", "Architecture and Engineering Professions" and "Life, Physical and Social Science Professions", I can stretch it to get a bit over 4% of the labor force (and it's pretty clear that even most of those jobs don't really need massive computing resources).

And those are people who might need the computation power professionally-- they're probably running much less capable hardware at home. The most intensive computing applications in the home are likely games, and a lot of that is done on dedicated appliances.

There are some devs (again, mostly in gaming) that push the technology limits of the market, but for the vast majority of developers the customers drive the market for the developers. Most good software developers target the hardware their customers already have so they don't have to wait for customers to go through hardware upgrades before they can sell their own product.

What should be clear even from the discussions on these forums is that most people are more preoccupied with peripheral support than computing power-- and updating peripheral support is only useful when you have new peripherals you want to attach. They'll upgrade when they want a new display rather than when they want their spreadsheet to run faster.


And sure, it's cool to have the new hotness, but everyone eventually has to decide where to spend their money and if they can only afford to update their phone, update their computer, or take a vacation every two years, they're much more likely to ask themselves how badly they need more MIPS when they're barely utilizing what they already have.

 

[Zdigital2015]

Whiskey Lake? Sounds too good to be true...

Aged in oak barrrels for at least three shareholder meetings.

 

[deconstruct60]

.... I truly believe that Apple needs a hit with the MacBook's target audience, mostly because people do not write apps on an iPad or an iPhone yet and if the long term goal is to get us to buy Macs with A-Series CPUs inside, they have to give users something compelling to buy on the Mac side of things.

In the space the 'old' MacBook ( and iBook ) had in there line up. Yes. But that is filled by the MBA are at this point. The old MBA ( now MB) "princess and the pea" lightest possible laptop option. Apple doesn't desperately need a hit there. They certainly can make that niche better but it won't fix their core problem. The entry and core MBP folks being off is the core problem they have. The mini being comatose is a problem bigger issue than the "lightest" niche.

Apple is far more likely to revive the iBook and sell an iOS driven on, than slap macOS on the A-series. [ I'm sure there is a "plan B" hack they have running, but it is just that "Plan B" in case both Intel and AMD completely screw up. ] It doesn't make any sense at all to split the Mac line up in "half" or "quarters". The A series can't handle the whole line up.

Apple can simply just 'discover' 2-in-1 tablet-laptops. They have a tablet OS (iOS). Because it is also a tablet it can have a touchscreen. In the next two years, there will he apps that map between iOS and macOS ( in the latter case picking up keyboard/mouse/trackpad optional features). The iPad 'Finder' like features will improve ( application dock , etc. ). An iBook would just be an evolved iPad Pro with a keyboard attached (instead of optional. ). That is probably a better leverage into the space where Chromebooks are kicking Apple's butt, some odd attempt to disrupt macOS for little good reason. The "as good as a Intel mobile processor' A-series evolution could be put into that and the iPad Pro.

I cannot tell if the lack of updates to the Mac is because A-Series desktop class CPUs were supposed to be shipping by now,

No. There is likely no "desktop" A-series inside of Apple. It isn't late, they simply aren't working on one at all. Apple might get to the point of forking the iPhone A series from the iPad Pro series to a higher degree, but something that is going subsume the entire Mac line up is extremely unlikely. The primarily reason Apple has staid about a year (or more) out in front of the other ARM phone SoC implementers is because they were not distracted with other stuff ( like going after data center server processors )

Intel was "years" out in front on process up until they screwed that up with distractions. Forking the ARM work off into 6-10 different directions isn't going to help Apple

"...
And since Apple is doing a fine job with mobile processors, it could conceivably decide to get into conventional chips and bump Intel out of its Mac laptops and desktops. Srouji, of course, won’t go there, though he does allow that his team’s mission is finite. “If we attempt to do everything on the planet,” he says, “I don’t think that would be very smart.”
..."
https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-johny-srouji-apple-chief-chipmaker/


Apple has iPhone , iPad Pro , and Apple watch to cover. They have also now thrown in T-series. If they can actually keep all those balls in the air that will be a feat. Expanding into desktops buys them a whole lot of nothing. There isn't any "unit volume" potential to support that effort even if they decided to piss billions down the drain.



"

or if Apple truly thought the Mac was on its way out and that the iPad was going to fill that void.

Nope. More likely Apple's primary focus was on saving the iPhone. That's where most of their effort went. They knew that unit sales were going to plateau and they needed to do something to do a major offset that to that. The Macs "problems" all got secondary to that. What Apple did was coast on the Mac. People are buying at a slower rate so they would just make new Macs at a slower rate. Shift folks over to other breakout projects and ride the cash cow for a couple of years. ( A couple of years ago Apple was doing "trim the fat" purges . )

Apple has shifted to trying to eek out a higher average selling price on iPhone to offset the plateau effect of units sales (plus a shift to reoccurring services revenue ). Its working.

[quote
I can believe the former, but the latter is harder, because Apple cannot run Apple, Inc on iPads and iPhones. Macs are crucial inside of Apple for every facet of their business and all but the most enamored would not deny that truth. [/quote]

If you pull all the non Macs out of Apple they'd be dead in the water. The financials , inventory control., cloud/web services , tele-communications, etc. none of that stuff is primary Mac based. Apple's services business is bigger (and more critical to balance sheet ) than the Mac business.

Macs are important. The critical linchpin no. No money , no servers, no services .... no company at the multibillion dollar a year level. Few employees are going to come to work if they are not being paid. Macs on every desk and no employees won't work. That's why Apple writes some big fat 'checks' to buy that stuff from other folks.

Apple has some issue that most Mac customers have. The Macs they have are "good enough" to be used on longer cycles. Apple could coast for a substantial amount of time on just what they have and could "speed bump" with minimal R&D effort applied ( cash cows still have to be fed something) .

Apple isn't trying to replace all Macs with iPads. But they are also not trying to block iPads in. That was another growth problem that needed fixing over the last couple of years. Macs are a tool for a subset of work that other tools overlap at the edges with it.

 

[Garage Battle]

excuse me

at exactly what point did we start referring to the nTB as "escape".

nTB is fine - we don't have to be more cleverer.

 

[deconstruct60]

From the Anandtech link, it appears there's a native USB 3.1 controller onboard. Could this mean Apple would in theory be able to use USB-C 3.1 Gen 2 speeds (10Gb/s) on each port? That would be a useful upgrade to the MacBook - equivalent to Thunderbolt 1 speed. The improved onboard WiFi might also be attractive for Apple too.

It isn't really "improved" WiFi, it is integrated Wi-FI. Apple has usually skipped Intel Wi-Fi options in every earlier iterations when it was not integrated. If there is a net power savings then maybe. But I suspect Apple likes working on one Wi-FI subsystem they can insert into multiple Mac design. ( design once use many ).

Intel wasn't clear if the PCH in the Y ( old Core M) was the same as the one integrated into the U series. Probably is but they may have cut some stuff out ( or flipped it completely off) to save power. If it is the same and the MacBook isn't going to grow out of the "designed into a corner" problem it has were there is simply no room for Thunderbolt in a Macbook then perhaps they'll limp along with just a single USB 3.1 gen 2 port. The problem is that if only going to have one and only one port , then Thunderbolt would be better. Since you have to use that port to do "everything", you'd want a port that does more. For example , 'dock' and get power from a display with USB 3.0 sockets on it. ( instead of being stuck with only USB 2).

With the MacBook I think Apple went a bit too OCD on the weight. They threw out even room to put a Thunderbolt controller near the one port ( that corner is hemmed in by the lid hinge mechanism and battery volume ). If they increased the depth about an inch (or smaller depth increase and small raise in back height) and let the weight rise to 2.3 lbs ( from 2.03 ) it still would be the lightest, smallest current mac laptop. ( they don't have to limbo in significantly under the old MBA 11" weight. ) . They'd be better able to pack the electronics for the headphone jack better also.

The Anandtech link also implies that these CPUs are also Kaby Lake based - so could they be arriving in time for the MBA and MacBook if announced in late October?

Sure. Intel has had these chips for a while. They don't have the Meltdown/Spectre fixes in hardware. To a substantive extent this was taking the PCH that was intended for Cannon Lake and attaching it to an earlier generation. HP leaked Whiskey Lake CPUs several weeks ago.

https://www.notebookcheck.net/HP-reveals-Whiskey-Lake-U-CPU-specs.321280.0.html

Intel talked about them back at Computex in June

https://www.anandtech.com/show/12878/intel-discuss-whiskey-lake-amber-lake-and-cascade-lake

This was just the formal announcement. Apple had the ship date for these many, many months ago. October would not be a problem.

The Amber Lake CPU in this lineup has a slightly higher TDP, so could we be seeing more battery space used in an evolution of the 12" model (as with the already released MacBook Pros?)

This is about 0.5W (if I recall correctly.) It isn't some huge jump.

if that higher TDP is the integrated Wi-FI subsystem ( still have a phys chip ) and dump the discrete Wi-FI then there is no net gain inside the system (presuming Intel's increase and PHYs chip are the same amount). In short this chip package does more. if remove what the chip package subsumed then it isn't a problem.

I think some of the higher TDP is just the higher Turbo which the processor can just quit earlier. ( Apple can set bound on how much peaker power to draw. )

As addressed above there is no more room for anything now. If they increased the volume a bit that would just get the batteries out of the way of the electronics.

 

[FriendlyMackle]

Agree. I think there's some similarity with photographers and photography forums.

Some people are on a constant quest for "the best" gear (body, lenses, accessories, etc). And that's what drives their photography. Even more than making compelling photographs. Which can be plainly seen.

Oh, Snap!

 

[everythingapplerainbow]

Four cores in a retina MacBook Air would be neat.

It would also be a nice pairing for someone who uses a desktop Mac as their primary machine.

they didn't say a word about how many cores these chips will have