Intel Begins Shipping First Kaby Lake Processors, but Most Macs Won't Get Them Until 2017

[Exile714]

Integrated graphics are only difference between 00 and 70 models

6770 has a base frequency of 2.6ghz, the 6700 has a base frequency of 2.4ghz. Max is higher too, 3.5 versus 3.4. Also, TDP of 6770 is 45W configurable down to 35W while 6700 is only 35W.

But yeah, "exactly" the same except for the integrated graphics...

 

[duffman9000]

You almost had me there ... until you started talking about dropping prices.

Lol... oh wait ... lol

 

[gregnv]

This huge delay on Mac updates is making me think that ARM Macs are coming sooner rather than later.

Agree on ARM, but I am not sure they will be part of either the Mac Brand or iPad Brand. While Apple has switched architecture and CPU's under the Mac brand (68000 -> PowerPC -> x86) the migrations worked because the new architecture was more powerful than the last and could emulate the prior architecture. ARM will not bring enough power for x86-64 emulation so no backward compatibility, thus the likelihood of a new name to prevent consumer confusion when purchasing compatible software and hardware.

 

[delegagtor]

I can't find any benchmark results for the 6970HQ. Even any laptops with it shipping. Mind you, there's probably some 10-inch-thick ASUS ROG out there which is sporting it, of course. But then you might as well compare laptops like that to a desktop hooked up to a UPS.

The 6920HQ is still beaten by the 4980HQ in terms of CPU performance.

OK fine, then an i7-5950HQ. Benchmark Summary from specout.com:

• Geekbench 32-bit, Single Core: Intel i7-4980HQ's score is 12.0% better.

• Geekbench 64-bit, Single Core: The Intel i7-5950HQ is tested to be 0.6% better.

• Geekbench 32-bit, Multi-Core: The score of the Intel i7-5950HQ measures 9.5% better than the Intel i7-4980HQ.

• Geekbench 64-bit, Multi-Core: The score of the Intel i7-5950HQ is 1.6% higher.

• Passmark Score: The Passmark score of the Intel i7-5950HQ measures 7.4% faster.

 

[PizzaBoxStyle]

I see a number of people posting in regards to have dual chips (Apple + Intel) or future in-house chips designed to have Intel-compatibility, or emulation.

I'm pretty sure this is a very bad idea. History would seem to indicate that, while "all" it takes is a recompilation of code sometimes, developers (and their companies) take the easier path: lowest common denominator. If there's a high-end Apple CPU that also can run Intel-compiled code at "good enough" speeds (as well as a market that can ONLY run Intel code) then they'll choose the common denominator and have something that doesn't get any performance gain whatsoever (and may actually be slower in the case of emulation).

Some of Apple's advances have come from forcing companies to adapt or die: 64-bit, phasing out emulators like Rosetta, etc. More recently, the decision to force all apps submitted to the various App Stores to be able to support IPv6-only networking (not like anyone seriously has an IPv6 network that doesn't have some method of working with IPv4 but this may help push what we've been told "is right around the corner" for a decade to actually become a reality).

Look at Windows: you'd be hard pressed to find an entry-level computer with fewer than 4-GB of RAM these days. Yet, they still offer a 32-bit OS, many companies only deploy 32-bit versions of their applications (and in some cases, their drivers), and even Microsoft strongly recommends the 32-bit version of Office 2016 over the 64-bit version. Yes, most people don't need to address 64-bits for their apps and tasks but they still release 32-bit-only apps for those people running a 10-year-old computer (before 64-bit was supported) that they were able to get Windows 10/32 running.

Let's not forget the delayed Adobe updates, the ongoing complaints about the Quicken-family, and other common apps that were slow to update (or even dropped the Mac for a while) because their 5-year-old version still ran "good enough." Ultimately, supporting both code sets would probably not be much of a boost as you expect because nothing would support the newer, faster, better processor anyway.

This is a good perspective.

The only thing I could add is that in addition to the hurtles you enumerated, ARM is being bought by SoftBank. I can only think that it's going to have repercussions for Apple. Even if Apple makes it's own silicon, they are still using ARM's IP... Apple now needs to factor in how SoftBank is going to steward the ARM IP. I think the reality of ARM Mac's just got a bit more complicated, and the Mac line (on the whole) is already being treated as a legacy platform.

 

[mabhatter]

You can bet if Steve Jobs were still alive, he'd be keeping internal builds of OS X for PowerPC, ARM, and would probably be interested in HP's new chip architecture they're starting from the ground up. I just read an article about IBM latest big push for PowerPC too. He might not switch chipsets, but he'd definitely starting lighting a fire under the asses at Intel on a regular basis.

The fire is already lit. They are putting "kids" programming tools on iPad Pros with iOS 10. If Apple is at the point of general release then the lab is at least three steps ahead. iWork code base is already shifted to be iOS-first that's why it went thriugh that terrible phase. I'd venture other apps have made the shift too in the lab at least.

 

[brentsg]

But it still doesn't explain how Intel is the one causing the delays suggested by the comment I replied to earlier.

This is what was said: "Why is everyone always so pissed at Apple for having “old” hardware, when it’s Intel that’s been causing the delays?"

Intel releases new chips all the time. I don't see how they are responsible for Apple's delays.

That is what I was talking about.

There's a big difference between releasing parts and releasing the right parts. The devil is in the details.
[doublepost=1469154208][/doublepost]

Exactly.

Technology moves at a fast pace. Things are always changing. Intel makes new improved CPUs... AMD and NVidia make new improved GPUs... even interfaces like Thunderbolt, USB and HDMI keep getting improved too.

Except it hasn't been moving at a fast pace lately, and this isn't likely to change. Broadwell and Skylake were nothing but delay after delay. Kaby Lake isn't that different than Devil's Canyon was following Haswell, inserted to buy time until Intel overcomes 10nm issues for Cannonlake. GPUs were stuck at 28nm for what, 5 years or something.. when 20nm planar was a huge bust. Technology has NOT been moving at a fast pace, but a snails pace. That's why it's crazy for people to be raging at Apple for it.

 

[sudo1996]

Care to elaborate which i7? Intel has still not released all the Skylake processors it had announced. Look at the 'Release date' column on the right:
View attachment 641238

Not Skylake. It's the i7-5930K. Though I just checked, and it was released longer ago than I thought. Still newer than most Mac CPUs, which are one generation behind. Fry's had newer CPUs available at the time, but I was on a budget.

 

[doctor-don]

Who decides they are outdated? I'm very happy with my 2015 15" Pro. Blazing fast compared to what it replaced (late 08 Pro) and while newer stuff might give me a few more minutes of battery and a few better specs I need a computer to edit 4K videos and this one does it and does it well. Specs are for PC users and always have been.

My 2008 Mac Pro is functioning well, as is the 2012 MBP.
Outdated might apply if the purposes for which the machines are used are no longer attainable.

 

[AppleScruff1]

Exactly. Imagine them capturing $150-$400 more profit per Mac.

That would be so exciting for the millions of non shareholding customers!
[doublepost=1469155227][/doublepost]

I'm calling it now. We're going to start seeing Apple put its own chips in their laptops by the end of 2018.. A12x, perhaps? They need to show Intel that they are not willing to tolerate delays and are willing to go down other avenues.

Yea, because Apple never has any delays of their own.

 

[sudo1996]

Newer ≠ better.

I'd challenge you to find a mobile i7 shipping in a laptop that is more powerful than the i7-4980HQ which ships in the 2.8GHz BTO 15" rMBP. The only one I can think of is the i7-5950HQ, and even that is practically identical in performance.

That's part of the problem. People see newer gen quad-core i7s and wonder why Apple haven't implemented them yet. It's because they're often less powerful than the ones currently shipping. So yes, the chips are there. And Apple aren't using them for good reason.

You're considering only CPU speed when there's also power consumption and integrated graphics performance to consider. The newer generations are around the same CPU speed, have marginally improved power consumption, and have significantly faster graphics (from what I can find online).

There's this comparison for the integrated graphics in the two you mentioned, but I don't know how accurate it is: http://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compar...is-Pro-HD-5200-V2-Mobile-12-GHz/m30277vsm8190

 

[AppleScruff1]

Specs are for PC users and always have been.

Keep telling yourself that.

 

[Appleaker]

Dunno, maybe they could ask Lenovo, HP and Dell where they get theirs from. If Intel don't have sufficient CPUs available with Iris Pro graphics then consider putting a real GPU.

I'd accept that excuse on the Apple SkinnyBook lines, but not the desktop machines.



I wish I was, I really do, but I've lost faith.

Just wait a few more months. They haven't released them yet because they want to do it in an event - these are overall pretty significant updates and it'll make more sense at the event as to why they waited.

 

[sudo1996]

Except it hasn't been moving at a fast pace lately, and this isn't likely to change. Broadwell and Skylake were nothing but delay after delay. Kaby Lake isn't that different than Devil's Canyon was following Haswell, inserted to buy time until Intel overcomes 10nm issues for Cannonlake. GPUs were stuck at 28nm for what, 5 years or something.. when 20nm planar was a huge bust. Technology has NOT been moving at a fast pace, but a snails pace. That's why it's crazy for people to be raging at Apple for it.

GPU performance has been improving rapidly. And anyway, would it really hurt for Apple to simply put the latest parts in the latest Mac? That's why people are mad. There doesn't seem to be a reason for Apple to be lagging behind.

 

[PizzaBoxStyle]

I wish I was, I really do, but I've lost faith.

Just wait a few more months. They haven't released them yet because they want to do it in an event - these are overall pretty significant updates and it'll make more sense at the event as to why they waited.

Looking back at it, I'm starting to think that all that time ago when Apple execs got on stage and said something like the iPad was their "clearest vision of the future of computing...", they were actually hinting that they were moving on from the Mac.

I think it has finally worked on me, too. I recently purchased an iPad Pro (9.7) with the overpriced keyboard cover (after saying I would never buy another iPad) so that I can still have access to the Apple world when I switch to a custom-built PC box with Windows/Linux this winter (planned and saving). Prob gonna unload my rMBP and 24" ACD, will keep my 2011 Mac Mini for backup.

 

[Porno]

Apple is dead.

 

[tjleonard]

Who decides they are outdated? I'm very happy with my 2015 15" Pro. Blazing fast compared to what it replaced (late 08 Pro) and while newer stuff might give me a few more minutes of battery and a few better specs I need a computer to edit 4K videos and this one does it and does it well. Specs are for PC users and always have been.

Wait, you really just asked "who decides they are outdated" -and then referenced how much faster your 2015 pro is than your late 08 pro!? Were you sarcastic or just dipped the punch a little early??

 

[Osty]

Just wait a few more months. They haven't released them yet because they want to do it in an event - these are overall pretty significant updates and it'll make more sense at the event as to why they waited.

No, I don't think I'll bother.

@PizzaBoxStyle, is right. When the CEO himself is saying what his vision is for personal computing, it leaves no doubt in my mind that if the Mac has a future, it will be as a niche device at best.

My next device will be an iPad Pro - the only question for me now is size. I'll hold on to my 2011 Mac mini but will its role will be that of a server and a shared family computer.

 

[calaverasgrande]

Why is everyone always so pissed at Apple for having “old” hardware, when it’s Intel that’s been causing the delays? Besides, my Late 2013 15” rMBP still works darn well for my power user workflow.

That isn't true. Apple has been loitering on old architecture for a while. On the Mac Pro side the Xeon v3 CPUs were out almost as soon as the Xeon v2 Mac Pros were in stores. They should have done an update on the Mac Pro to get the faster CPUs with more cores, as well as greater memory bandwidth.
The speculation is that Apple has been waiting for TB3 before they make another revision. And also that the Mac Pro has not really been selling since the new form factor debuted.

 

[AlexGraphicD]

Who decides they are outdated? I'm very happy with my 2015 15" Pro. Blazing fast compared to what it replaced (late 08 Pro) and while newer stuff might give me a few more minutes of battery and a few better specs I need a computer to edit 4K videos and this one does it and does it well. Specs are for PC users and always have been.

Fine, I get your logic but then at least Apple shouldn't charge such a redicilous amount of money for old hardware. I don't get why other pc's or other products in general reduce their prices when using outdated technology but Apple doesn't do the same.

 

[jalo07]

Why is everyone always so pissed at Apple for having “old” hardware, when it’s Intel that’s been causing the delays? Besides, my Late 2013 15” rMBP still works darn well for my power user workflow.

Because we're sick of paying too much for a Mac. Apple ain't what they use to be! You use to get much more for your money than you could get for a PC of the same price. Now that's not the case. You use to get optimized software, now you get crap that they changed for the sake of change. It's not any better than what Microsoft is doing with Windows. I have a 6 month old i7 5k iMac sitting on my desk collecting dust and I use an i5 Windows 10 machine with a GTX970 because there's no difference between Windows and Mac OS now and the Mac graphics hardware can't keep up on a 5k display.

 

[sir1963nz]

I bought my 2011 truck new in 2012. It met all my requirements, but I sure as heck didn't pay original MSRP. Purchased a TV first released in July 2015 in May of 16. Met all my requirements, but I didn't pay original MSRP for that either.

Apple seems to be the only company out there that can charge full price for old tech, and it's customers like you that let them get away with it with excuses like that.

My current machine was bought in 2011. Upgraded it to 16GB RAM and looking at throwing in a 512GB SSD.
It still does everything I need to do.

I edit videos with FinalCut 7, run Office 2016, Filemakerpro , Design PCBs using DipTrace, use it with my Logic Analyser , play Civ5 on it, done a few Arduino projects with it, control my Mac minis running OSX Server via VNC, etc etc etc etc.

Best of all, it has FW800 and Thunderbolt so I use it at work to check other macs that have been put into Target Mode (I run Diskwarrior, TechtoolPro,DriveGenius, etc) as well as allowing me to clone machines with CCC.

A "new" machine lacks the ports I use every week for one reason or another.

Difference between your other items, newer models had come out, and when Apple introduces a new model they too will discount the old model.

and I rarely ever pay MSRP, my work gets me cost+10% at a number of places, that sometimes gets me up to 60% discount of retail. I also get trade prices at other outlets.
And for things like shoes, I buy 2-3 pairs of the same shoe, wear one pair out, get out the next pair, and I buy when I can get them cheap. Again, saves me heaps of money, and I have no desire to live on the bleeding edge, you pay heavily for vanity.

Oh, and I bet the tyres on your truck were designed 10-15 years ago or more, still do the same job though.

 

[jalo07]

That isn't true. Apple has been loitering on old architecture for a while. On the Mac Pro side the Xeon v3 CPUs were out almost as soon as the Xeon v2 Mac Pros were in stores. They should have done an update on the Mac Pro to get the faster CPUs with more cores, as well as greater memory bandwidth.
The speculation is that Apple has been waiting for TB3 before they make another revision. And also that the Mac Pro has not really been selling since the new form factor debuted.

Yep overpriced old hardware in a pretty package. I miss the days of the "Good, Better, Best" PowerMac's And the early Intel MacPro.

 

[sir1963nz]

Nope. Both were the latest model currently available. I assume they were marked down to make room for pending replacements, as is customary in the retail market. Unless you're Apple, of course, who will be charging full price for the 2015 MBP right up until the website goes down for the 2016 MBP launch.

And in reality, what is the difference between you "new" truck and one 5 years old. No great technological updates I am sure. You however get to pay for new tooling, new parts catalog, etc etc etc simply to get a "new shape".

If they had simply kept the old model/style it would have been even cheaper, so would the cost of spares.

And how much value did your truck loose when the keys were put in your hand, more than the price of a new laptop I am sure.

 

[jnachbar]

So...the Skylake chips are available and have been for some period of time. Rationale for whether apple should have updated their products with it by now are quite far ranging based on my reading of the last 11 pages.

Some argue that apple hasn't yet because the integrated GPU (iris pro 580) isn't adequately available at this point (intel NUC, skull canyon, only so far) and/or the dedicated GPU (Polaris 10/11) isn't ready in quanity either and apple wants both. Arguments that apple should have updated to skylake by now because others (Dell, ASUS, etc.) already have are being countered by saying these others have either accepted subpar integrated graphics or made up for them with an additional dedicated graphics card.

Setting aside the discussion of if apple cares about us or not...am I understanding this debate correctly and that somewhere there is a sweet-spot between CPU/iGPU/dGPU and production schedules that make most sense?? -or- am I out to lunch?

ps I want a new Mac mini