they're too busy doing financial engineering and straps developing
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Intel Begins Shipping First Kaby Lake Processors, but Most Macs Won't Get Them Until 2017
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Apparently you haven't seen the mockups of the OLED bar above the keypad? That's useful.
The excuse about Intel causing delays worked for a few months last year. Skylake has been out and available for a long, long time now and Apple's serious computing hardware hasn't been updated in well over a year (or 3 years for the Mac Pro). Just because your system works for you doesn't mean that it is good enough for everybody else. And why should customers pay premium prices for hardware that is now 2+ years behind Windows-based laptops? Oh, wait -- customers AREN'T paying, which is why Apple sales declined so much while other vendors increased.
It isn't about being pissed. It's about getting reasonable value. Right now Mac hardware is absurdly overpriced.
Yes they're definitely still too expensive. And there are a lot of newer Xeon options for the Mac Pro.
But every time I ask this, I don't get a response. Which mobile i7 do you suggest Apple put in the 15" rMBP that is more powerful than the i7-4980HQ (other than the i7-5950HQ which is pretty much identical in performance anyway)?
People here keep saying "oh there are newer i7 chips released". They get seas of thumbs up and standing ovations. But the moment you ask them to name a chip, they go quiet.
Timmy is not able to manage a relationship since he is busy talking about LGBT rights all day and night.
Steve would have either straighten Intel, bought them, change CPU vendor or develop and use Apple own chip.
Clueless accountant Tim is not able to manage any company, he is not able to react or fight in a super fast brutal tech world.
He and the board have to go, they are Apple's cancer
Steve would have either straighten Intel, bought them, change CPU vendor or develop and use Apple own chip.
Clueless accountant Tim is not able to manage any company, he is not able to react or fight in a super fast brutal tech world.
He and the board have to go, they are Apple's cancer
Yeah, and my mom is perfectly happy with her 8-year-old Windows box. That's just about as relevant.
By any measure Mac hardware is outdated. It lags in performance on every benchmark when compared to current Windows hardware, yet costs more. It is more than a generation behind the available CPUs and GPUs. Heck, it doesn't even incorporate any of the changes made on other Apple hardware in the past few years, such as USB-C ports or the butterfly keyboard (not that I really want either of those).
So, Macbook Pros and the Mac Pro are behind the industry, behind their suppliers, and even behind Apple's own products. is there any way that you can say that current macs are NOT outdated?
Why don't you name the new generation i7 Intel chip they should be shipping in the 15" rMBPs? The one that's much more powerful, according to everybody here.
I hope not, unless Apple makes a hybrid macOS/iOS device (which they probably won't ever do).
Personally I wouldn't mind such a device.
Skylake is more future-proof than Haswell. If I recall correctly, Skylake can drive multiple external 4K monitors while Haswell cannot.
Well, what percentage of Macs sold are actually using Intel's fastest cores? That's not really the target. Also, for anything not plugged in -- which is Apple's most popular and important lines -- "fastest" isn't the key benchmark. It's processing power per watt at a certain level of processing (per core). E.g., GFLOPs per watt at X GFLOPs. The A9X is good there, albeit at a lower level of overall processing power.
Now, I don't know how well Apple will be able to maintain it's processing power per watt ratio as it increases the overall processing power to make their CPU able to handle the load of, e.g., a 13" MBP but it's hardly a foregone conclusion that it will be too hard for them to accomplish.
Note that *today* the A9X is on par with the current entry-level 13" Retina MBP in single core and close on multicore.
You can get Haswell with Thunderbolt 3 support on X99 motherboards. It can drive those monitors. That only applies to PCs though.
http://www.gigabyte.com/press-center/news-page.aspx?nid=1421
I feel like Apple is most likely to continue improving iOS until it reaches the point where macOS doesn't need to exist anymore, and then they'll just start killing off the Macs.
Core i7-6970HQ or Core i7-6920HQ. Lower power draw, better memory bandwidth, more L2 cache. Available since late 2015 (6920) or 1Q 2016 (6970).
Next question?
As others posted, there are no CPU's with the GT4e graphics chip available yet.
Kaby Lake integrates the TB controller into the main board. That will be important.
Because Apple uses Intel's most powerful chips (CPU + GPU), I expect Apple's pro machines to always be updated last.
There is also the question of the logic bug which plagued the first release of Skylake CPUs.
I read this elsewhere as a possibility as well.
What's apparent here and in the gloriously long "Waiting for Skylake MacBook Pro" thread is that Intel's branding of processors is seriously confusing to uninformed consumers.
There is no singular "KabyLake" processor, nor is there even just i3, i5, i7. The same goes for Skylake. The 6770, 6780 and 6790 i7's appropriate for the 2016 MacBook Pro were supposedly released in May... ish, but there haven't been many seen in the wild yet. Intel's pages still say Q1 for release, but that's certainly not true. Still, many consumers seem to think "Skylake" is something released back in September, outdated as soon as "KabyLake" releases.
Honestly though, if you don't get the difference between various Skylake processors, you shouldn't be complaining about Apple products being outdated. You clearly don't follow processor tech closely and thus are probably not the kind of user who needs the incrementally better power one generation offers over the other.
There is no singular "KabyLake" processor, nor is there even just i3, i5, i7. The same goes for Skylake. The 6770, 6780 and 6790 i7's appropriate for the 2016 MacBook Pro were supposedly released in May... ish, but there haven't been many seen in the wild yet. Intel's pages still say Q1 for release, but that's certainly not true. Still, many consumers seem to think "Skylake" is something released back in September, outdated as soon as "KabyLake" releases.
Honestly though, if you don't get the difference between various Skylake processors, you shouldn't be complaining about Apple products being outdated. You clearly don't follow processor tech closely and thus are probably not the kind of user who needs the incrementally better power one generation offers over the other.
Anything to back this up? And no, geek bench does not count.
[doublepost=1469131053][/doublepost]
So you have multiple external 4K monitors? Impressive! And probably the only thing where Skylake is truly more "future proof".
Apple never had a real Pro line, just a Pro line name to make consumers feel "Pro". At core components they were always behind, except for few small consumer interfaces. Real Pros do not use Apple. You won't see any engineers building the next Boing Airplane or BMW Car or next Space Station or an Sky Skaper on Apple devices. Not even the milling machines they use are controlled by Apple devices, they are controlled by Windows boxes.
Apple is pure consumer oriented. Spec wise their pro "line" is a joke.
That is a good point and the reason why it's looking like my 2011 17" will be my main machine well into 2018 at least.
My trusty 17 and backup 2012 15" are more flexible, upgradeable, and "connectable" than any current Mac.
I'm not a weakling so 6.6lbs is still light for me, when you consider that I can have 4TB of storage in 2 SSDs RAID 0, upgrade/replace RAM at will, connect to Ethernet networks without a dongle, and expand the machine's capabilities using the Expresscard slot (USB3, eSATA, FW, etc) for use with legacy-yet-still-prevalent systems.
All with an I-don't-envy-Retina 17" screen. I honestly have zero need to use my iMac 27" at all. I'm actually looking to sell it and find another 17" somewhere. True desktop replacement.
That said, I'm looking for game changing tech in my Mac: TB3. The potential to add an external graphics card is key. I'd be (almost) willing to give everything else up (except for the screen size).
I wonder if Expresscard can handle that much bandwidth (haven't checked). If it does, then I'd be keeping my current Mac even longer.
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.
Yes, part of argument is that they will need to bring the two OSes closer together. Personally I am okay with iOS with few exception. Better file system and better multitasking (multiple open apps) are the two main items.
When was that? Other than the one time Apple got some low power Intel chips before others for the original Macbook Air, I seem to recall that nearly every other Apple computer was a little bit behind the times when it came to specs. Seriously, this made me laugh.
With exceptions few and far in between, Apple has always been about a generation or more behind with CPU architecture, and has charged a large premium for having OS X, quality materials and build quality, and good support.