Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
desktop CPU for most people is a solved problem. there's no real killer app that needs more CPU than what we currently have (for 99% of people anyway).

mobile is still about "Race to sleep". faster CPU = more idle CPU = less power consumption. So there's plenty of scope for real end-user benefit there. Having a blisteringly fast mobile CPU is a nice side effect - but make a current MBP (for example) actually work hard and listen to the fans :D



"precise enough?"

Well amd can be buyed easyer than intel, and can be made own;)
 
Well this is just terrible. My late '06 MBP is really starting to show its limitations.

Me and everyone else, right? :rolleyes:
 
This is why AMD needs to get its **** together and engineer a processor that can compete with Intel at the i7 level.
 
Gotta love Chipzilla monopoly power :(

Hopefully Apple will be one of the first to update since all the other companies offer USB 3.

I'm not going to spend $2000+ on an iMac with USB 2 when it's the last gen before Ivy bridge with USB 3.
 
I stopped reading at "DigiTimes reports". They have no credibility in my book. So many of their reports turn out to be wrong, that's why.
 
I would almost bet that Apple scored an early exclusivity deal.

I reckon this is on the money as well.


As to buying intel? Why would Apple do that? CPUs are not their core business. Apple themselves are fairly CPU agnostic, they've jumped ship multiple times in the past; doing something like buying AMD or Intel would be a massive gamble.

If someone was to bring out a design better than either intel or AMD have in their portfolio (maybe a future ARM, maybe a Quantum CPU?), currently apple is free to jump ship. If they owned AMD or intel, they've suddenly got a very expensive white elephant on the books.

Apple is a software/IP company, not really a hardware company. All the manufacturing is outsourced - I don't really believe it is in apple's interests attempt running their own fab when there are already others out there who can probably do a better job of it.
 
It would be nice to see Apple land themselves an early score of Ivy Bridge CPU's but honestly I am not too devestated.

I bought an early 2011 13" MBP as my first ever Mac after years and years of diehard PC use and I am loving it so much that my next desktop PC will be an iMac. However my current desktop PC is Sandybridge so honestly I am kind of glad I don't see shiny new Ivy Bridge iMac's on the apple store tempting me to abuse my poor credit card :p

Sad for those waiting on Ivybridge to upgrade, hopefully Apple has indeed scored an early exclusitivity deal with Intel.

Obviously not a whole lot is known about Ivybridge at this stage but I am of the understanding that the advantages of it will be mainly felt in the MBP/MBA lines due to the variable TDP, where as the iMac and Mac Pro won't really need this so may only see a 10-15% improvement in performance over Sandybridge? If this is the case maybe those desperate for a new iMac should just bite the bullet and pick up a current one. They aren't exactly lacking in performance, and waiting 4+ months for a maybe 15% performance advantage is something maybe a few of you should think about?
 
I would almost bet that Apple scored an early exclusivity deal.

I hope that's true. Intel and Apple seem to have been very friendly at times.

I am waiting for the 2012 iMac revision for the switch over from PC (years too late for me). My pc is dying a slow painful death, but I don't want buyers remorse instead.

The other thing is I suppose we don't know how many limited means. Intel maybe more willing to release the cou's earlier to Apple due to the increasing sales across the product line, in comparison to the stagnated and slowing if pc sales. Well I can hope anyway.
 
Well amd can be buyed easyer than intel, and can be made own;)

Lets put this one to bed: If AMD gets bought, their x86 license will not transfer. Not to mention there's the little thing about them buying ATI. ATI GPUs are currently the best out there. I don't see that business drying up anytime soon, although I do expect that pretty soon IGPs will be pretty much all you see. If anything were to happen to their CPU division, it would be to be dropped entirely.
 
Last edited:
This vindicates my decision to purchase a refurbished 27" 3.4GHz iMac two weeks ago on the intuition that the current range is so good that there's no way they'll release the ivy bridge iMacs before June and probably later.

The 'refurb' iMac was brand new (still had adhesive on screen), only manufactured a month ago and came with 8GB ram an upgraded 2GB card and a 2TB drive, as a free bonus.
 
Not a big deal, Intel do take your time. I don't see real world usage been that different from now.
 
ARM MacBook Airs are inevitable.

[...] While observers have been hoping that such an update could come as soon as April with the Ivy Bridge timeline, it is now unclear whether the chips will be available in sufficient supplies for Apple to update the MacBook Pro within that timeframe.

And some people out there still naively think that Apple isn't planning MacBook Airs with ARM CPUs.

There's no hurry, of course. Intel-based MBAs are selling like hotcakes and the Ultrabook herd have no response. "Flummoxed," as Steve would say. But Apple has been at the mercy of Motorola and IBM for PowerPC CPUs before. And they've been burned badly. Twice burned, thrice shy.

Depending on a single 3rd party for CPUs, or any crucial component, means that Apple doesn't control their destiny. Motorola dragged their feet fixing PowerPC bugs and ramping up clock speeds. Motorola and IBM ran into the clock speed and operating temperature walls. Apple suffered through that for years, and Steve had to admit in the middle of one of his MWSF keynotes that the PowerPC didn't reach the 3GHz that he had promised. Two years after that, they still hadn't reached 3GHz. That was just before Apple switched Macs to Intel.

There was a brief Apple-Intel honeymoon, when Intel built custom chips for Apple (ironically for the original MacBook Air) and gave Apple early exclusivity on speed-bumped CPUs and chipsets. But the honeymoon was over by the time Apple picked ARM for iPhone and all iOS devices. There were far too many advantages to using ARM SoCs over the power-hungry Intel Atom CPUs. Intel was left behind in the mobile space, and they may never catch up.

ARM-based MacBook Airs would also benefit from using ARM chips. The MBA would extend its technical and competitive advantages: lower cost, lower power consumption, increased battery life, and cooler and quieter fanless operation. All of which Intel and their partners will be very hard-pressed to replicate.

What's that? You say ARM MacBook Airs won't run Windows? Well exactly how many consumers run Windows on their MacBook Airs right now? And would it be worth delaying the ARM transition for that tiny minority? I say no.

The vast majority of MBA owners use their MBAs for surfing, email, tweeting, texting, iLife, and iWork. (It is, after all, Apple's cheapest all-in-one Mac line, and therefore the mass market line.) An ARM-based MBA will be able to handle that easily with a little more development. A quad-core ARM chip of sufficient clock speed should be enough. And guess what. The iPad 3 just might have a quad-core ARM SoC. And if not this year, next year for sure. Remember: Apple isn't in a big hurry.

I'm sure Tim Cook has done the math. There's a Keynote slide, on an iPad somewhere in Cupertino, with a graph that shows exactly when ARM chips all be powerful enough to run OS X, and its suite of apps, on MacBook Airs. It's just a matter of time.
 
Last edited:
Intel delaying the introduction of a new generation until they sold off some of their overstock of the previous processors.

Looks like there is no competitor in sight, AMD not really being a competitor on the high end (which is where MBP and MP are located).

Total concentration of market power.
 
that would piss off other guys even more. End of the day Apple is not threat of leaving intel and going AMD. The other guys that is a real and viable threat as they already produce AMD power things. It would mean they would up their order of AMD CPUs and start cutting back on Intel. Apple does not really have any tools it can use against Intel. On top of that Apple has earned a reputation not to be trusted at all so Apple really does not have any tools to force such an agreement.

They don't get the exclusives, cos they aren't willing to (usually can't due to margins) pay the money to get the exclusives.

----------

Shhhh. Don't rain on everyone's parade. Many here think that the world revolves around Apple.

Other manufacturers will use an awful lot more cheaper OEM CPU package offerings, where as Apple does not use any.
 
Well amd can be buyed easyer than intel, and can be made own;)

Buying AMD makes no sense for Apple, for several reasons:
1) Intel has the edge on performance so Apple would either need to spend a lot of money to match that - money they could use to buy faster Intel chips instead
2) AMD makes the bulk of it's revenue from non-Apple PC manufacturers - how happy would why be to put money into a competitor's pocket? They can move purchase to Intel, making Apple absorb more of the costs over a smaller volume - lowering any cost advantage AMD has over Intel.


Apple would be better served improving the ARM processor to the point where variants can run iOS and OSX and use them as the basis for their products. As long as the OS works week users don't care about the chipset running it.
 
This rumor has no bearing on Mac Pros, so everyone can untwist their panties. The next Mac Pro line will be based on Sandy Bridge Xeons, which are just about ready. That line will then be upgraded again when Ivy Bridge Xeons are ready, which may be quite a while.

Apple's not going to wait for Ivy Bridge Xeons, since that would probably mean another six months or a year, and Apple is fully aware that people have been waiting a long time for new Mac Pros. I'm sure Apple is just as eager for a refresh as everyone else, and they'll be happy to dispel rumors that the line is being killed off, by releasing a second update as soon as Ivy Bridge Xeons come along (which, again, are distinct from desktop-class Ivy Bridge CPUs). The hold-up has been solely a result of Intel's slow production of suitable Sandy Bridge Xeons.

As for Ivy Bridge desktop (really mobile) processors, if Intel is talking about delaying mass availability until after June, that certainly implies somebody is getting some supply before June. Since Apple has higher margins and a willingness to spend their cash for exclusive components in the past, it makes sense that Apple might be the one getting those early chips. We'll see what happens in April or May.

There is no ARM MacBook. They don't have the power needed. I'm sure there's a prototype somewhere, along with prototypes for all sorts of crazy things, but that prototype sucks. We know this because ARM uses more power at comparable speeds than Intel's offerings. This is not a knock on ARM, ARM is great for what it's great for, stuff like iPads and iPhones. But seriously, guys, your iPad might be amazing at running lightweight apps on a small screen but it's nothing like a desktop or laptop CPU.
 
ARM-based MacBook Airs would also benefit from using ARM chips. The MBA would extend its technical and competitive advantages: lower cost, lower power consumption, increased battery life, and cooler and quieter fanless operation. All of which Intel and their partners will be very hard-pressed to replicate.

What's that? You say ARM MacBook Airs won't run Windows? Well exactly how many consumers run Windows on their MacBook Airs right now? And would it be worth delaying the ARM transition for that tiny minority? I say no.

As one of that minority I would like to keep that capability but am not to worried about if if Apple goes to ARM for notebooks. If (when) they become powerful enough to drive MBA's or whatever MS will probably have Windows on ARM working well simply because other manufacturers will use ARM chipsets as well for their products. Windows 8 already has started the Windows on ARM migration. It's only a matter of time and we'll be able to use Bootcamp or a VM to run those must have Win programs.
 
I wonder what "mass availability" means. Intel could launch a few versions of Ivy Bridge as planned (On January 19, Intel CEO Paul Otellini said: "We'll launch Ivy Bridge, our first 22-nanometer product, in early spring") and then have many versions launch later throughout the year. Isn't that what they always do?
 
And some people out there still naively think that Apple isn't planning MacBook Airs with ARM CPUs.

The vast majority of MBA owners use their MBAs for surfing, email, tweeting, texting, iLife, and iWork. (It is, after all, Apple's cheapest all-in-one Mac line, and therefore the mass market line.) An ARM-based MBA will be able to handle that easily with a little more development. A quad-core ARM chip of sufficient clock speed should be enough. And guess what. The iPad 3 just might have a quad-core ARM SoC. And if not this year, next year for sure. Remember: Apple isn't in a big hurry.

ARM-based processors are no where near powerful enough to run high performance apps (much less many of them at once). I think that once ARM starts adding performance to their cores they will face the same challenges with power.

Interesting article on this very topic:
http://www.cultofmac.com/144942/why-youll-probably-never-own-a-mac-with-an-arm-processor-feature/
 
Is it possible that the delay of Intel's Ivy Bridge processors is caused by the fact that Apple needs them in order to release a new line of their Macs?

I mean, the delay will not be actually a delay. The processors will at first be implemented in iMacs and MacBooks, and then the official release of the new Apple's line will be unveiled along with Intel's new CPU's.

I recall last year something similar had happened. Sandy Bridge processor was released just along with Apple's new MacBook Pro line (or it was about Thunderbolt technology?)
 
I am not worry about this delay since I have my macbook pro to use. But from Intel perspective, if most customer are waiting for the new CPUs, SB can't be sold out quickly, so maybe June is not the date for mass release of IVB.

Intel, Keep postponing the release date of IVB, we will waiting, waiting and waiting.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.