Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Intel Experiencing Shortages of Notebook Chips?

You see, it's taking apple so long because they are going to create a truly magical upgrade to the MBP.

It's going to have:
  • The integrated intel graphics, and 2 dedicated graphics chips.
  • Intel i5/i7 AND an Apple A4 to help with extra odds and ends.
  • USB 3.0
  • Light Peak
  • 2 Mini Display ports (with adapters you can now run 4 external displays, or 2 30"+ displays, and the built on display)
  • a return of the ExpressCard slot.
  • 10 hours of battery life
 
The only take away nugget in this news is this: iX chips are very popular and Apple still does not have a single laptop model with them which is a sad fact.
 
lilo777 said:
.... and Apple still does not have a single laptop model with them which is a sad fact.
Click to expand...

That may be a factor in the delay. When Apple flips seems likely that they will flip their whole line-up. Not just 10-30% of their laptop line-up. Most of the vendors in PC land have 2-4x as many laptop models as Apple has. Their laptops with i3,i5,i7 (of the Arrandale line , not the "hotter" stuff that appears in iMacs ) are fewer in number relative to their own line-up.

Likewise, Apple has pushed the laptop percentage of their computers sold up pretty high, so this is a major number of i5's (and maybe some i3's) if do the whole laptop line in one shot ( a 17" pro with i7's are going to lower in number due to price.) Going from zero to about 3 Million a quarter. Not that Intel's plants can't do that in a serveral days if running full tilt, but they probably aren't yet. (and have other work to do , new Xeon's etc. etc. )


However, a bigger factor is that it Mac laptop line got refreshed in June after another shorter cycle. Apple has gotten the laptop launch windows out of the synch with intel's product introductions. Also because they have fewer models going to have longer release cycles than the vendors with many more models in their line up.

New MBPs in June would be late. In the next couple of weeks would be around normal. The other "normal" thing is that folks start moaning and groaning increasing louder the longer the release cycle is.
 
Interesting fantasies here.

With respect to Apple building its own laptop chips fat chance. It not that difficult to design a processor these days but that is not the issue. Rather the problem is 100% compatability in a legally salable processor.

100% Intel compatability and better than parity performance is a requirement. If Apple doesn't get that then the venture isn't worth the effort.

As to A4 that is huge unknown right now because we really don't know about any Apple IP built into the unit. So the A4 isn't really an indication at all of Apples ability to design a X86 chip. Hopefully more of A4s internals will be released shortly.

Intels shortages are another thing and happen anytime there is a significant process / architecture change. It also likely has nothing to do with the lack of new MBPs.


Dave
 
The Mac Book Pro will not be updated until around WWDC so Steve can say "One more thing .." during the OS X beta & new iPhone & iPhone OS updates for it. The Mac Pros will be updated just before WWDC to create buzz around WWDC.

I say the Mac Book Pro will be released around WWDC is because Apple knows they need a new Mac Book Pro for the traditional Fall back to school sales. The WWDC time frame would be a better release date instead of now.
 
CountSessine said:
Big picture - let's use Apple's 40% profit margin to pointlessly fund the development of an alternative x86 line that is unlikely to ever match Intel's in performance.
Click to expand...

There was nothing in the assertion that Apple would have to "cross fund" AMD chip business. AMD has money since Intel is on the hook to pay up and have spun off the foundary business. They have no need to leech off of Apple's products. The AMD 'subsidary" could live off of the same profit pipeline that Apple products current send to Intel. ( more than 10% of every Mac product price is shipped off to Intel. ) Conceptually, if Apple owned AMD and used AMD chips those profits sent to Intel would go to Apple. See the picture now ??

The major problem with buying AMD is that their x86 license can't survive a transfer. That is the major blocker. AMD can acquire a broader range of stuff, but it is major business is set up so that nobody can buy them (except Intel , which can't for regulatory reasons even if they wanted to ).

The additional notion is that if AMD had a volume increase they'd be more solvent. That's a bit questionable if a computer vendor purchases them. Same reason why Intel isn't in the labeled computer business ( they did , still? , build whiteboxes and barebones ) for "finisher" vendors to sell.


AMD has to wait for Intel to make a misstep like Netburst before they regain the performance crown. And until then they'll occupy the 'value' end of the market.
Click to expand...

AMD doesn't need the performance crown to be successful long term. Just a bit more competitive. They should take a page out of Apple's play book and just pick a subset of vectors to compete against Intel with. (Apple has a smaller number of platforms ,... no mini-tower , no netbook , no 4U server , etc. ) Intel just has too many design teams. They have the revenue to support them.

They shouldn't be counting on Intel to stumble. Better to make more sure don't stumble themselves. That's what is really got them into trouble. (not controlling complexity, i.e., not packaging two duo's into a quad, etc. )
 
To everyone saying this may be the reason for a MBP delay:

It's stupidly obvious what the problem is. Apple can't go back to Intel integrated graphics and they can't use Arrandale with nVidia's integrated solutions. Apple must be waiting to implement nVidia Optimus while trying to figure out how to shoe-horn a dedicated GPU into the 13 inch MBP. This issue is entirely about the graphics problems they're having. Otherwise, I'm absolutely positive the updates would already be out.
 
satcomer said:
The Mac Book Pro will not be updated until around WWDC so Steve can say "One more thing .." during the OS X beta & new iPhone & iPhone OS updates for it. The Mac Pros will be updated just before WWDC to create buzz around WWDC.
Click to expand...

It would be dubious for Apple to pack too many product introductions into the WWDC keynote.


The primary reason is that retail products are completely off topic for a developer convention. 55 mins of new flashy product slides leaves no time to talk about where OS X is and where it is going. OS X should be the focus of the keynote. Some discussion of the iPhone OS variant and some discussion of the Mac OS X variant.

If a product happens to be releasing in that time period fine, but to delay something for months, that is "done" (or should be "done" ) makes no sense.


Second, pruning products out of WWDC is just as reasonable as pruning them out of MacWorld. Releasing the products when they are ready and not slave to some convention schedule is better. It isn't like Apple can't afford advertising. Nor will nobody show up on campus or at Yerba Buena Center if Apple calls a press conference if the product warrants it.

Third, Apple doesn't need a new fancy product on stage for folks to be motivated to go to WWDC. More than likely WWDC will sell out again this year. Frankly, if fewer folks were buying tickets just to oogle the keynote speech, then more actual developers (who would leverage the actual content of the conference ) could go.
 
mags631 said:
I assert they do. I offer Apple's history in designing chips. Other than "strong words" what do you offer?
Click to expand...
What "history" in designing chips? Traditionally, Apple system engineers have worked along side those providing their processors (currently Intel, previously IBM and for a long time before that Motorola/Freescale) to create chipsets and mainboards for use with the processors they were using. But in regards to the engineering of the processors themselves, it's essentially been other companies responsible for what Apple used. With Intel, Apple essentially has very little input because, contrary to what the die-hard fans think, Apple is but a small piece of Intel's customer base, and is no way capable of dictating design demands. Even the A4 is based upon work that another company (whom Apple bought) did, and I would be very much surprised if it was anyone but former PA Semi employees doing the current design work. Sure, they're Apple employees now, but it's not as if Apple simply "formed some team" of existing engineers that went about creating the A4.

Now, could Apple create an X86 processor, all other issues not withstanding? Sure, but it would probably take them a fair amount of time to do so and, as others have said, it would be very doubtful that it'd be as competitive as what Intel can provide. You're talking about a firm (Intel) who spends AS MUCH on R&D each year as Apple brings in for profit. Apple simply can't compete.
 
jnc said:
I just want dedicated graphics for the 13" so I can enjoy some left 4 dead 2 next month :)
Click to expand...

Probably not going to happen, as this would mean Apple will be competing with themselves(15" and 13"), which they NEVER do(good thing).

Why would you buy a top of the line 15" if your basic 13" has dedicated graphics, and can output 1366x768 or higher on an external monitor?
 
mikethebigo said:
To everyone saying this may be the reason for a MBP delay:

It's stupidly obvious what the problem is. Apple can't go back to Intel integrated graphics and they can't use Arrandale with nVidia's integrated solutions. Apple must be waiting to implement nVidia Optimus while trying to figure out how to shoe-horn a dedicated GPU into the 13 inch MBP. This issue is entirely about the graphics problems they're having. Otherwise, I'm absolutely positive the updates would already be out.
Click to expand...

I'm 90% sure we won't see dedicated on the 13" and base 15", it would simply make no sense for Apple to offer their previously top of the line products at a base price.
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_1_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7E18 Safari/528.16)

There may be a shortage because Intel needs to ramp production up, but I don't see the point of constructing conspiracy theories around it. I think it's very simple: Apple is going to hold every launch or update until the iPad is in stores.
 
DLovett said:
Probably not going to happen, as this would mean Apple will be competing with themselves(15" and 13"), which they NEVER do(good thing).

Why would you buy a top of the line 15" if your basic 13" has dedicated graphics, and can output 1366x768 or higher on an external monitor?
Click to expand...

Using your reasoning, why would anyone buy the 17"?
 
deconstruct60 said:
There was nothing in the assertion that Apple would have to "cross fund" AMD chip business. AMD has money since Intel is on the hook to pay up and have spun off the foundary business. They have no need to leech off of Apple's products. The AMD 'subsidary" could live off of the same profit pipeline that Apple products current send to Intel. ( more than 10% of every Mac product price is shipped off to Intel. ) Conceptually, if Apple owned AMD and used AMD chips those profits sent to Intel would go to Apple. See the picture now ??
Click to expand...

The original poster that I was quoting said this:

If AMD had Apple's market share, their numbers would instantly improve to profitability. Big picture here mags...big picture
Click to expand...

Apple doesn't use AMD chips and shouldn't use AMD chips because they aren't power and performance competitive with Intel's offerings. Is Apple buying AMD and adding to AMD's market share going to fix this? Maybe a bit, after a design generation, but at Apple's expense, at least in the near term when they can't offer laptops with the best performance chips to Mac buyers.

The major problem with buying AMD is that their x86 license can't survive a transfer. That is the major blocker. AMD can acquire a broader range of stuff, but it is major business is set up so that nobody can buy them (except Intel , which can't for regulatory reasons even if they wanted to ).
Click to expand...

This is almost completely irrelevant. Even if the x86 license(s) could be transferred, buying AMD would be an incredibly dumb idea.

AMD doesn't need the performance crown to be successful long term. Just a bit more competitive. They should take a page out of Apple's play book and just pick a subset of vectors to compete against Intel with. (Apple has a smaller number of platforms ,... no mini-tower , no netbook , no 4U server , etc. ) Intel just has too many design teams. They have the revenue to support them.

They shouldn't be counting on Intel to stumble. Better to make more sure don't stumble themselves. That's what is really got them into trouble. (not controlling complexity, i.e., not packaging two duo's into a quad, etc. )
Click to expand...

This I completely agree with - but AMD is already there. AMD is already the 'value' CPU vendor - that's their niche. And it isn't the same niche that Apple is in. Using AMD chips would be a disasterous move on Apple's part.
 
DLovett said:
I'm 90% sure we won't see dedicated on the 13" and base 15", it would simply make no sense for Apple to offer their previously top of the line products at a base price.
Click to expand...
People act as if "dedicated graphics" is some type of amazing luxury. Apple could very easily offer a low-end dedicated GPU (which would still outperform essentially all integrated offerings) across the entire line of MBPs, and simply offer higher-end GPUs as a BTO option or with increases in screen size.

Was it so long ago that people have forgotten that essentially every iBook had discrete graphics. Admittedly I don't remember there really being a integrated GPU option for use with the G3s and G4s, but still, Apple's entire lineup did previously feature discrete graphics. There's no reason the MBP lineup couldn't have that again.
 
CountSessine said:
Apple doesn't use AMD chips and shouldn't use AMD chips because they aren't power and performance competitive with Intel's offerings. Is Apple buying AMD and adding to AMD's market share going to fix this? Maybe a bit, after a design generation, but at Apple's expense, at least in the near term when they can't offer laptops with the best performance chips to Mac buyers.
Click to expand...
AMD processors are still very price-to-performance efficient, so it's not exactly an impossible idea, especially given that Apple would likely see an even greater profit margin on its systems.

Now, that having been said, I hope they wouldn't, because there is still something to be said about being able to take advantage of the most powerful processors available.

However, in regards to your last line, outside of the Mac Pros and the recent i7 iMac, Apple hasn't offered any type of system "with the best performance chips to Mac buyers" for over two years, primarily when it comes to notebooks. Apple's been milking dated hardware, and a lot of people around here gladly buy into it, but the reality is that the PC laptop market has completely blown by Apple, and Apple's systems are very much dated by comparison. They're no longer the "best performance" chips, nor have they been for some time.
 
Bafflefish said:
People act as if "dedicated graphics" is this amazing luxury. Apple could very easily offer a low-end dedicated GPU (which would still outperform essentially all integrated offerings) across the entire line of MBPs, and simply offer higher-end GPUs as a BTO option or with increases in screen size.

Was it so long ago that people have forgotten that essentially every iBook had discrete graphics. Admittedly I don't remember there really being a integrated GPU option for use with the G3s and G4s, but still, Apple's entire lineup did previously feature discrete graphics. There's no reason the MBP lineup couldn't have that again.
Click to expand...

Well, it isn't like this is a surprise to Apple; they have known for some time about the contract issues between NVIDIA and Intel and likely (or should have) made plans for providing an updated CPU with whatever graphic options they wanted. This isn't something that popped up in January. Apple, like other vendors, has had plenty of time to determine how to provide a laptop with either integrated or discrete capabilities. I assume the delay is a marketing scheme to avoid impact of iPads since that is where Apple has focused all their energy of late.
 
Bafflefish said:
AMD processors are still very price-to-performance efficient, so it's not exactly an impossible idea, especially given that Apple would likely see an even greater profit margin on its systems.

Now, that having been said, I hope they wouldn't, because there is still something to be said about being able to take advantage of the most powerful processors available.

However, in regards to your last line, outside of the Mac Pros and the recent i7 iMac, Apple hasn't offered any type of system "with the best performance chips to Mac buyers" for over two years, primarily when it comes to notebooks. Apple's been milking dated hardware, and a lot of people around here gladly buy into it, but the reality is that the PC laptop market has completely blown by Apple, and Apple's systems are very much dated by comparison. They're no longer the "best performance" chips, nor have they been for some time.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Apple is way behind the performance curve with the MP and MBP.
 
Bafflefish said:
AMD processors are still very price-to-performance efficient, so it's not exactly an impossible idea, especially given that Apple would likely see an even greater profit margin on its systems.

Now, that having been said, I hope they wouldn't, because there is still something to be said about being able to take advantage of the most powerful processors available.

However, in regards to your last line, outside of the Mac Pros and the recent i7 iMac, Apple hasn't offered any type of system "with the best performance chips to Mac buyers" for over two years, primarily when it comes to notebooks. Apple's been milking dated hardware, and a lot of people around here gladly buy into it, but the reality is that the PC laptop market has completely blown by Apple, and Apple's systems are very much dated by comparison. They're no longer the "best performance" chips, nor have they been for some time.
Click to expand...

Very true. It has been a while since Apple last led the market in hardware performance terms. Even my 27inch i7 I bought a few months back and was the top of the line iMac (and still is) falls short compared to what PC manufacturers are and have been offering. Apple seems very stagnant right now. Don't get me wrong, I hope I'm not right: I want to see Apple continue to blaze trails and lead the market, just not sure what Apple is doing. Maybe they look to the App Store as the money maker and will only focus on products that wrap themselves around App Store.
 
djellison said:
Right now - I can go and buy a Core iX laptop from Sony, HP, Dell, Acer, Asus - straight off the shelf

A 'shortage' is a pathetically weak argument in explaining the tardiness of Apple in updating their outdated, overpriced laptop lineup because somehow - it's not affecting any other player.
Click to expand...

the problem is definitely the intel/nvidia issue
and probably the fine tuning of nvidia optimus
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back