Intel Launches Dual-Core and Ultra-Low Voltage Ivy Bridge Processors

[nuckinfutz]

I don't think Apple will get rid of the mac lineup anytime soon. After all at the moment we need a mac to make apps for our iOS devices! I can't see apps being made on an iPad! Even typing this message is annoying with the onscreen keyboard!
I could potentially see them licensing OSX on non apple computers if the mac business was not profitable anymore. Doubtful though!
Also, if I think of all the people I know/ work with/ meet everyday they all still love the mac. If there is a consumer want for the mac then there will always be a professional need for a mac pro.

Mac biz is 22 billion annually according to Tim Cook. Shareholder revolt would ensue if Apple tried to walk away from that much money. Besides the Mac is growing and anyone telling you that you can be as productive on an iPad as a Mac is lying. Perhaps in certain edge cases like writing but for the most part a computer with a filesystem, automation and collaboration tools is still superior to a tablet.

 

[gibbo132]

Mac biz is 22 billion annually according to Tim Cook. Shareholder revolt would ensue if Apple tried to walk away from that much money. Besides the Mac is growing and anyone telling you that you can be as productive on an iPad as a Mac is lying. Perhaps in certain edge cases like writing but for the most part a computer with a filesystem, automation and collaboration tools is still superior to a tablet.

I agree, I simply cannot use an iPad for writing up long documents. The whole keyboard idea does not work either. It is not an elegant solution. The mac isn't going anywhere.

 

[notjustjay]

I agree, I simply cannot use an iPad for writing up long documents. The whole keyboard idea does not work either. It is not an elegant solution. The mac isn't going anywhere.

Agreed, but look at those sales numbers and you'll find that the majority of that is coming from the mobile Mac products: MacBook Air, MacBook Pro. Those aren't going away any time soon. The fate of the Mac Mini and Mac Pro is what I am questioning.

Look at the two pie charts at the bottom of this post:

http://arstechnica.com/apple/2011/10/despite-record-mac-sales-70-of-apples-revenue-comes-from-ios/

Desktop Mac sales make up just 6% of Apple's revenue. And that's split between iMacs, Mac Minis and Mac Pros. I'm guessing that amongst that 6%, iMacs make up the majority. Meaning Mac Mini and Mac Pros make up just a tiny sliver of Apple's revenue.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

17w and 3Ghz

Isn't anyone going to put on their progress hat and "notice" that we can buy 17 watt chips that can "turbo" to 3GHz? It wasn't that long ago that Apple was promising 3GHz Power PC CPUs but couldn't actually get them delivered for the infamous PowerMac G5. Now here we are talking about power-sipping chips (17 watts!!!) able to exceed that old barrier. Wow!

 

[Rocketman]

Tim Cook said expressly yesterday at D10 in CA that he feels the tablet and PC evolutions are on different paths. That clearly indicates to me his commitment to Mac is unwaivering, while he manages the iPad to market dominance without regard to it possibly cannibalizing PCs, and in the hopes it cannibalizes more other brand PCs than Apple PCs.

I would not be surprised to see increasing evolution of Apple branded silicon and even possibly into a low end ed only MacBook with ARM style chips. Probably the base station for a classroom pod of iPad 7's and one base station unit. Classrooms are set up for overhead projectors so I would expect the base to have a projector feature.

Rocketman

 

[Skullbussa]

The iPad will *never* replace a laptop computer. It's physically impossible. That is, until someone finds a method to type characters onto a screen without the use of a keyboard that is as fast/accurate as a regular keyboard (not the awful touchscreen variety).

The laptop computer is alive and very healthy. It's going nowhere.

Now where is my updated 17" MBP?? I could care less about these tiny ultrabooks....

 

[DakotaGuy]

Agreed, but look at those sales numbers and you'll find that the majority of that is coming from the mobile Mac products: MacBook Air, MacBook Pro. Those aren't going away any time soon. The fate of the Mac Mini and Mac Pro is what I am questioning.

Look at the two pie charts at the bottom of this post:

http://arstechnica.com/apple/2011/10/despite-record-mac-sales-70-of-apples-revenue-comes-from-ios/

Desktop Mac sales make up just 6% of Apple's revenue. And that's split between iMacs, Mac Minis and Mac Pros. I'm guessing that amongst that 6%, iMacs make up the majority. Meaning Mac Mini and Mac Pros make up just a tiny sliver of Apple's revenue.

I can see the day rapidly approaching that the iMac is the only Mac desktop offered. The day is getting close.

 

[GSPice]

The point is, if a chip runs hotter a chip runs hotter at any temp.
The very last thing you want in ANY Apple product (due to overly snug designs) is any component running hotter. You always want to get the heat out of the CPU and into the cooling parts of your computer design.

I'm pretty sure Apple has it taken care of. This is why they have some of the best design engineers. At least, since the M7642LL/A.

 

[Icaras]

I can see the day rapidly approaching that the iMac is the only Mac desktop offered. The day is getting close.

I agree actually. I don't think the Mac will ever die but I think Apple has long term ideas to trim the family down even more.

 

[bsolar]

No they are worse.
Rather than use proper decent soldered on heat spreaders on the CPU's that Sandybridge has/has they are using cheap and nasty thermal compound so the chips are being found to run hotter due to the worse cooling of this change.

They run hotter only if you overclock them. If you don't overclock them the thermal paste is able to transfer heat well enough to cool them correctly.

 

[shardey]

They run hotter only if you overclock them. If you don't overclock them the thermal paste is able to transfer heat well enough to cool them correctly.

It's the point that Intel added on more thermal resistance when they could have used solder to bring the heat down even more.

Wouldn't you want them to cool your CPU down more? Thus providing MacRumors with less threads about "Macbook Pro Overheating" "Heating Issues" etc.

 

[Piggie]

They run hotter only if you overclock them. If you don't overclock them the thermal paste is able to transfer heat well enough to cool them correctly.

Cool them ENOUGH
As opposed to cool them as well as they could be cooled for the cost of probably another dollar on a $300 chip

Making it cheaper and not work as well, could only be regarded as a plus on a Mac forum.

 

[cfedu]

The iPad will *never* replace a laptop computer. It's physically impossible. That is, until someone finds a method to type characters onto a screen without the use of a keyboard that is as fast/accurate as a regular keyboard (not the awful touchscreen variety).

The laptop computer is alive and very healthy. It's going nowhere.

Now where is my updated 17" MBP?? I could care less about these tiny ultrabooks....

The iPad will no replace a notebook anytime soon for other reasons, not the keyboard. You can use an external keyboard!!! Have you every tried to type with a desktop tower? Very hard to do, but with an external keyboard a desktop computer is pretty good for typing.

Even with an external keyboard I found that typing on an iPad to be a bad experience due to having to touch the screen constantly. I don't think the mouse and keyboard will be replaced anytime soon.

 

[wizard]

For machines like the AIRs they will be excellent!

Are these better all round than Sandy-Bridge? Or just for things like integrated Graphics? Is it much of a benefit in a machine with a dedicated video card?

All around better is a difficult question to respond to. For example, clock for clock the IB chips don't show huge CPU improvements however they can run at higher clock rates.

As to the dedicated video card question, IB can be a big benefit if the GPU is enabled for OpenCL support while the Dedicated GPU runs.

In any event the chips released today and listed in this article, should be very welcomed by people that enjoy the Mac Book AIRs. That is if Apple uses them at all, AMDs Trinity is a very powerful competitor to these chips.

 

[chirpie]

The argument that "pros need powerful PCs" is becoming less of an issue these days as the technology gets more and more powerful. I remember setting up a video-editing PC 12 years ago and spec'ing powerful hardware with equipment that nobody else needed: huge hard drives, FireWire, etc. Today even your $199 Best Buy special has more than enough power to do the same tasks.

Huh. I spend hours/days waiting for my Cinema 4D, Twixtor, and Final Cut X projects to export/render out. That's on an i7 iMac from last year. My 2009 tower at home is actually faster on a lot of these tasks (no surprise) but darn it all, I'd really like something FASTER.

Besides, if consumers can clamor for a more powerful machine year after year, why can't the pro?

 

[nuckinfutz]

Huh. I spend hours/days waiting for my Cinema 4D, Twixtor, and Final Cut X projects to export/render out. That's on an i7 iMac from last year. My 2009 tower at home is actually faster on a lot of these tasks (no surprise) but darn it all, I'd really like something FASTER.

Besides, if consumers can clamor for a more powerful machine year after year, why can't the pro?

#1

Those that say faster computers aren't needed perhaps haven't exported much video. Gonna get even worse when acquisition and editing moves to 4K.

An iMac isn't going to survive the beating.

 

[chirpie]

Even with an external keyboard I found that typing on an iPad to be a bad experience due to having to touch the screen constantly. I don't think the mouse and keyboard will be replaced anytime soon.

If for no other reason than our arms would just get too tired. ^_^

----------

An iMac isn't going to survive the beating.

I actually lower the brightness on my screen just to help the poor thing keep cooler. ^_^;

 

[wizard]

I suspect many are missing your point entirely.

The point is, if a chip runs hotter a chip runs hotter at any temp.
The very last thing you want in ANY Apple product (due to overly snug designs) is any component running hotter. You always want to get the heat out of the CPU and into the cooling parts of your computer design.

However we know nothing about how these chips are constructed. Intel could support better thermals on the ULV chips, especially knowing where they will go. Further given Apples position they could simply order the chips with a better thermal arrangement.

I think what people mis is that getting something like an AIR to work well thermally demands attention to the little details. Adding impedance to thermal transfer is not the way to a state of the art AIR.

 

[theSeb]

No they are worse.
Rather than use proper decent soldered on heat spreaders on the CPU's that Sandybridge has/has they are using cheap and nasty thermal compound so the chips are being found to run hotter due to the worse cooling of this change.



http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2171299/intel-admits-ivy-bridge-chips-run-hotter

http://www.geek.com/articles/chips/...-due-to-intels-thermal-paste-choice-20120514/

http://www.overclockers.com/ivy-bridge-temperatures

I guess the "Managers" thought they could save a few cents per chip by doing this, and hence ruin them

To make it even worse and even more unforgivable, it appears from one of those articles, replacing the cheap heat sink compound with a higher quality one, drops loads off the CPU temps.
Now only have they switched to compound rather than solder them on (Sandybridge) but they appear to have used really cheap and poor performing compound.



/

(Why vote this posting down, I'm only reporting FACTS, don't dislike "my post" due to Intels poor decision on how the new CPU'd are built.) Don't shoot the messenger just because you don't like the message!


/

Perhaps you didn't read the articles and facts you just posted, but they are about what happens when you OVERCLOCK the Ivy Bridge DESKTOP CPUs and have nothing to do with their operating temperature at normal frequencies (including turbo boost). This has been well documented and tested by sites like Anandtech and Tomshardware, which do actual testing as opposed to regurgitating something they've read somewhere.

All reviews show that Ivy Bridge runs cooler or at the same temperatures as SNB, whilst being faster. In fact, today Anandtech posted their review of one of the ULV CPUs that will make their way into the 2012 MBA.

In terms of pure battery life, the Ivy Bridge prototype is good for nearly six hours of movie playback, close to eight hours of Internet surfing, and over 8.5 hours of idle time. It comes close to the top of our charts, though we could point out that the similar ASUS UX31E Sandy Bridge Ultrabook bests it in every category. Then again, ASUS has done very well in battery life comparisons for most of their laptops. Compared to the Acer S3, the IVB Ultrabook comes out ahead in Internet and behind in the other two disciplines; it does better against the Toshiba Portege Z830, Dell XPS 13, HP Folio 13, and matches or exceeds the Acer M3. Overall, given the improved performance, battery life looks to be similar or slightly better than Sandy Bridge Ultrabooks, which is quite acceptable.

Thermals are reasonable under load at 79/80C, and most of that heat is right in the back-middle section of the chassis, so you’re not as apt to notice if you’ve got it resting on your lap. Along with the heat, let's quickly discuss acoustics.
The IVB Ultrabook is pretty much silent and registers well under the noise floor of our testing equipment during idle/light use, though the fan may occasionally spin up. Start running a few applications and depending on how hard they hit the CPU/GPU—and for how long—you’ll get a bump in noise to around 35dB. Under our stress test, which you’ll also get if you play any moderately demanding game or do some CPU intensive tasks, the Ultrabook becomes far more audible at 43dB. Again, given the not-for-resale nature of the system, it’s not something we’re particularly concerned with.

Considering that my 2011 MBA can happily hit 95 degrees Celsius, 80 C would be very welcome.

I am not really sure why you felt the need to spread this as alarmist FUD without actually understanding what you were posting since over clocking has nothing to do with a Mac computer (you need access to the BIOS /EFI) and it has nothing to do with Ivy Bridge Mobile CPUs.

Here are the issues that the articles you cite mention, but explained in full detail:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5763/undervolting-and-overclocking-on-ivy-bridge

Under-volting or over-clocking your CPU is not something a Mac user is concerned about.

----------

The point is, if a chip runs hotter a chip runs hotter at any temp.
The very last thing you want in ANY Apple product (due to overly snug designs) is any component running hotter. You always want to get the heat out of the CPU and into the cooling parts of your computer design.

No, that's not the point. Did you actually read and understand what the articles said? How can a chip run hotter at any temperature? That does not make any sense. I think you meant at any frequency or voltage. That is not correct. At stock settings Ivy Bridge runs cooler than Sandy Bridge.

 

[notjustjay]

Huh. I spend hours/days waiting for my Cinema 4D, Twixtor, and Final Cut X projects to export/render out. That's on an i7 iMac from last year. My 2009 tower at home is actually faster on a lot of these tasks (no surprise) but darn it all, I'd really like something FASTER.

Besides, if consumers can clamor for a more powerful machine year after year, why can't the pro?

Hey, I'm not disagreeing with you. All I'm saying is that today's machines are generally fast enough for work that something like 90% of Mac buyers do -- gaming, internet, Office, maybe light video encoding. So Apple designs machines with enough horsepower to meet those needs, and still be able to make tradeoffs to do with size, weight, battery life, cost, etc.

And of course "powerful enough" is a moving target, and keeps getting faster over time.

As a pro, you need even more, I get that. You're the other 10%. You don't want "powerful enough", you want "give me everything you've got". What's evident to me is that Apple's response is "Sorry, it's just not worth the effort. The cost/benefit ratio drops as we make more powerful machines for a smaller target audience. You'll just have to make do with what everyone else gets."

Or I guess buy a more powerful workstation from some other company, if you can get by without OS X apps.

 

[Xcallibur]

I would love to see i5-3360M in the base 13" MacBook Pro along with the retina display. Or maybe even i7-3520M, but i guess this i7 might be a little too expensive for a $1199 MacBook. Perhaps as a BTO option...?

This is how I see processors in 2012 MBP 13" lineup:

$1199: i5-3360M, with BTO option of i7-3520M for additional $150
$1499: i7-3612QM

Likely or not? What do you think?

I would be expecting the i7-3612QM processor in a £1000 laptop, anythig less would make me feel ripped off a little.

 

[yeah]

Is it possible for the 13 inch pro to have quad core? I remember hearing a reason but was hoping that was no longer the case after all this time.

It is possible. The mobile i7 list shows a 35W (suitable for 13" pro) quad-core i7.

 

[3282868]

Huh. I spend hours/days waiting for my Cinema 4D, Twixtor, and Final Cut X projects to export/render out. That's on an i7 iMac from last year. My 2009 tower at home is actually faster on a lot of these tasks (no surprise) but darn it all, I'd really like something FASTER.

Besides, if consumers can clamor for a more powerful machine year after year, why can't the pro?

Careful, I made this exact claim and got hammered here. I asked the mod's to remove my comment, just getting tired of the vitriol by some, it's enough to just stop participating.

 

[DocNYz]

Tim Cook said expressly yesterday at D10 in CA that he feels the tablet and PC evolutions are on different paths. That clearly indicates to me his commitment to Mac is unwaivering, while he manages the iPad to market dominance without regard to it possibly cannibalizing PCs, and in the hopes it cannibalizes more other brand PCs than Apple PCs.

I would not be surprised to see increasing evolution of Apple branded silicon and even possibly into a low end ed only MacBook with ARM style chips. Probably the base station for a classroom pod of iPad 7's and one base station unit. Classrooms are set up for overhead projectors so I would expect the base to have a projector feature.

Rocketman

Seriously, they're for different markets. Entry level/normal consumers may be satisfied with iPads as time goes on, but pro users will always need professional fully functional hardware. It's like when Steve drew the chart when he went back to apple with four parts: Consumer, Pro and Desktop, Portable. That was in 1997. These are still distinct markets and as Rocketman said, Tim just said he still feels the same way. Visual similarities across OSs to make things stay in sync does NOT mean they're going to melt into one, single mid level tablet in the future. There isn't one type of user. No one is going to make a Pixar movie on a ****ing iPad.

 

[TEG]

Come on Apple. I have cash in hand for a 15" MacBook Pro, with USB 3, and hopefully a Blu-Ray drive (if not, I can get an external), and I still was my Firewire port, Retina display or not.

TEG