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 Launches First Eighth-Generation Core Processors, Paving Way For Quad-Core 13-Inch MacBook Pro
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Subject: "first four eighth-generation processors"
I know what I said. I know what they said. I'm not interested in playing games with you on semantics.
True, but they didn't release a Broadwell for desktop, other than a couple CPUs with Iris graphics, and they felt like the were only available for a few weeks before Skylake showed up.
No, now it is tick tock tock tock tock tock tock boom.
[doublepost=1503375546][/doublepost]
The early yield rates for the 10nm process will likely not be great. They will start by manufacturing their smallest dye sized processors first (yield rates are logarithmic to die size). So the first U series processors likely will have lower end graphics GPU component than Apple typically uses - HQ processors used in the higher end laptops and desktop processors are larger which would mean much much poorer yields and would likely not be manufactured for a while after the first processors are released. (IMHO). Apple has the A10X running on 10nm right now, but it is a fraction of the size of the Intel processors.
[doublepost=1503376137][/doublepost]
It all depends on what they put on the processor. A die shrink of 14nm to 10nm (squared) [if it was a true and pure shrink] would mean that the current processor would take up much less of the die area -- which means they would have more space for better graphics (I think Intel dedicates a majority of the space to graphics), more cores, or any number of potential improvements. Basically these days the die shrinks are where the bulk of the performance gains are made possible. The 10nm shrink will likely be the last for at least 5 years at this rate though -- so expect many more tocks.
Last edited:
No. Look at the battery life chart.
[doublepost=1503390363][/doublepost]
Eventually, the MBA will go. And some other MacBook will replace it.
Now you’re comparing the low-end iPads with the Mac mini. The iPad Pro is most definitely a power user device. Non-power users don’t spend a grand on a tablet when they can have one for $100.
$100 tablets are throwaway items.
I've had them in my household for years. They're all the same.
That's my point. Lumping all iPads together as "not for power users" and "primary usage is probably email, web surfing and watching YouTube videos" doesn't really work. Nobody who uses a tablet like that is going to spring for an iPad Pro when you can get a good-enough experience for a tenth the price. Possibly and iPad mini and iPad 5th-gen, but not twice or thrice that amount of money.
Wait, how is a Quad Core 1.9 GHz faster than a Quad Core 2.6 GHz? ...And turbo boost doesn't count.
Are these chips just for another disposable line only for shopping and checking Facebook? Seems like a lot of wasted silicon that could be used for more cores, faster cores, unlockable cores... I don't care about power usage. I care about performance, utility, and longevity. But that's just me.
Are these chips just for another disposable line only for shopping and checking Facebook? Seems like a lot of wasted silicon that could be used for more cores, faster cores, unlockable cores... I don't care about power usage. I care about performance, utility, and longevity. But that's just me.
Ah, ah, ah! (Wagging finger) No cutting out of context! 
I mentioned Quad-Core 1.9 GHz vs Quad-Core 2.6 GHz –15W and power usage has nothing to do with my statement –out of context.
But if power-factor is king, then these chips must be for more disposable products. Intel makes great stuff, but their new-gen naming system is a little baffling. Maybe slower is the new faster.
I mentioned Quad-Core 1.9 GHz vs Quad-Core 2.6 GHz –15W and power usage has nothing to do with my statement –out of context.
But if power-factor is king, then these chips must be for more disposable products. Intel makes great stuff, but their new-gen naming system is a little baffling. Maybe slower is the new faster.
Last edited:
Eh? The 8th gen 15W chips are only about 7% less powerful than the previous gen 45W HQ chips!
I wanted to buy a Macbook or Macbook Pro. But after reading this I feel kinda dumb to buy the current gen.
I think they will release a new Macbook with these CPU's mid 2018. I will wait...
I think they will release a new Macbook with these CPU's mid 2018. I will wait...
Please calm down, I didn’t mean to irritate you, I simply misinterpreted you when you said “the processors announced today”. And the article is correct in saying they’re suitable for the 13” MacBook Pro, due to the fact they’re U-series 15W chips, regardless of GT3e graphics. Anyway, we’ll end it there, it’s all down to interpretation.
Anybody using a $100 tablet is going to hate it sooner or later, regardless of the usage.
They've got the iPad 5 covering that audience and it's more than good enough.
They've been pursuing profits rather then volumes with the Pro line, that's not a secret.
Cost conscious consumers would get the iPad Pro over the $329 9.7" iPad? And Mac mini users are mostly doing email, web surfing and watching YouTube? Sure, the mini is a couple of generations behind now, but its performance isn't that far from the 13" MBP (same processor class, just newer generation).
Samsung will release a refreshed Notebook 9 Pro with Intel 8th gen next month.
Also has Wacom EMR and stylus way better than apple pencil.
13" is 1k
I've almost always bought apple for my notebooks. But I think all their screw ups lately, I'm ready to jump to one of the many good windows offerings.
Also has Wacom EMR and stylus way better than apple pencil.
13" is 1k
I've almost always bought apple for my notebooks. But I think all their screw ups lately, I'm ready to jump to one of the many good windows offerings.
Exactly. If they got a cheapo one first, then upgrade to something more premium, they might go iPad. They will not, however, go straight to iPad Pro. The iPad Pro is basically a different market segment.
Yup.
I mentioned Quad-Core 1.9 GHz vs Quad-Core 2.6 GHz –15W and power usage has nothing to do with my statement –out of context.
Yes, and it's not clear why you would make that comparison. 2.6 GHz what? There's no four-core Kaby Lake CPU with that clock rate, so it's unclear what you're comparing to (or why).
But if power-factor is king, then these chips must be for more disposable products. Intel makes great stuff, but their new-gen naming system is a little baffling. Maybe slower is the new faster.
A 13-inch MacBook Pro is hardly disposable.
PLEASE APPLE, PLEASE!!!
1) A lot of people need a 15" macbook pro with 32GB RAM.... Otherwise, I´ll be standing in a limbo with no options around... a horrible eternal loop of neurosis, with a horrible Windows final
2) would be sad that a 13" macbook pro can´t have 32gb ram
Apple I am starting to think that you are not committed to solve this simple technical problem.
1) A lot of people need a 15" macbook pro with 32GB RAM.... Otherwise, I´ll be standing in a limbo with no options around... a horrible eternal loop of neurosis, with a horrible Windows final
2) would be sad that a 13" macbook pro can´t have 32gb ram
Apple I am starting to think that you are not committed to solve this simple technical problem.
Last edited:
What is the context for this statement - and why are you comparing apples to oranges.
This 4 chip release is all in the "U" chip range for ultrabooks (could be used in the 13" MacBook Pro) - not the HQ/HK chips that used on the 15" MacBook Pro). The Coffee Lake HQ/HK chips have not been announced or released yet (as far as I can tell). These chips have different thermal restrictions and different power requirements and are for different purposes. It is like saying if they came out with a quad-core core-m processor that was thermally restricted to a MacBook 12" design and saying the 1.3Ghz is somehow comparable to the quad core 2.6Ghz. They also would not and no one in their right mind would really equate or compare the two.
[doublepost=1503419556][/doublepost]
If Apple were to solve it you would be running on an Axx based processor.
32gb will have to wait until Intel supports it. Apple is not going to create a big hack that will only cause headaches.
[doublepost=1503420368][/doublepost]
The 15" MacBook Pro is on average about 60% more powerful than the 13" MacBook Pro laptop with regards to CPU.
If Intel is correct and the quad-core is about 40% more powerful than the current "U" series... then it is nothing to is nothing to sniff at...
BTW, The Mac Mini thermal design can handle the HQ/HK processor that the 15" MacBook does - so it is only restricted by Apple's willingness to continue making one with that processor.
Just tell me how HP, LENOVO and DELL have ultrabooks with 32 gb options....
Last edited:
I am not familiar with those lines these days -- but the only way to do it with current processors is to replace the laptop memory with standard desktop computer memory. I am guessing that the computers they put them in are probably closer to being transportable (i.e. larger form factor)?
The downside to doing this hack is:
- Memory will consume more power and deplete the battery quicker
- Memory will run significantly slower on a laptop than the memory made for laptops.
The need for more memory for many applications is offset by faster flash drive space - which is the route Apple currently takes as their flash in their MacBook Pro line is fairly high end.