Intel Launches New Broadwell Core M Processors, Likely Destined for Apple's Ultra-Slim Notebook

[Robstevo]

Improve the performance of the current macbook airs, reduce the bezel, give it a new design similar to the macbook pros and give it a better screen and you will have a winning product.

Don't really see the need for this ultra-slim notebook because the macbook airs are currently super thin and light already, they also have amazing battery life for a notebook running a full OS (it beats the ipads and iphones for sure).

and making it ultra thin with no fans will Know doubt effect performance/heat/battery life, all which are great on the latest macbook airs.

 

[Gudi]

Apple makes it's money on hardware sales. If a user gets frustrated with performance on a non upgradeable machine after 2 years and decides to upgrade - Apple makes revenue and it's legendary margins.

The cake is a lie. If I get frustrated with my Mac after just two years, I won't buy another one. Not now, not later. Very long life cycles (also known as resale value) is what makes these machines worth their price.

If the user can replace parts, Apple makes nothing on the parts - some random vendor on Newegg gets that and more importantly, Apple loses out on a complete hardware upgrade cycle since the user can put off buying a new machine for another year or two.

If I can't buy my memory on ebay, I have to buy it from Apple at premium prices. That will make my favorite Mac even more unaffordable to me and this will make me delay my impulse purchase for another year. Ending up never buying one. It's not just, the vendor increases prices and the customer pays more. It's the customer who decides, this offer is good value for my money or there is no deal.

Mac mini 2014 –  can keep that ****.

 

[orestes1984]

I doubt the first CPU clocks will ever see the light of day outside of ATMs, POS machines, and tablets. The later two are upgrades, clock for clock at 2.4ghz, 2.6ghz and 2.9ghz they will be faster than any of the currently released CPUs and those currently over 3ghz anyway, or near enough to it.

The benefit of turbo boost when you're not doing anything is real also in longer battery life and even more efficiency.

 

[ProfessorHenry]

The cake is a lie. If I get frustrated with my Mac after just two years, I won't buy another one. Not now, not later. Very long life cycles (also known as resale value) is what makes these machines worth their price.

'Resale value' implies that you sell it. If you don't like it, you sell your old machine and buy a better (faster, etc.) one.

 

[saintforlife]

Can someone tell me if the Core M processors are more powerful or less powerful than the current i5-4260U or the i7-4650U ultra low voltage processors?

 

[firewood]

Transition to ARM would cause that virtualization would be much slower (you would need emulate x86 instructions) ... Wine wouldn't work too... It's still too early to make transition to ARM, IMHO. Gain isn't worth the lost. And for Apple, unfortunately ... No x86 Windows on Mac.

Not every MacBook user (perhaps the majority) uses either virtualization or boots Windows on their Mac, nor do they run much legacy software that can not be ported to ARM within a year. (MS has already ported major portions of Word and IE to ARM.)

The hard part of porting OS X cross-platform (to ARM and ARM64) has already been done for iOS. The rest would mostly be just recompiling OS X Cocoa frameworks and desktop apps to ARM, which involves mostly testing and tuning, not major re-architecting or rewrites. Device drivers might be the only non-trivial ports.

Thus, Apple could convert over half their MacBook sales to hypothetical new ARM64 models without taking a big hit in sales. The rest could buy higher-prices x86 Macs at a higher price (to pay the Intel tax).

 

[cfedu]

The cake is a lie. If I get frustrated with my Mac after just two years, I won't buy another one. Not now, not later. Very long life cycles (also known as resale value) is what makes these machines worth their price.

Mac mini 2014 –  can keep that ****.

This is what made me switch to Mac. For me I got good value for performance when resale value is taken into consideration. The 2012 Mac mini proves this point, as there is suddenly more demand for an older model.

 

[orestes1984]

Apple could convert over half their MacBook sales to hypothetical new ARM64 models without taking a big hit in sales. The rest could buy higher-prices x86 Macs at a higher price (to pay the Intel tax).

They would kill their sales overnight, just look at the ChromeBook disaster. I'm not even going to get into the issue of clock speeds where intel CPUs are two to as much as five faster than the A7 processor as it stands today.

Do you think Apple really wants to go back into the marketing myth with their "megahertz don't count" nonsense again?

 

[Michael Goff]

Can someone tell me if the Core M processors are more powerful or less powerful than the current i5-4260U or the i7-4650U ultra low voltage processors?

No, the Core M aren't better or even on par.

 

[cfedu]

'Resale value' implies that you sell it. If you don't like it, you sell your old machine and buy a better (faster, etc.) one.

When then next Mac mini comes out, I bet most quad core 2012 models will have a higher resale value than the 2014 ones.

 

[Michael Goff]

Not every MacBook user (perhaps the majority) uses either virtualization or boots Windows on their Mac, nor do they run much legacy software that can not be ported to ARM within a year. (MS has already ported major portions of Word and IE to ARM.)

The hard part of porting OS X cross-platform (to ARM and ARM64) has already been done for iOS. The rest would mostly be just recompiling OS X Cocoa frameworks and desktop apps to ARM, which involves mostly testing and tuning, not major re-architecting or rewrites. Device drivers might be the only non-trivial ports.

Thus, Apple could convert over half their MacBook sales to hypothetical new ARM64 models without taking a big hit in sales. The rest could buy higher-prices x86 Macs at a higher price (to pay the Intel tax).

They'd sell a lot to people who don't know better, I guess.

 

[orestes1984]

They'd sell a lot to people who don't know better, I guess.

They already sell a lot of iPads to people who don't know any better, why would they canabalise the MacBook Pro?

 

[Keirasplace]

They'd sell a lot to people who don't know better, I guess.

Really, if it runs 100% of the apps they use, how would that be? Is Apple tied to Intel by some kind of blood oat?

It either fullfills your needs or it doesn't. With Ipads and Iphones all over the enterprise, there is already an incentive to app devellopers and Apple to provide and united experience over all those platforms. With the watch coming, assuredly used by business people the most, that incentive goes up again.

Maybe true pros need to absolutely have Intel processor in their machines for now (and they'll have this option).

But, the many people who need pro-sumer software would be all right with a ARM laptop with a 4 core A9 clocked to say 1.8GHZ running OSX and and expanded IOS (for larger screens) depending on usage. This is obviously better for Apple since they get a bigger margin and its better for users because of the tighter integration IOS/OSX possibled with a custom SOC.

 

[AlecZ]

Doubling 1 to 2 is not as impressive as going from 100 to 150. No matter how you "market" it.

It's not about what is more impressive but the difference in energy consumption between "turbo" and regular mode.

----------

Damn why didnt the new mac minis wait for these.

They're slower than what the mini has.

 

[hasanahmad]

Seems like Intel is really struggling to compete with ARM in this category. I can't imagine Intel will be used for much longer in the MBA. With the performance of the A8X it would seem logical for Apple to move to ARM in the next couple years.

The moment ARM is in Macbook Air over Intel is the moment Windows Wins on performance every single time.

 

[Count Blah]

'Resale value' implies that you sell it. If you don't like it, you sell your old machine and buy a better (faster, etc.) one.

Except the word is going to be out about the horrid performance on the soldered in 4Gig macs. I know I'll be spreading the word like crazy. Your old machine will be worth much less than old macs used to be(relatively speaking). Basically, macs aren't going to be what they used to be.

----------

Really, if it runs 100% of the apps they use, how would that be? Is Apple tied to Intel by some kind of blood oat?

It either fullfills your needs or it doesn't. With Ipads and Iphones all over the enterprise, there is already an incentive to app devellopers and Apple to provide and united experience over all those platforms. With the watch coming, assuredly used by business people the most, that incentive goes up again.

Maybe true pros need to absolutely have Intel processor in their machines for now (and they'll have this option).

But, the many people who need pro-sumer software would be all right with a ARM laptop with a 4 core A9 clocked to say 1.8GHZ running OSX and and expanded IOS (for larger screens) depending on usage. This is obviously better for Apple since they get a bigger margin and its better for users because of the tighter integration IOS/OSX possibled with a custom SOC.

"Oh, you need to occasionally run some windows programs for work, or the software you need isn't available on the Mac? that sounds like a 'pro' requirement to me. You'll have to move up to the $3000 Mac Pro to do that. This machine isn't for 'professionals' like you."

----------

It's not about what is more impressive but the difference in energy consumption between "turbo" and regular mode.

You missed the point, never mind.

 

[H2SO4]

Apple is making the next MacBook Air invisible. We will buy empty boxes then come here and rave about the innovation.

Made me giggle. Thankyou.

 

[Mattsasa]

Improve the performance of the current macbook airs, reduce the bezel, give it a new design similar to the macbook pros and give it a better screen and you will have a winning product.

Don't really see the need for this ultra-slim notebook because the macbook airs are currently super thin and light already, they also have amazing battery life for a notebook running a full OS (it beats the ipads and iphones for sure).

and making it ultra thin with no fans will Know doubt effect performance/heat/battery life, all which are great on the latest macbook airs.

I have no need for increased performance over the current air, I'd rather have it be thinner and more portable

Can someone tell me if the Core M processors are more powerful or less powerful than the current i5-4260U or the i7-4650U ultra low voltage processors?

Core M is slightly less powerful

The moment ARM is in Macbook Air over Intel is the moment Windows Wins on performance every single time.

This statement makes no sense at all, you are taking a hypothetical piece of hardware with a certain architecture and device brand and comparing it too a software platform / operating system ??

 

[nksk]

(to pay the Intel tax).

Designing and manufacturing your own CPU that will be able to compete with Broadwell isn't exactly free, you know. And if you're simply counting on removing Intel's profit margin, then it still doesn't make much sense for Apple to start a huge internal CPU project with 0% ROI to subsidize the Macbook Air. There would need to be some kind of profit margin there too.

You guys should also notice that one argument on the ARM side has been "it can be cheaper" and another "Apple easily has the resources to force a transition". These are mutually exclusive. With only the Air using OS X on ARM, all those hours would be charged to that one product line.

And what if Apple successfully creates a chip that's better than Broadwell, but fails to keep up with Cannonlake at 10nm? That would be a disaster. The risks of doing this are so much bigger than any of the imagined benefits.

And the marketing angle? The solutions posted in this thread sound *incredibly* clunky. They're basically workarounds starting from the assumption that ARM is necessary rather than solutions to some kind of problem they'd have selling a Broadwell Air. Trying to create a new product line between iOS and x86 Macs sounds like something Google would do to confuse its customers.

On top of that, even if fanless Broadwells are unsellably inadequate for some reason, all they need to do is limp on for a bit with the current Air's design and wait for Skylake. Which is easier to sell to consumers and the board? That, or a switch to ARM with all its repercussions?

 

[firewood]

They would kill their sales overnight, just look at the ChromeBook disaster. I'm not even going to get into the issue of clock speeds where intel CPUs are two to as much as five faster than the A7 processor as it stands today.

Chromebooks are eating into iPad sales (some school districts have switched), and iPads outsells MacBooks in units.

And the Broadwell X86 core, when compared to an A8/arm64 core tuned and packaged for the same heat dissipation and DRAM speed as Broadwell, would be less than 2X faster, sustained (non-turbo). The only reason for the 7x benchmark difference is that you are comparing older chips tuned and packaged for very different power envelopes. Layout, tune and package some A7 cores for 10 or more watts, and they would run a ton faster.

And why would it kill their sales to have an even wider product offering (ARM chips at the more portable/affordable end, Xeons/i7/i9 at the high end)?

 

[firewood]

Designing and manufacturing your own CPU that will be able to compete with Broadwell isn't exactly free, you know.

No. But Apple doesn't have to do this from scratch. Apple is already investing a vast amount on arm64 designs to keep iOS devices competitive. Any additional fab contracts to manufacture a hotter/faster arm64 CPU for MacBooks would be a drop in the bucket compared to the existing fab contracts for cranking out fractions of a billion iOS A-series chips.

 

[alvindarkness]

Designing and manufacturing your own CPU that will be able to compete with Broadwell isn't exactly free, you know. And if you're simply counting on removing Intel's profit margin, then it still doesn't make much sense for Apple to start a huge internal CPU project with 0% ROI to subsidize the Macbook Air. There would need to be some kind of profit margin there too.

You guys should also notice that one argument on the ARM side has been "it can be cheaper" and another "Apple easily has the resources to force a transition". These are mutually exclusive. With only the Air using OS X on ARM, all those hours would be charged to that one product line.

And what if Apple successfully creates a chip that's better than Broadwell, but fails to keep up with Cannonlake at 10nm? That would be a disaster. The risks of doing this are so much bigger than any of the imagined benefits.

And the marketing angle? The solutions posted in this thread sound *incredibly* clunky. They're basically workarounds starting from the assumption that ARM is necessary rather than solutions to some kind of problem they'd have selling a Broadwell Air. Trying to create a new product line between iOS and x86 Macs sounds like something Google would do to confuse its customers.

On top of that, even if fanless Broadwells are unsellably inadequate for some reason, all they need to do is limp on for a bit with the current Air's design and wait for Skylake. Which is easier to sell to consumers and the board? That, or a switch to ARM with all its repercussions?

Stop making so much sense!

 

[Keirasplace]

Designing and manufacturing your own CPU that will be able to compete with Broadwell isn't exactly free, you know. And if you're simply counting on removing Intel's profit margin, then it still doesn't make much sense for Apple to start a huge internal CPU project with 0% ROI to subsidize the Macbook Air. There would need to be some kind of profit margin there too.

You guys should also notice that one argument on the ARM side has been "it can be cheaper" and another "Apple easily has the resources to force a transition". These are mutually exclusive. With only the Air using OS X on ARM, all those hours would be charged to that one product line.

And what if Apple successfully creates a chip that's better than Broadwell, but fails to keep up with Cannonlake at 10nm? That would be a disaster. The risks of doing this are so much bigger than any of the imagined benefits.

And the marketing angle? The solutions posted in this thread sound *incredibly* clunky. They're basically workarounds starting from the assumption that ARM is necessary rather than solutions to some kind of problem they'd have selling a Broadwell Air. Trying to create a new product line between iOS and x86 Macs sounds like something Google would do to confuse its customers.

On top of that, even if fanless Broadwells are unsellably inadequate for some reason, all they need to do is limp on for a bit with the current Air's design and wait for Skylake. Which is easier to sell to consumers and the board? That, or a switch to ARM with all its repercussions?

Considering that the actual CPU probably is now 25% of the SOC (or less!), there is obviously reasons for Apple getting doing what they do other than beating Intel. Not rellying on Intel means they can integrate many different functions straight with the CPU on the SOC, which they can't really do with Intel's chip.

Why do all this? Differentiation! If you rely on Intel, your basically offering the same thing anyone can offer. That eventually leads to disaster.

If you build something different, say an as good, or almost as good CPU as Intel, but with dozens of other interesting functions that Intel can't offer coupled with tight integration with your software, then you're still on top.

 

[MacBH928]

the discrete graphics in the highest spec 15" rmbp is, unfortunately, disappointing at the price level that you pay for.

+1

 

[nksk]

Considering that the actual CPU probably is now 25% of the SOC (or less!), there is obviously reasons for Apple getting doing what they do other than beating Intel. Not rellying on Intel means they can integrate many different functions straight with the CPU on the SOC, which they can't really do with Intel's chip.

There's no reason all those added features need to be on the SOC when it's a laptop. Even a super thin laptop easily has space for one extra chip. It's not a phone.

Sure, ideally they could be, but to sacrifice performance, compatibility and easy marketing for *that*? Not a good trade.

Why do all this? Differentiation! If you rely on Intel, your basically offering the same thing anyone can offer. That eventually leads to disaster.

Being different when you don't need to be leads to disaster. PowerPC started falling behind and Apple was in big trouble. The differentiating factor is OS X and build quality. New features on top of that can be added in safer ways.

If you build something different, say an as good, or almost as good CPU as Intel, but with dozens of other interesting functions that Intel can't offer coupled with tight integration with your software, then you're still on top.

But why would you do that when you can do it without ditching Intel?