Intel Launches New Skylake Chips Appropriate for 15-Inch Retina MacBook Pro

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
7,446
8,512



As noted by AnandTech, Intel this week quietly released an updated processor price list which includes several new Skylake chips that could be used in an updated 15-inch Retina MacBook Pro.


The direct upgrade path for the 15-inch Retina MacBook Pro would use the following quad-core chip options: a 2.6 GHz Core i7-6770HQ, a 2.7 GHz Core i7-6870HQ, and a 2.8 GHz Core i7-6970HQ, all coming in at the same price points as the Haswell variants currently used in the MacBook Pro.


Perhaps a more intriguing but less likely scenario involves a series of new mobile Xeon E3 chips. These chips could offer even better CPU, graphics, and memory performance, although pricing becomes an issue with the highest-performing chip in the family.


As for the 13-inch Retina MacBook Pro, Intel announced chips appropriate for those machines back in September, although it suggested the chips would not actually be launching until early 2016. Those chips have been included on Intel's price lists for several months, but have been slow to show up in the wild. A claimed benchmark for a 13-inch MacBook Pro running one of these chips last week appears to have been a fake.

Most of Apple's Mac lineup is in need of updates, as Intel's Skylake delays have hampered Apple's ability to launch refreshed models. But with the Skylake logjam finally starting to break, Apple appears set to update its entire notebook lineup over the next several months. Opportunities for major product introductions could come at Apple's rumored March media event or at WWDC likely scheduled for mid-June, although smaller updates could come at any time via press release.

Article Link: Intel Launches New Skylake Chips Appropriate for 15-Inch Retina MacBook Pro
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dydegu and MrUNIMOG

oneMadRssn

macrumors 601
Sep 8, 2011
4,741
11,031
New England
Intel really made a mistake by going with their tick-tock release schedule. It gave people the unreasonable expectation of a a huge leap in performance every 2 years, with a minor revision every other year in between. This is clearly an unrealistic schedule to keep up with, as they have consistently missed self-imposed deadlines.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dleal

gpat

macrumors 6502a
Mar 1, 2011
926
1,171
Italy
Actually they're no more suitable than the 6700hq that has been available for some time now. Still no quad-core i7 with Iris Pro, which would be the most natural fit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kulfon

leman

macrumors G3
Oct 14, 2008
9,968
4,551
We still have no idea what CPUs these are, so don't get too exited. If they do no include the Iris Pro 580, these CPUs will be a regression for the current Haswell owners.
 

Xil3

macrumors regular
Oct 4, 2007
169
21
London
These processors are great and all, but, is there any macbook that can have more than 16gb of RAM? It's been a limitation for a long time.
Are you a video editor, or work with really large images on a daily basis? Other than that, I don't see a good reason for having anything over 16gb (RAM).

As a developer, there have been times when I ran out of memory (on my 8GB machine), but that can easily be fixed by optimizing code. Even the newest games don't need anywhere near that much memory.
 

ArtOfWarfare

macrumors G3
Nov 26, 2007
8,559
3,966
Are you a video editor, or work with really large images on a daily basis? Other than that, I don't see a good reason for having anything over 16gb (RAM).

As a developer, there have been times when I ran out of memory (on my 8GB machine), but that can easily be fixed by optimizing code. Even the newest games don't need anywhere near that much memory.
I agree that 16 GB is fine for today. The issue is that I want my next computer to last me for 7-10 years (I bought my current iMac in October 2007. It's still my main machine now in January 2016, 8.25 years later.) I anticipate that the 16 GB is the thing that's going to limit its life the most. I would anticipate that 32 GB of RAM should be fine for the next several years.
[doublepost=1453916447][/doublepost]
Any word if those Xeon processors will hit the Mac Pro?
They will not. These Xeon processors are a new class of mobile chip - Intel hasn't previously made Xeon processors suitable for laptops. They are unrelated to the desktop Xeon processors that Apple would be most likely to put in the Mac Pro.
 

bladerunner2000

macrumors 68020
Jun 12, 2015
2,465
9,851
Are you a video editor, or work with really large images on a daily basis? Other than that, I don't see a good reason for having anything over 16gb (RAM).

As a developer, there have been times when I ran out of memory (on my 8GB machine), but that can easily be fixed by optimizing code. Even the newest games don't need anywhere near that much memory.
I don't need to explain why I need it. My question still stands:

When will MacBooks feature 32gb of RAM?
 
Are you a video editor, or work with really large images on a daily basis? Other than that, I don't see a good reason for having anything over 16gb (RAM).

As a developer, there have been times when I ran out of memory (on my 8GB machine), but that can easily be fixed by optimizing code. Even the newest games don't need anywhere near that much memory.
I heard of this OS X feature called multitasking which apparently runs more than 1 program at a time. So even very optimized programs might collectively need abundant RAM so that each can get the memory they need. I have 24GB on one of my Macs, am not doing daily video editing or editing large image files, but can easily- and often- bump into that 24GB capacity.
 

rneglia

macrumors 6502
Apr 18, 2006
319
48
I make short films. Should I get the iPad Pro or wait for a Skylake MBP? (I shoot on iPhone and Nikon DSLR)