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

Intel Reveals New 10th-Gen Core Processors Suitable for MacBook Air and Base 13-Inch MacBook Pro

Michael Scrip said:
True... that number looks low. But don't forget the metric "Instructions Per Clock"

My understanding of the theory is... even though it's only going at 700MHz... it's actually doing more work per cycle than an older processor that is clocked higher. In other words... you shouldn't just look at the MHz number.

Apparently Intel finally has some decent IPC gains in this generation.

And remember... that's just the base clock. It boosts to 3.5GHz single-core and 3.2GHz all-core.

Though we should probably wait for benchmarks and real-world tests before we freak out about it... :p
Click to expand...


Yeah I understand, completely, but it still seems like something has gone wrong somewhere... I had my AMD athlon OCed to 600MHz back in ‘99 with simple air cooling.

I want the processor wars to come back!!! I miss those days.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JosephAW
In regards to 28W chips for the MBP 13" higher-end versions, are these also coming out by the holiday season?

I'm thinking it may be wiser waiting for tiger lake? According to this roadmap, it should be out by Summer next year. The same roadmap also states that Ice Lake will be a limited run.
 

Attachments

  • Intel-Client-Mobile.jpg
    Intel-Client-Mobile.jpg
    249 KB · Views: 240
Last edited:
These little buggers are getting smaller and smaller. New chips, must mean cooler. Otherwise expect a MBA recall after this goes out.
 
Aston441 said:
Yeah I understand, completely, but it still seems like something has gone wrong somewhere... I had my AMD athlon OCed to 600MHz back in ‘99 with simple air cooling.

I want the processor wars to come back!!! I miss those days.
Click to expand...

Guys... 700MHz is the base clock.

This chip boosts to 3.2GHz and 3.5GHz

I don't know why everyone is worried about it... :p
 
  • Like
Reactions: EightyTwenty
YetAnotherAppleFan92 said:
I know there are reasons why the base clock starts at 700MHz... but wow, it's still a surprising spec to see these days.

Must be efficient.
Click to expand...
No. 10 nm has an IPC gain but a major frequency regression. Don't expect desktop 10nm parts, if they ever ship, to compete at current 9th gen frequencies.

The future is chiplets on a monolithic base.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aston441
DrJohnnyN said:
Macs are fast enough. Please improve battery life!
Click to expand...
They’ve gone backwards since the Haswell Air.
[doublepost=1564709728][/doublepost]
techwhiz said:
What makes you think an A series processor, once you add the caches, memory controllers, PCIe and other stuff will have a lower TDP.

Comparing an A series processor with an Intel i7 is an oranges to bananas comparison.
Once there is a real laptop version of an A series processor, only then can you make a comparison.

The high speed analog I/O and serdes required for PCIe and thunderbolt consume lots of power.
Click to expand...
How can you have a thunderbolt port on a non-intel chipset? I mean, they could license, I guess.
 
chucker23n1 said:
28W: possibly the higher-end 13-inch MacBook Pro, but Apple probably wants more options for that. Also, this CPU model won't ship for a while.

Critically, none of these are even remotely an option for the 15-inch (16-inch?) MacBook Pro, which likely won't see another CPU upgrade until Comet Lake-H in Q2 2020. It'll offer up to ten cores, but it will still be at 14nm and still use a revised Skylake architecture. Still no LPDDR4, even.
Click to expand...

“Additional mobile PC products for multi-threaded high productivity and commercial segments starting end of August” - Intel (via Engadget)

"We also know that Intel plans to release Comet Lake mobile processors sometime this year, on the old 14nm process and old Skylake-based microarchitecture, but at higher frequencies, so it will be interesting to see how they compete." - via AnandTech (https://www.anandtech.com/show/14664/testing-intel-ice-lake-10nm/9)

Maybe Apple will be update the MacBook Pro again this year, maybe not. ‍(shrug)

Also remember that Apple registered 7 Mac models with the Eurasian Economic Commission in June. So far one has been used for the entry-level MacBook Pro (A2159). The MacBook Air 2019 revision used the same A1932 model number as last year. So that leaves these six for Apple to do something with: A2141, A2147, A2158, A2179, A2182, and A2251. Your guess is as a good as mine.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MrUNIMOG
Still has hyperthreads? Intel hasn't fixed all the security flaws they create, and the software workarounds slow the CPU down so much you might as well not have them. I was sure they were going to drop hyperthreads in future CPU designs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Val-kyrie
IIGS User said:
Ohh, faster Pr0N and such.

We finally reached the point where the processors and memory are simply outstripping what the software can possibly do.

Really is amazing, actually....
Click to expand...

I'm struggling to justify upgrading my Haswell 13" macbook pro from 2013 since it's plenty capable for day to day tasks.

And this is a 6 year old machine.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ajfahey and Val-kyrie
coolfactor said:
[doublepost=1564686947][/doublepost]
700MHz x 4 cores = 2.8Mhz effective processing, with LESS HEAT and BETTER BATTERY life.
Click to expand...

Let’s put aside the fact that 700MHz is the base clock. Your premise is quite wrong. Those four cores cannot run a single process. Most code cannot be run in parallel. 4 cores isn’t 4 times the throughput. And if one were to actually make a 700MHz processor (which these processors aren’t), you would notice significant lag in ordinary workflows, regardless of how many cores the CPU had.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Menneisyys2 and 0388631
The computer does its primary work in a part of the machine we cannot see, a control center that converts data input to information output. This control center, called the central processing unit (CPU), is a highly complex, extensive set of electronic circuitry that executes stored program instructions. All computers, large and small, must have a central processing unit. As Figure 1 shows, the central processing unit consists of two parts: The control unit and the arithmetic/logic unit. Each part has a specific function.
Before we discuss the control unit and the arithmetic/logic unit in detail, we need to consider data storage and its relationship to the central processing unit. Computers use two types of storage: Primary storage and secondary storage. The CPU interacts closely with primary storage, or main memory, referring to it for both instructions and data. For this reason this part of the reading will discuss memory in the context of the central processing unit. Technically, however, memory is not part of the CPU.

Recall that a computer's memory holds data only temporarily, at the time the computer is executing a program. Secondary storage holds permanent or semi-permanent data on some external magnetic or optical medium. The diskettes and CD-ROM disks that you have seen with personal computers are secondary storage devices, as are hard disks. Since the physical attributes of secondary storage devices determine the way data is organized on them, we will discuss secondary storage and data organization together in another part of our on-line readings.

  • The Control Unit
    The control unit of the CPU contains circuitry that uses electrical signals to direct the entire computer system to carry out, or execute, stored program instructions. Like an orchestra leader, the control unit does not execute program instructions; rather, it directs other parts of the system to do so. The control unit must communicate with both the arithmetic/logic unit and memory.
  • The Arithmetic/Logic Unit
    The arithmetic/logic unit (ALU) contains the electronic circuitry that executes all arithmetic and logical operations.

    The arithmetic/logic unit can perform four kinds of arithmetic operations, or mathematical calculations: addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division. As its name implies, the arithmetic/logic unit also performs logical operations. A logical operation is usually a comparison. The unit can compare numbers, letters, or special characters. The computer can then take action based on the result of the comparison. This is a very important capability. It is by comparing that a computer is able to tell, for instance, whether there are unfilled seats on airplanes, whether charge- card customers have exceeded their credit limits, and whether one candidate for Congress has more votes than another.
 
Zenithal said:
No. 10 nm has an IPC gain but a major frequency regression. Don't expect desktop 10nm parts, if they ever ship, to compete at current 9th gen frequencies.

The future is chiplets on a monolithic base.
Click to expand...
The IPC improvement is 18% according to Intel and the frequency regression is 14%(if we are comparing their top 4c/8t 14nm with it's 10nm counterpart). In general IPC scales better than frequency in terms of performance.
10nm parts should be able compete juts fine on desktop, Intel only has to unlock the multiplier and enable HT on all or most SKU's. Very simple.
 
Last edited:
ROGmaster said:
The IPC improvement is 18% according to Intel and the frequency regression is 14%(if we are comparing their top 4c/8t 14nm with it's 10nm counterpart). And IPC scales better than frequency in terms of performance.
10nm parts should be able compete juts fine on desktop, Intel only has to unlock the multiplier and enable HT on all or most SKU's. Very simple.
Click to expand...
Except it won't. This is something they've been having trouble with for over six years. The IPC gain was "nerfed" according to first party reviewers such as Anandtech. Expect another core bump on 14nm in 2020. If it were as easy as you claim it is, 10nm would have been on the market in 2016. To make investors happy, they don't need to deliver 10nm desktop parts at all. As long as they deliver something that is 10nm, they're fine. Chances are Intel began work on 7nm years ago after they realized they were too far down the rabbit hole with 10nm to give up. In reality, you're looking at a third of IPC gain due to frequency regression. Intel simply cannot bump up the frequency to 9th gen 14nm+~ parts without serious problems. The performance of these mobile parts don't translate 1:1 to desktop parts.

And FWIW, 18% is an Intel claim. Actual IPC uplift has yet to be verified by third party reviewers. The uplift is based on a small series of tests using SPEC2017. Intel has been known to exaggerate their figures in the past as has AMD. In any case, these mobile processors will be throttled due to their lower heat output and allowing OEMs to use even thinner heat sinks and less piping to cool down the CPU. Leading to a thinner and lighter chassis.

Intel announced their 10nm intentions in early 2011 with a delivery year of 2015. 4 years later they're barely getting enough yield on 10nm without serious regressions and putting them out to OEMs. I wouldn't expect desktop parts anytime soon, especially for HEDT.

At this point in the game, you would have to be clueless to presume Intel could deliver desktop parts at 10nm while holding frequency with an 18% IPC uplift, while lowering TDP and temperatures.

I'd expect less than 5% real world use difference in overall performance. The onboard video on these processors is 2x faster than what's currently available which should make encoding even snappier than it currently is.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ajfahey
chucker23n1 said:
We’ll see. It’s looking like 10nm won’t scale up until 2021.
Click to expand...
I'm expecting the 9900KS to come out since they've been rebinning their chips for a while. The 10th gen of the 9900K is supposedly going to have 10 cores/20 threads at roughly the same price point using the highly refined 14nm process they've been on for several years. I'm going to presume there's a frequency regression to keep package temperatures down.

I had plans on buying a 3950X from AMD but AMD really screwed the pooch with their latest launch which is still troublesome. It's one way AMD cuts costs. Bad QA and mediocre to non-existent processor headroom.
 
Burnsey said:
I'm struggling to justify upgrading my Haswell 13" macbook pro from 2013 since it's plenty capable for day to day tasks.

And this is a 6 year old machine.
Click to expand...

You'll upgrade when Apple drops OS support for it next year, giving some BS reason for dropping support like they have all previous versions. You can always run Windows/Linux on it if you want to continue running the latest OS...
 
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