AMD risen caught intel off guard, intel has been gauging everybody because no real competition out there. Its my belief AMD makes most of their revenue off cpu's not gpu's so at least now they have a chance of grabbing market share. The major poem's will be coming out soon with systems based on risen for the summer / fall season such as hp/dell/lenovo/asus/acer. Because of this good possibility that AMD will gain market share back.
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 Rumored to Debut Basin Falls Platform in May, Launch Coffee Lake Chips in August
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
AMD risen caught intel off guard, intel has been gauging everybody because no real competition out there. Its my belief AMD makes most of their revenue off cpu's not gpu's so at least now they have a chance of grabbing market share. The major poem's will be coming out soon with systems based on risen for the summer / fall season such as hp/dell/lenovo/asus/acer. Because of this good possibility that AMD will gain market share back.
So, everyone's suspicions were right all along. Intel has been deliberately slacking due to lack of competition. Especially the jump from Skylake to Kaybe lake has ben particularly underwhelming.
This is why I buy AMD. This is why Apple needs to offer Ryzen in their Macs, even if it's just for the cheaper offerings like Mac mini. I would buy a Ryzen powered iMac in a heartbeat.
This is why I buy AMD. This is why Apple needs to offer Ryzen in their Macs, even if it's just for the cheaper offerings like Mac mini. I would buy a Ryzen powered iMac in a heartbeat.
lol no. No ARM Mac's, no Ryzen Mac's. Apple isn't going to completely redo their architecture for the sake of an untested platform that's been glitchy as all heck since rollout just to appease the anti-Intel crowd.
Intel has the most convoluted product line up in history now. Not long and every processor leaving their factory is a different generation.
The processors used in the MBP were out almost a year before they ended up in a MBP ( Q3'15 ).
Boy did you just say a mouthful! The reason pro users are leaving Apple & Macs is because Apple is notorious for putting legacy parts in high-end pricey products. This is also why Apple keeps having to discontinue $6000 Mac Pros for a machine nobody likes that are still more powerful and expandable than some of the products they currently offer! UGH!
But don't load those cores - otherwise they will first throttle and eventually switch off 2/3rd of the cores to keep the allowed thermal envelope ...
[doublepost=1492759953][/doublepost]
Na - Apple is busy doing the fabulous Mac Pro coming out in 2018 or 2019. As they've proven again and again that they can't work on two product lines in parallel, they will probably only _start_ to work on that iMac by 2019.
Why would they? AMD doesn't offer any Ryzen chips for mobile/notebooks. On desktop they offer great value, but they are still behind on IPC so it's still preferable to use Intel compared to AMD as long as Apple is able to get a good deal with Intel and I suppose they normally do.
I also suspect Apple is heavily optimised towards Intel's AVX 256-bit instruction set and if so you will basically loose out on half the performance when using AMD Ryzen which only supports AVX 128-bit etc..
[doublepost=1492761702][/doublepost]
Apple pushes whatever is ready at the time they fell correct to do new iteration their computers. Sometimes it lines up with new CPU's, other times it don't. It's only a few years back when Apple was among the very first to adopt the use of Intel's Haswell and Crystalwell line-up.
It's almost like people just make up harsh comments about Apple without even looking back on what's been happening only a few years back in time.
[doublepost=1492761948][/doublepost]
Do you even know what you are talking about? Smaller numbers doesn't means it's better. Intel currently has the best production process on the market. There is a reason why Intel is able to push frequencies on their 14nm process way further than what AMD is capable of with AMD Ryzen. Ryzen hits a brick-wall at aroud 3.9-4.2 GHz, even on their 4-core models. Intel on the other hand is easily pushed towards 5.0GHz on 4-cores and most people is able to reach into 4.5GHz even on their 10-core CPU's.
It's the same on GPU's, where AMD have moved away from TMSC over to Samsung/GloFo and AMD is not able to push into the same frequency range as NVIDIA even though they use 14nm compared to 16nm for NVIDIA.
It was the same with Apple's own A-series of chips where TMSC with their 16nm process was more efficient compared to Samsung's 14nm process.
I think the BIOS problems are mostly overblown. There were some disasters, but it is largely an ongoing optimization process.
I am not sure Vega is late, I would say rather that people are impatient.
You can game very nicely on Ryzen. Freaks can buy half the cores for the same money if they want.
[doublepost=1492762590][/doublepost]
You can have Thunderbolt with AMD if the motherboard maker does not skimp and adds the chip.
They are internal code names. 'We' are supposed to refer to them as 5th/6th/7th/8th generation core processors.
But that's the thing. Currently AMD doesn't not offer something equivalent to Intel. Sure, you get a lot of extra cores for the same amount of money (at least as a consumer, whatever deals Apple might have with Intel/AMD we have no clue).
But Intel as a plattform offers way more compared to AMD that would cause Apple some issues. You won't ever have Intel Thunderbolt 3 over USB-C integrated into the chipset using AMD. As Thunderbolt3/USB-C is such a huge part of Apple's current Mac-offering it would be stupid to move away from it now.
Secondly, the overall performance from the AMD chipset itself is lower. The PCI-Express NVMe SSD speeds will be slower, just look at Samsung 960 Pro m.2 test on AMD Ryzen, it's slower across the board compared to Intel and their chipsets. You will loose AVX 256-bit instruction sets etc.. And one has to assume that Apple is heavily tied in and specifically optimised for various Intel specific solutions as Intel has been Apple's only supplier of CPU's and chipsets for ages and macOS is not Windows so the integration and optimisation towards hardware is on another level compared to Microsoft's wide approach.
Intel doesn't need to do much at all. AMD might nibble away at the low end market-share Intel has, but they won't pose any serious threat.
It's a shame as AMD has produced some seriously good desktop CPU's in terms of value for money, but I don't anticipate much impact to Intel.
Not having Thunderbolt 3 natively supported through the chipset is a huge waste of both resources, power and efficiency. As Thunderbolt is interconnected directly towards the PCI-Express lanes you would have a really hard time not to add a lot of overhead, latency and a loss of throughput not having it as a part of the chipset.
Coffee Lake chips will have 6 cores. Mac users don't need to concern themselves with Basin Falls as those chips will never be inside a Mac.
There should be Ryzen for notebooks in 2H17.
I am not sure Ryzen is behind in IPC. It is behind in clock speed as the 14nm GlobalFoundries process it is built on is the first iteration. There could also be a clock speed advantage in 10nm vs 14nm eventually.
[doublepost=1492763384][/doublepost]
You also have to use the controller chip with Intel.
Last edited:
As others said, they are mostly locations, though generally, little-known locations. Their naming had a short-lived pattern in that the die shrink would keep the second part of the name (Sandy Bridge -> Ivy Bridge, Haswell -> Broadwell) but starting with Kaby Lake, everything is ending with 'lake', die shrink or not.
Penryn -> 45 nm
Nehalem -> 45 nm
Westmere -> 32 nm
Sandy Bridge -> 32 nm
Ivy Bridge -> 22 nm
Haswell -> 22 nm
Broadwell -> 14 nm
Skylake -> 14 nm
Kaby Lake -> 14 nm
Coffee Lake -> 14 nm
Cannonlake -> 10 nm
Icelake -> 10 nm
Tigerlake -> 10 nm
Coffee Lake-H is rumored to go hexa-core, so we may be looking at six-core 15-inch MBPs. I'd much rather have 32 GB RAM, though. I'm not convinced I'm even making enough use of four cores, and at six cores, we're really reaching diminishing returns. Most programming languages just aren't that conducive of making easy use of multi-threading.
so when the imac comes out wih kaby lake chips in fall, we'll again have people cry "last year's tech", although possible chips for macs won't probably be out in volume by then and even if, it wouldn't really make a difference in performance anway.
You must not be a heavy user. You can easily fill six cores.
If you need a concurrent language to push you into multi threading you're just being lazy.
We'll see what their performance and power draw is like.
Competition is good, but as far as laptops go, there currently isn't really any.
Main benefit of a new iMac revision would be Thunderbolt 3 anyway. There's no big performance difference.