That's why we'll be getting USB 3.1 Type-C somewhere down the line.
But I agree, there's a line with thinness that they can't cross or things will start to break/bend, especially with aluminium.
Intel Shares New Details on Low-Power Core M Broadwell Processors
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That's why we'll be getting USB 3.1 Type-C somewhere down the line.
But I agree, there's a line with thinness that they can't cross or things will start to break/bend, especially with aluminium.
cmaier
Suspended
By then there won't be any more ports. It will all be wireless.
jayducharme
macrumors 601
Maybe the recent IBM/Apple partnership will lead to these in an iPhone:
http://www.engadget.com/2014/08/07/ibm-synapse-supercomputing-chip-mimics-human-brain/
http://www.engadget.com/2014/08/07/ibm-synapse-supercomputing-chip-mimics-human-brain/
g-7
macrumors 6502
cmaier
Suspended
Why? It's not actually very useful for much other than a very particular set of computing problems.
chrisbru
macrumors 6502a
Do you know how big an inch is? That's bigger than my work laptop, which is a brick. An inch thick computer isn't a laptop, it's a semi-portable desktop.
And the market for semi-portable desktops just isn't what it used to be - it's all about the slim, light, laptops and "ultrabooks" these days.
I know what an inch is. The Xeon laptops are actually quite a bit thicker, at around 6cm.
There would be a massively bigger market for those at 1 inch, instead of the current tiny niche market.
I don't care if most people do basic stuff with their laptops.
iolinux333
macrumors 68000
I would have strongly disagreed with you two years ago but lately I'm inclined to agree now that I see where Apple (and Google) are going with seamless platform independent instantaneous task handoff.
goodyear77
macrumors newbie
Perhaps this is not for the MacBooks but destined for the ATV4?
NT1440
macrumors P6
I sincerely doubt it. Apple has been putting a ton of effort into the A Series and stealthily building up everything for a gaming component to the ATV (MFI controllers, the content delivery deal with Comcast, the Metal API).
Apple is going to corner the living room, then the home itself.
Thunderbolt and USB are/can be available on ARM. Thunderbolt chipsets can be purchased separately. Also, ARM is a lot closer than you realize. Apple can today produce a processor that is within a hair of Intel's performance and at a similar TDP; getting a more optimal balance is the key. It really is a matter of when the market is ready and if Apple can acquire the necessary manufacturing capacity for them. The day isn't far off when they can. It really depends on whether or not Apple feels they are ready to make a transition like that. This transition may not happen at all of course, but it is possible. How long Intel can stave that off is unclear at this point.
Not exactly. The quote in the article: "but existing MacBook Air computers utilize the Haswell-U series chips that run at 15 watts while the Core M operates at approximately 5 watts, making it unclear whether it would be possible for a Retina MacBook to be powered by the Core M chip." is very misleading.
Broadwell does not utilize some sort of magic to reduce power by 3x. Instead it's been tooled to provide *substantial* dynamic range. You CAN run it at 5W --- in which case it will perform, I expect, about the same as an Apple A7. You can also run it at 15W, in which case it will perform the same as (actually about 5% better than) an existing Haswell at that power. [The IPC is about 5% better. To be fair, the transistors are lower power and there's been another round of optimization, so at the same power you may also get say 2.6 or 2.7GHz rather than the 2.4GHz or so you'd expect for a Haswell in this role, so all round maybe 15% better at the same power.]
The dynamic range is not to be sneered at. This is REALLY hard, and is one of the two places Apple seriously lags Intel. (The other is using a Network on Chip for communication, rather than a bus; but my guess is that this is already fixed as the central feature of the A8.) But the dynamic range, as I said, is not magic. It allows you to dial the CPU down low for when you don't want to exceed a temperature limit, or somehow know that the work you need to do is not high priority and can run slowly. It also allows you to run at max speed for short bursts to make the device feel really snappy. Basically it's the next rev of the turbo-ing of all Intel CPUs of the last ten years.
Point is
- this is a great chip for a laptop. Delivers snappiness, but also lower power than Haswell for all those times the CPU doesn't have THAT much to do.
- this is a great chip for the Surface Pro 4, for the same reasons.
- this is not a magic chip for RT tablets, or Android, or phones. It will make those devices snappy (which is definitely valuable) but it will NOT give them simultaneously on-going Haswell performance and phone/tablet lifetimes with normal phone/tablet batteries.
- it will, I'm sure, cost so much that the ONLY vendor in this space who'll use it for sub-laptop is MS.
TechGod
macrumors 68040
Goodness willing, my half-life iMac holds out long enough to make my next Mac a Broadwell machine. It keeps teasing me...
Half-Life 3 confirmed.
Image
That's one massive die for the iGPU. I think the one on the left is the iGPU? Or is it the die on the right?
Either way, it's huge!
You do realize there are no scale marks on that image?
The package is 50% smaller than Haswell Y in each dimension, so area is just under half Haswell-Y area.
The CPU (the larger, rectangular part) is 82 mm^2. Compare that with the entire A7 SoC which is 100mm^2.
I think the other (smaller) part is the South Bridge but I'm not absolutely sure.
Obviously the smaller, slightly more square part is considerable area giving a total of more than 100 mm^2, AND the A7 has a whole bunch of extra stuff on it. OTOH you could argue that Broadwell also has extra stuff on it (eg USB and SATA support). So it's about a wash --- basically equivalent package sizes for equivalent functionality. Broadwell CAN run a lot faster --- but not any more power efficiently --- AND it costs a lot more.
Regardless it's silly to claim that the package or the die are "huge".
Last edited:
You think you don't, but you do. More power savings = less battery requirements. Less battery requirements = less weight. Less weight = more portable.
Flying cross country, you learn to appreciate when your personal laptop lasts the entire flight while your work Lenovo lasts 2 hours.
Looking good.. ABout the size of a credit card.
Only this one doesn't bend easily..
I bet all future Apple products in 2015-2016 will use this new chip, including all Mac's, particularly the Mac book Air and Retina.
Thinner products, here we come...
(weather we like it or not in term of heat). Seems the low power consumption you go the faster we want them..The faster they are, the more heat they would use..
Thus, a balance.
Intel may come tob a major problem, where just like any technology, you get to a point where something is manufactured so small, that technicality, it just will heat up too much with faster speed. (yes, more cores help with this, but how many do we need to keep things cool? ) and maintain the faster performance we all want. ?
If this is ONLY for 'low powered devices' then that's ok.... but i bet everyone would want it.
Only this one doesn't bend easily..
I bet all future Apple products in 2015-2016 will use this new chip, including all Mac's, particularly the Mac book Air and Retina.
Thinner products, here we come...
(weather we like it or not in term of heat). Seems the low power consumption you go the faster we want them..The faster they are, the more heat they would use..
Thus, a balance.
Intel may come tob a major problem, where just like any technology, you get to a point where something is manufactured so small, that technicality, it just will heat up too much with faster speed. (yes, more cores help with this, but how many do we need to keep things cool? ) and maintain the faster performance we all want. ?
If this is ONLY for 'low powered devices' then that's ok.... but i bet everyone would want it.
Kobayagi
macrumors 6502a
Man f the thinness, they are thin enough. How about more powerful gpus. And not the usual measly (10%) power increase, but a big one. Is that even possible? I'd like to have a MacBook which could handle the newest games with no problems and when I need to get work done, just use Mac OS. I love gaming, but I don't want to buy a separate Windows laptop just for that.
chrisbru
macrumors 6502a
I didn't factor gamers into the "enthusiast" category you were referencing, because very few gamers are buying laptops, and even fewer are buying Macs.
Mattsasa
macrumors 68020
what makes you think broadwell-Y won't be as powerful as Haswell-U??
and even if it's not as powerful... why can't a less powerful chip be put into a MacBook Air?
long ways off... probably mid-late 2015
you are not the only one. however myself and Apple and many others put more powerful processor at the bottom of the list, and power savings near the top.
If that leak on the apple page was true about a mid 2014 mac mini. then we should see one before the end of the month. If we don't apple page was probably a mistake. and then we won't see a mac mini until 2015 with broadwell
This can already be done....
but why would you want a laptop that is in inch thick? that is thicker than the old MBPs
totally unrelated.. and no
nope. ATV4 will be powered with ARM
chrisbru
macrumors 6502a
You may not care what most people do, but Apple sure does, because those people are their customers. And Intel cares about what Apple cares about, because Apple is one of Intel's customers.
Buy a PC if you want thick powerful machines.
gotluck
macrumors 603
Were all waiting for a Mac with a non mobile GPU
I've actually seen a good bit of gaming on rmbps running boot camp. Gotta keep them cool though. Ive heard the best windows laptop is a rmbp
(if you're okay with no user servicibility)Intel improve performance at about 5% per year. Since Nehalem in 2008 they've improved performance by only about 25% --- all their design effort has gone into lowering power.
ARM (Apple and others) improve performance at 50 to 100% per year.
Presumably this will slow down as the features to be added become more complex. But "by the time..." appears like it it just a few years away.
Essentially Apple (and ARM) started with a design optimized for low power and have added performance features; Intel with a design optimized for performance and reduced power. Every indication is that Intel's job is a LOT harder than Apple/ARM's job.
Michael Goff
Suspended
Duane Martin
macrumors 6502a
Curious, what exactly would a "real MacBook Pro update" look like? They currently have the fastest processors available, Thunderbolt 2, USB 3, Retina, etc, etc. What existing hardware could Apple add that would constitute a real update? Just for the fun of it, let's limit our choices to things that actually exist, and not things we wished existed.
Me, personally, I want the return of the 17" MBP. There might not have been a lot of us using them but those of us who did really do need that screen. So while you are at it, Apple, leave room to add a second SSD / Flash blade. And 32GB of RAM.
Michael Goff
Suspended
New and better graphics?