Claim chowder if I’ve ever seen one! Their post will not age well.
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 Unveils 10th-Gen Processors Suitable for Next 16-Inch MacBook Pro With Wi-Fi 6 and Turbo Boost Speeds Above 5GHz
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The T2 is primarily a security chip not a PCH . Dumping the "kitchen sink" of PCH functionality onto the security chip is just plain dubious. There is argument has already got too much of a hodgepodge of stuff hanging off of it already. Even more would just open up more vectors . Especially if those vectors are outside the main system and entirely random external devices. No way doing physical information isolation at that point.
Technically , directly hard wired security sensors ( TouchID scanners , FaceID cameras, Webcam cameras (to prevent low level hijacking) , microphones ( Siri voice identification ) can be attached to the T2 as a security issue. ( the speakers coming along with the microphones for the ride. Although Siri on T-series could evenutally get smart enough to talk to. ) . But all of those are highly secured connections because primary hardwired ( and mostly difficult to tamper with).
Similar since Apple is assigning the T2 SMC/PMIC like issues to secure the initial boot the Fans and SMC connections make sense.
Apple bought their major PMIC solution. More of that will probably get weaved into the T-series over time.
Apple bought a celluar modem solution too.
The T2 is more so indicative of the "hand me down" where Apple simply takes an iPhone SoC and tweaks it for a another roll. Whether that is round peg in square or not. Just not going to run off and designing something completely different for the relatively (to iPad or iPhone ) small scale , far more fragmented Mac market. ( the T2 is a 'one size fits all for the Mac market' not a differentiated , custom processor for each Mac product. )
Apple is much more likely going to be focused on a A-series + Modem variant from the current A-series than in making several low volume SoC for a differentiated, diverse Mac line up.
Apple very well skim off the lower part of the Mac laptop market. And perhaps come up with a Chromebox like lowest end offering the desktop since moved the Mac Mini out its "entry level" price point. But more likely that would be through largely "hand me down" chips. Probably the iPad Pro's.
iPadOS has trackpad (cursor ) and keyboard support. All Apple has to do at this point is put the A14X in the recently retired Macbook case and have a system . Like a number of Windows/Chromebook vendors they could sell the same basic hardware in two OS variants if they wanted. ( two birds with one stone of fixed R&D ). No huge resource splitting of the ARM design teams of the major volume drivers that pay for chip development. Apple doesn't want to be everything for everybody. Same parts used in multiple products is one their standard practices.
Apple can drop Intel and still be in x86-64 land for the upper part of the Mac line up with non "hand me down" parts.
So? Who cares? Apple is just not interested catering to the less than 1% of people that want to see AMD cpu‘s for better benchmark scores. Most of their paying customers just don’t care at all.
If AMD makes significantly better cpu‘s for the next few years, and I mean, a huge difference, and if they‘re proven/stable, then they might switch, although they will probably switch to their own ARM processors by that time...
I stay far away from Linus. Oh so you mean it’s only for AMD, not CPUs in general. Yes that’s right because AMD never had a good laptop lineup, therefore, it’s nothing special really.
Sure, after nearly 4 years prior of Intel yapping about it and not delivering it. On top of that, we have no higher wattage parts (45w TDP and above), no desktop parts, no server parts. Just some low rent, slow clock speed mobile parts, trading IPC for clock speed and delivering an Iris GPU that probably could have been utilized on 14nm no problemo. Thank God AMD has been able to kick Intel in the pants some, otherwise we would still be using 4c/8t Core i7 14nm+++++++ with no hope of seeing 8c/16t in anything less than Core X for an outrageous price.
Don’t let Intel’s supposed “just around the corner” CPUs give you false hope. They have never met a time schedule they weren’t willing to FUDge.
I lost the quotes in that reply, this is not in regards about using AMD in Apple lineup, but about AMD vs. Intel competition that was going on in the thread just a few posts up.
It's not but with real competition, we may benefit from Intel dropping prices and/or shipping better CPUs. Intel is not going to sit on this and do nothing.
Apple can even say they may think about switching to AMD to Intel and Intel is going to try to give up some incentives to keep Apple's business.
That might have been true at one point, but by all accounts the 10nm Intel have just about scraped to market with Ice Lake is nothing like the 10nm they were promising originally.
When/Where was Tiger Lake H roadmapped besides wcctech ?
At one point Intel was going to jam a Rocket Lake -U into their "shotgun blast" of a mobile CPU line up. If believe the rumbling that that is a backport of Tiger Lake (with substantive weaker iGPU to save space ) then shoveling the more so desktop targeted Rocket lake into a -H version would make far more sense than any frankenstien -U version they may have put on the earlier roadmaps as a safety value "Plan B".
If "Just throw higher power at it" works for Comet Lake H then Intel could just follow that track with a Rocket Lake that was pretty much doing the same thing at the same power levels. Just cover the -H space with a Frankenstein 14nm+10nm package solution.
The other issue is where does Alder Lake fit relative to -H line up also. A big.litle design ... seems unlikely that was primarily a desktop design starting point. That would be 2021 but Tiger Lake H may not make sense if it slid into 2021 even if it existed for a while.
Your point is moot. They are hitting the limits of what THEY can do, not the limits of what physics allows. We know this because others have moved past them while they are still dithering around adding “+’s” to process node names. And this started with the claim that the problem is physics. It’s not. It’s intel’s ineptitude.
False information in terms of power consumption, overheating, maximum clock speed, and more.
The 135W number is only the PL2 value and also has a max time of 56 seconds for the i9 and 28 seconds for all other CPUs. I’m guessing in real use it’s going to be way shorter than that and may not even reach 135W in a MacBook Pro. But it shows how strenuous this can be on a battery to have to support up to 100! amps for brief periods. I also think it shows the advantage of staying with lower frequencies/power but higher efficiency.The very top end here doesn't seem likely for a MBP 16"
"... , the Core i9 is by default allowed to take 135 W across two cores, or 67.5 W per core. Even at 60W per core, you're looking at 50A of current per core... in a laptop. ... "
AnandTech Forums: Technology, Hardware, Software, and Deals
Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.www.anandtech.com
135W in a MBP ? Probably not. For a couple of reasons.
1. With a Thunderbolt power connection .... can't get much over 100W
( The laptops will see this one will tend to have dedicated older power connectors. )
2. The current case really isn't designed for that.
Apple could set the firmware to clip the chip to the max power consumption range that the MBP 16" is designed for but .... is that really going to turn in significantly better performance than the current model? The "boost" here is largely just simply blowing even further past the 'nominal' TDP rating of the chip 45-65 far out into the iMac Pro / Mac Pro range just on mainly single threaded workloads.
Just don't see Apple jumping out of there seat to get this in to a MBP 16". If they had a "desktop replacement " Mac laptop or a super interested in gaming laptop ( where throw a relatively (for mobile) high TPD GPU in there also. ~100W ) then yeah. That isn't the prime target of the MBP market at this point.
Apple also seems to be skittish about Intel's Wi-Fi 6 ( not in MBA 2020 when mostly provisioned by default by the PCH chipset Apple had to buy). So don't see the PCH upgrade here either making them get super excited.
And to get 5.3GHz you’ll need to set your laptop on dry ice.
Good point. The existing 16" runs hot as hell if you're doing something serious whilst connected to a large external monitor. Unless something weird happens with the laws of physics, the fans are going to sound like a jet engine.
More so moving too ARM likely means loosing functionality. Likely loose VM ability to easier run ( Windows x86 , Linux x86 , etc. ). Highly likely loose some applications. (Apple will probably point to the Mac App store and say download the ARM version. For non App Store apps that won't fly as smoothly). Apple no dynamic translation software. ( Apple didn't have translations software in Rosetta either... that was someone else's tech and now own by IBM .. who is unlikely to cough it up or license it at terms Apple likes. ) [ while there is an Windows ARM version now it isn't an off-the-shelf OS. It has tighter OEM coupling than normal Windows ... which is an additional entanglement Apple hasn't demonstrated a desire to get into. ]
The knock on getting off of Intel is that they have been screwed up for last several years. Well AMD hasn't. They have been steadily executing. They have some flaws since at one point they were Thunderbolt "haters" so that would pragmatically put them off Apple's go to list for Macs . AMD has been incrementally working at unwinding that ( still aren't as smoothly proficient at it as Intel but probably making progress.). So if one vendor is not performing for Apple the easier path for Apple is to switch to the one with the substitutable good that does work. That's is what Apple normally does in a multiple supply vendor context.
The Ryzen 4000 mobile solutions would not have to be firmware power capped like the i9-9980HK ( or even worse by this new set). They actually fit the MBP 16" case thermally. Supports a discrete GPU ( with an AMD dGPU rather seamlessly.) . Supports multiple I/O ports on the system. Likewise adding Apple's custom Wi-Fi. Multiple large resolution external displays ? Yes. Large 64GB RAM workloads ? Yep.
At the lower end of the Mac line up Apple abilities match up with Intel/AMD more than favorably. As getting into the upper "half" of the Mac line up Apple has no good tract record there so far. Nor have they shown any major interest in expensively pursuing those relatively lower volumes of CPUs.
why? The previous ones didn’t even perform up to standards due to heat issues these chips give out. Why not go with AMD’s 4000 series chips? Unless tim cook is still in bed with intel’s chief, there is no reason to stick with intel any longer. If he truly counts those beans right he should go with AMD and turn even more profits. These new 5GHz bologna would probably run for less than 5 seconds before throttling below standard clock speeds.
@deconstruct60
Apple won’t be “loosing” anything and honestly, they don’t care about most of those things you mentioned.
They are going to do what’s best for them, and what’s best for Apple is being in control of as much of the stack and supply chain for their products as possible.
They’ve given Intel so much rope that they hung themselves with it.
Apple won’t be “loosing” anything and honestly, they don’t care about most of those things you mentioned.
They are going to do what’s best for them, and what’s best for Apple is being in control of as much of the stack and supply chain for their products as possible.
They’ve given Intel so much rope that they hung themselves with it.
The T2 Does all Encode/Decode HEIC/HEVC, and much more. It also houses the bootloader.
[automerge]1585854715[/automerge]
10nm Intel fab is not for consumers. It's a low yield fab process with lots of issues. You won't see 10nm for the next 12-18 months--only server space.
Want to give a few examples, because optimal conditions does not include being inside a MBP.
The maximum clock speed is already an example. Can you sustain the clock speed at 5ghz with 16-inch MBP? The sustainable clock speed is actually 3.3 ghz or near, not even close to 5ghz.
Again, failure to maintain max clock speed in a MBP falls on Apple not intel so long as it can perform in another condition.
That's MacBook limitation not the CPU's. It's a result of Apple emphasis on "slick" designs.
@4jasontv and @falainber
You guys are both making a great case for Apple to be running their own chip designs where they can design the internals fully around their desired enclosures and form factors.
You guys are both making a great case for Apple to be running their own chip designs where they can design the internals fully around their desired enclosures and form factors.