Intel Unveils 10th-Gen Processors Suitable for Next 16-Inch MacBook Pro With Wi-Fi 6 and Turbo Boost Speeds Above 5GHz

[DanBig]

That is the foundation for Apple's case to switch to ARM.

Sorry a great reason to jump the AMD not ARM!!
[automerge]1585925381[/automerge]

You can still drain battery while on charger if draw is enough, usually means you’re exceeding the charger capacity. Quite a few thin laptops I’ve seen with higher end dedicated GPUs do this under combined heavy CPU+GPU loads. I’m almost certain even the current MBP 16 does too. I’ve seen it happen in BootCamp where Apples tweaks/limits on the CPU are probably not enabled.

YES! The 16 > 19 15" MBP models do this. Sadly you can't plug in a second charger or even a battery to boost the power to buy a bit more processing time on long compile or rendering jobs!

 

[nylonsteel]

intel vs arm = competition is good

 

[Jury]

At this point, it is horrible for Apple to stick with Intel.

 

[nt5672]

Oh how I wish there were a way to wager on this...

I think you are going to be dead. flat. wrong.

Ok, I'll admit that it might have a slightly larger screen. But an A chip and is an A chip and the device it is in won't do much more. The question is why have a 13 inch computer with an A chip when the iPad is basically the same.

 

[ls1dreams]

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/ftsvn7

Intel is dead. AMD APU consumes only 50W for 8 cores Intel consumes 67.5W per core base on Reddit.

Comet lake is a joke. I'm holding out for at least Tiger Lake or whatever Apple uses at end of year. Maybe 2021 if i'm patient, but a 2011 macbook pro is killing me

 

[chucker23n1]

Comet lake is a joke. I'm holding out for at least Tiger Lake or whatever Apple uses at end of year. Maybe 2021 if i'm patient, but a 2011 macbook pro is killing me

Comet Lake is a massive upgrade over your 2011 regardless.

 

[09872738]

At this point, it is horrible for Apple to stick with Intel.

... as is the lack of nVidia GPUs at least as an option

 

[ingambe]

... as is the lack of nVidia GPUs at least as an option

That’s the real problem of macbook
no CUDA is really limiting

 

[oldmacs]

is an indication of what will come when Apple controls every aspect of their own hardware. It will be no panacea (except perhaps for shareholders).

Exactly. There have been a heck ton of times Apple has been super lazy about upgrading Macs when the chips have well and truly been available. Even iOS devices. Apple updated the iPad baseline model, without doing anything to the processor. This is all about them saving money and it won't get passed onto the consumer.

 

[deconstruct60]

I meant if the Core i9-9980HK was allowed to operate without any constraints, as some seem to think it should with this idiocy that the 9980HK should run at Turbo frequencies all the time or else Apple is throttling it. Everybody is throttling the 9980HK, if they are using it at all. The power draw is enormous and ridiculous for a mobile chip.

Not quite everybody, there are some "extreme" mobile workstations. (but in more normative business centric and/or sub 4.5 lbs laptops, generally yes) . This new 10980HK laptop comes with a 200+W adapter.

https://www.anandtech.com/show/1568...re-laptops-with-nvidia-rtx-super-and-mini-led

More so laptops that are "desktop replacements" that move from desk to desk to do substantive work ( and perhaps some for more relatively lightweight email / web browsing / office apps (MS Word/PowerPoint ) when transitioning between desks. ). Battery ( or Thunderbolt provisioned) mode is a different power configuration state for those laptops.

The older MBP 17" models used to be relatively close to 7 lbs. That "luggable" mobile class Apple isn't doing anymore, but there are still some folks who want it. To those folks the xx980HK will be 'throttled' because Apple doesn't offer the luggable option.

 

[deconstruct60]

You can still drain battery while on charger if draw is enough, usually means you’re exceeding the charger capacity. Quite a few thin laptops I’ve seen with higher end dedicated GPUs do this under combined heavy CPU+GPU loads. I’m almost certain even the current MBP 16 does too. I’ve seen it happen in BootCamp where Apples tweaks/limits on the CPU are probably not enabled.

The reason why a responsibly design system shouldn't leave the firmware defaults to "draw infinity power" on a Intel system.

Laptops power systems are set to be "battery UPS" like systems to get over brownouts , power sags , or just plain blackouts without the system hiccuping. But there should be a sanity check on when that is not what is happening.

A system where the "comes in the box" power cord/supply can't power the system under load is broke ( or a best a fundamentally flawed design. ) I am sure folks ship such systems, but they are not worth paying a premium for non attention to detail.

 

[chucker23n1]

The older MBP 17" models used to be relatively close to 7 lbs. That "luggable" mobile class Apple isn't doing anymore, but there are still some folks who want it. To those folks the xx980HK will be 'throttled' because Apple doesn't offer the luggable option.

Apple never made a luggable. The 17-inch was 6.8 pounds when the 15-inch was also 5.6 pounds.

Today's 16-inch is 4.3 pounds — so, today, a hypothetical 17-inch or 18-inch would be 5.2 pounds, nowhere near 7.

That 17-inch also only came with a 68 Wh battery. It was nothing close to a 200 W "desktop replacement".

 

[deconstruct60]

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/ftsvn7

Intel is dead. AMD APU consumes only 50W for 8 cores Intel consumes 67.5W per core base on Reddit.

that is apples to oranges comparison. On all cores at max workload , the Intel processor doesn't consume all that power. So max core to max core the gap is no where near as big. That would 'apples to apples' comparison.

Single core max turbo to single core max turbo the IPC and clocks don't match. Intel is consuming more, but also doing more. if put a value premium on single core drag racing then the Intel solution has metrics . Intel isn't winning on multiple dimensions, but not dead either.

Is Apple focused on selling the "Pro" laptops with the absolute maximum single core drag racing potential? Not really. So probably not very excited about this new Intel offering. When Intel was winning in mobile on more than several dimension it was a much easier design win for them. But they are opening the door for AMD here. ( and AMD is also managing not to shoot themselves in the foot multiple times for last couple of years. )

 

[PostApple2016BrainWash]

What a joke. It took 8 months to release 10th gen CPU while other 10th gen series already released around last August and yet the improvement is seriously minimum.

Increasing the maximum clock speed is meaningless especially for laptop series cause it can not reach and then sustain that speed. They dont even have a plan to replace 14nm till 2022! Just throw those garbages away.

This is why Apple needs to ditch Intel as soon as possible

Agreed. Supporting AMD ZEN 2 will be a no brainer as the performance per watt can be greater and less heat.

 

[deconstruct60]

Apple never made a luggable. The 17-inch was 6.8 pounds when the 15-inch was also 5.6 pounds.

I put luggable in quotes. I wasn't trying to technically refer to something like the old 80's Osborne One at 25lbs. But yeah that may be a bit over the top. However, modern folks normalized on 2-3 lbs laptops 7 lbs is heavy in relatively modern terms. Few are going to be happy about humping that through long plane trips or walking around with for extended periods of time.

Today's 16-inch is 4.3 pounds — so, today, a hypothetical 17-inch or 18-inch would be 5.2 pounds, nowhere near 7.

With a 200W thermal worload to deal with it wouldn't incrementally be a scaled up 16". Apple wouldn't do a 17" that was basically the same baseline design as t he 16". There is a 2" gap between 13" and 15".

Going to bigger bulk would be to go to a different operational range and to pull back from normal mobility. It would get heavier.

That 17-inch also only came with a 68 Wh battery. It was nothing close to a 200 W "desktop replacement".

Few to any of these heavy , mobile workstation really want to run all that much on battery. They all have smaller batteries an "only a couple hours" run times. They are mainly "put in your card and move between desks" systems.
Few are even trying to do substantive heavy duty work on battery at all.

 

[chucker23n1]

I put luggable in quotes. I wasn't trying to technically refer to something like the old 80's Osborne One at 25lbs.

Oh, I know.

(Although the Mac Portable was a thing…)

But I'm saying they also never made a desktop replacement. Yes, recent MacBook Pros have trended even more towards the Air, but even the initial PowerBook G4 17-inch emphasized thinness.

 

[deconstruct60]

....

But I'm saying they also never made a desktop replacement. Yes, recent MacBook Pros have trended even more towards the Air, but even the initial PowerBook G4 17-inch emphasized thinness.

The PowerBook G4 17" was in a slippery slope of being desktop replacement when it first appeared. Circa that timeframe ( early-mid 2000's ) Apple's iMac screens were also in the 17" range at that time too. Yeah the processors were substantively different. Especially when there was a G4 vs G5 gap between laptop and desktop mac products , but weren't giving up "desktop" screen real estate for those laptop options. The speed bumped G4's by end of laptop run were in similar ballpark to the desktop G4s before Apple transitioned off.

Some folks though treated the MBP 17" as a desktop replacement. ( they usually didn't have upper mid range to top end desktop performance needs; so the MBP 17" was close enough. And had backed far away from thinness to get to so-DIMMs and standard connection drives. even Optical drives. ). As the iMac screen sizes got bigger, then desktop class processors , and then underclocked desktop GPUs the gap with the 17" laptops got increasingly bigger. The MBP 17" was easier to temporarily remove from your desktop when need more room than an low end iMac was. That was the group of folks that cared much less about the weight than most other mac laptop buyers.


This Intel 10980HK is primarily targeted at being a "desktop replacement" (performance) system chip. And since Apple have moved over time to exit even being close to that space, these don't look to be good candidates for a future MacBook Pro. They stuffed 9086HK into the top end BTO for the MBP 16" but that seems mainly because of a lack of any better options (and it was relatively cheap to do as a derivative of platform already had working. ).

 

[PickUrPoison]

<snip>
This Intel 10980HK is primarily targeted at being a "desktop replacement" (performance) system chip. And since Apple have moved over time to exit even being close to that space, these don't look to be good candidates for a future MacBook Pro. They stuffed 9086HK into the top end BTO for the MBP 16" but that seems mainly because of a lack of any better options (and it was relatively cheap to do as a derivative of platform already had working. ).

I don’t think the i9-10980HK is targeted at the almost non-existent desktop replacement market any more than the i9-9980HK was.

Apple would limit its power consumption to ~70W anyway. There’s really no appreciable difference between the chips and the systems you’d build around them.

 

[Deathyang]

So no significant differences between the 9986JK and the 10980HK? I’m in the market for a 16inch but Im undecided if i should wait for apple to release an update or just buy the computer. I’m currently on a 2012 15inch, still runs but even zoom calls make the fans go wild.

 

[ChromeCrescendo]

So no significant differences between the 9986JK and the 10980HK? I’m in the market for a 16inch but Im undecided if i should wait for apple to release an update or just buy the computer. I’m currently on a 2012 15inch, still runs but even zoom calls make the fans go wild.

I am in the same boat - wondering if I should pull the trigger on the MBP 16" today, or wait and see if there will be a spec bump here in the next week or so

 

[chucker23n1]

The PowerBook G4 17" was in a slippery slope of being desktop replacement when it first appeared. Circa that timeframe ( early-mid 2000's ) Apple's iMac screens were also in the 17" range at that time too. Yeah the processors were substantively different. Especially when there was a G4 vs G5 gap between laptop and desktop mac products , but weren't giving up "desktop" screen real estate for those laptop options. The speed bumped G4's by end of laptop run were in similar ballpark to the desktop G4s before Apple transitioned off.

But in that era, the iMac was more of a consumer computer than it is today. It was far more normal for families to have a desktop at home. And it was more normal to have a Power Mac for higher-end needs. It was far less niche than today's iMac Pro and Mac Pro are.

I don’t think the i9-10980HK is targeted at the almost non-existent desktop replacement market any more than the i9-9980HK was.

Yup.

 

[Zdigital2015]

Not quite everybody, there are some "extreme" mobile workstations. (but in more normative business centric and/or sub 4.5 lbs laptops, generally yes) . This new 10980HK laptop comes with a 200+W adapter.

https://www.anandtech.com/show/1568...re-laptops-with-nvidia-rtx-super-and-mini-led

More so laptops that are "desktop replacements" that move from desk to desk to do substantive work ( and perhaps some for more relatively lightweight email / web browsing / office apps (MS Word/PowerPoint ) when transitioning between desks. ). Battery ( or Thunderbolt provisioned) mode is a different power configuration state for those laptops.

The older MBP 17" models used to be relatively close to 7 lbs. That "luggable" mobile class Apple isn't doing anymore, but there are still some folks who want it. To those folks the xx980HK will be 'throttled' because Apple doesn't offer the luggable option.

You’re correct, Apple isn’t addressing that market at all with something larger and while the 16” is better, it’s still lacking a few distinctions.

Expecting Apple to create a luggable option probably isn’t realistic in this day and age. The Unibody 17” is about as thick as I would want to go anymore. I can excuse that Apple doesn’t have one, but I can’t excuse Intel advertising a mobile CPU that can routinely use 3x as much power as it’s rated for on their website. I now believe Apple will end up putting this CPU into the 16” MacBook Pro sooner or later, but limit it to a reasonable power draw. No, it won’t be able to run flat out, but I just don’t expect any OEM to be able to do that. I find it inexcuable how Intel has completely abandoned reasonable TDP limits, even on unlocked mobile CPUs and left PC OEMs to figure out how to cool it themselves.

At some point, I ask myself, why does Intel even make and sell the xx980HK, given it’s intended usage is at odds with all the design tenets of its intended usage, but I digress.

 

[Deathyang]

I am in the same boat - wondering if I should pull the trigger on the MBP 16" today, or wait and see if there will be a spec bump here in the next week or so

We can only hope it would be next week, but WWDC or later in the year seems more likely

 

[ChromeCrescendo]

We can only hope it would be next week, but WWDC or later in the year seems more likely

Plus, I am caught the middle as I really do not want a laptop but the Mac Mini does not have the graphics capabilities I need, the Mac Pro is insanely expensive and the iMac 27" screen has grown too small for me

So, I figured I would get the MBP 16" with a larger external monitor and use it in clamshell mode -- but that leaves the question of, well, why am I paying for a screen on a laptop that I will rarely use as a laptop


If Apple offered the Mac Mini with the same GPU as the MBP 16" I would be set

 

[chucker23n1]

Plus, I am caught the middle as I really do not want a laptop but the Mac Mini does not have the graphics capabilities I need, the Mac Pro is insanely expensive and the iMac 27" screen has grown too small for me

So, I figured I would get the MBP 16" with a larger external monitor and use it in clamshell mode -- but that leaves the question of, well, why am I paying for a screen on a laptop that I will rarely use as a laptop


If Apple offered the Mac Mini with the same GPU as the MBP 16" I would be set

Mac mini + eGPU?