A start. Exactly. I would never see Apple completely abandoning Intel in fell swoop. People can “ooo” and “ahh” all they want, and speculate until the cows come home, but there’s nothing to indicate that is going to happen any time soon, other than maybe an ARM-based MacBook to start. This has been rumored for so long, I can’t believe it hasn’t been relegated to vaporware.
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-Generation 'Comet Lake' Processors Appropriate for Updated iMacs
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
A start. Exactly. I would never see Apple completely abandoning Intel in fell swoop. People can “ooo” and “ahh” all they want, and speculate until the cows come home, but there’s nothing to indicate that is going to happen any time soon, other than maybe an ARM-based MacBook to start. This has been rumored for so long, I can’t believe it hasn’t been relegated to vaporware.
Looks like a small but welcome upgrade. I think we’ll see better from the 11th gen with the new iGPU, but this will tide us over.
Folks hoping for AMD will need to keep in mind it is about the whole package and a huge part of that is TB3 which AMD lags on atm and that Intel and AMD leapfrog each other frequently. As for ARM on the iMac, make it a co-processor to offload specific tasks too like we see with the afterburner. That would make the Mac special and unbeatable (especially if you can test iOS apps on said co-processor.).
Folks hoping for AMD will need to keep in mind it is about the whole package and a huge part of that is TB3 which AMD lags on atm and that Intel and AMD leapfrog each other frequently. As for ARM on the iMac, make it a co-processor to offload specific tasks too like we see with the afterburner. That would make the Mac special and unbeatable (especially if you can test iOS apps on said co-processor.).
How do you know? AMD is cheaper, as fast as or faster, less heat and power, and Apple supposedly has a good relationship with them on the video card side. They also do custom CPUs which should intrigue Apple. I'd say there are Ryzen Macs in Apple....
lol Intel is far from dead. AMD is still second fiddle. If you look at benchmarks with open eyes, and real-world application performance, it takes twice the cores to match an Intel CPU and AMD CPU's as per usually, have less IPC.
Fanyboys unite again around the underdog
LOL. The OG Ryzen was close to Intel in IPC metrics. Close enough not to notice. The latest ones closed the gap and pulled ahead. For a modern OS the core count advantage is much better. I've go an OG Ryzen 7 and it can run @ 100% doing Folding@Home and I don't notice it. It also blows through video encoding and anything else I throw at it. Reliability has been stellar at 24/7 since Nov 2017.
Apple has a bunch of TB input as they worked with Intel on it. Intel also updated the licensing to allow others to use it. ASRock makes an AMD motherboard with Thunderbolt. So I'm sure Apple and AMD could get it working on Ryzen.
TB is also an issue for ARM as it doesn't exist there at all.
Apple killed gaming on the Mac far more effectively with the removal of 32bit than any hardware change. Even the doom and gloom of the removal of OpenGL is mute since many of the games where 32bit. Of course better hardware and newer APIs will help bring new games to the platform, but that won’t help see old favourites return.
They have. If the next 13" / 14" is coming next month or during WWDC, per the rumors, then this is the processor it will get, with added benefit of supporting up to 32GB RAM
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
Except Q1 is over, and we're almost in the middle of Q2. As far as I know, nobody has seen the 1068G7 in a shipping product.
Apple's Intel options right now would be Comet Lake-U, which is basically out of the question with current SKUs (but otherwise enticing with its six-core option), because none of them offer Iris Plus, or Ice Lake-U.
We don't really have benchmark data for the 1068G7, and all other parts are, at most, 15W. Let's take the beefiest 15W part, the 1065G7, and pit it against the 8569U, the current high-end option on the 13-inchers:
In single-core, it does 6% worse, averaging 1091 vs. 1160. In multi-core, it does 22% worse, averaging 3539 vs. 4334. Oops.
There would be benefits: way faster memory, the option for more memory (as you point out), and somewhat faster graphics. But other than the mythical 1065G7, which surely Apple wouldn't want to put in all 13-inch MBPs, the CPUs would actually be worse.
Alternatives:
- as happened with the Air, Intel gives Apple special SKUs. Maybe even special variants of Comet Lake instead.
- Apple just waits for Tiger Lake-U instead. Big leap in graphics, and lots of stuff like USB4 and PCIe 4 (some of that may not yet trickle down to -U, though).
- the AMD wild card. Renoir would be appealing for this generation.
That may be the case now though I did forget to add that Apple and Intel have some sort of deal that lets Apple do things like the MacBook and Air before anyone else could. They might not want to rock the boat for negligible benefit and perhaps higher costs.
I hope you’re not wrong either, but I still see no reason for Intel to omit them, considering they have an “E” version listed. A 4c/8t, 6c/12t and 8c/16t update would be a welcome boost. Too bad that hapless iGPU is still hanging on.
Here's the actual comparison (bold indicates improvement).
Minor clock speed bumps all around, except for built-to-order CPUs that add 2 additional cores (Apple will likely down clock maximum Turbo Boost to keep thermal under control).
| iMac Model (Retina) | Current CPU (9th) | Potential New CPU (10th) |
|---|---|---|
| 21.5" Base | 3.6GHz 4-core i3 | 3.6-4.3GHz 4-core i3 |
| 21.5" Better | 3.0-4.1GHz 6-core i5 | 3.1-4.5GHz 6-core i5 |
| 21.5" Best (Custom) | 3.2-4.6GHz 6-core i7 | 2.9-4.8GHz 8-core i7 |
| 27" Base | Same as 21.5" Better | Same as 21.5" Better |
| 27" Better | 3.1-4.3GHz 6-core i5 | 3.3-4.8GHz 6-core i5 |
| 27" Best | 3.7-4.6GHz 6-core i5 | 4.1-4.8GHz 6-core i5 |
| 27" Best (Custom) | 3.6-5.0GHz 8-core i9 | 3.7-5.3GHz 10-core i9 |
Minor clock speed bumps all around, except for built-to-order CPUs that add 2 additional cores (Apple will likely down clock maximum Turbo Boost to keep thermal under control).
14nm matters because it's keeping Intel from making big improvements. Yes, they can still add cores, but really only because their Turbo Boost / Thermal Velocity Boost means they shut those cores off a lot (which, fine, you'll rarely need that level of parallelization anyway). They can't really do much in the way of single-thread performance. They haven't made significant microarchitecture changes in years — it's why the memory in the Air is so much faster, for example.
They might merge some of the Ice Lake / Tiger Lake changes into Rocket Lake, or they might abandon that altogether and finally go 10nm.
TL;DR: a combination of clock speed limits they've been hitting, and a plan (that kind of backfired) not to evolve the 14nm Skylake microarchitecture much further.
Why not 6 (base), 8 (better) and 10 core (best) on the 27 inch..? Having actual decent cpus a standard instead of paying hundreds extra to get a 'good' deal?
The 4, 6 and 8 makes sense on the 21.
Azrael.
Comet Lake is cool, but Rocket Lake is coming! Probably by end of 2020, and likely on z590. I am hoping Apple supports those processors... that would allow me to upgrade my z170 skylake with a z590 motherboard, with usb-4.
I agree, Intel is being lazy, but those CPUs are still fast and reliable, so as an end user I don’t really care about 14nm vs 10nm.
It is just a number.
Those “14nm old CPU” can reach an higher clock than the marvelous “7nm CPU” made by AMD.
Seeing the price reductions on most of these chips there is absolutely NO reason whatsoever for Apple not to offer SSD standard in all models at this point.
Living with Hackintosh computers for the last 2 years now, and keeping my MacBook Pros from 2013 and 2014 on standby, I am ready for Apple to release a Pro laptop with the AMD type processor. I keep a 12 inch PowerBook around for PPC programs I use. Using macOS on non-standard hardware is not recommended and of course is a violation of TOS.
The point of this post is not to advocate Hackintosh or to say Intel is a bad option. I have the option to purchase the latest iPad Pro and Magic Keyboard but do not choose iOS as "my computer". macOS is my choice OS and when Apple gives me a reason to upgrade my hardware I will be more than happy to make the purchase.
MacBook Pro from 2019 does not thrill me, neither does the Mac Pro or iMac. Apple, make me a Mac like the Razer Blade Pro with plenty of ports or give me one port and a form factor like the iPad and Magic Keyboard. Either way, it must run macOS and not iPadOS.
I want a touch experience with a bad ass trackpad that I can carry and has 64 GB and 4 to 8 TB of storage. The nonsense about not implementing touchscreens I don't understand as I have that with the Razer Blade Pro with a screen protector that is easily cleaned with a microfiber cloth. Touch is very useful, and the 4K display is not that bad. The iPad Pro has a great screen, and now with the Magic Keyboard holy crap! If that thing ran macOS for reals it would make the MacBook Pro irrelevant for most mobile power users.
For such a form factor I could easily understand the rationale for the single board, non-serviceable/expandable POSs that Apple sells for over $6k as top spec and calls "Pro". I am not fooled.
The point of this post is not to advocate Hackintosh or to say Intel is a bad option. I have the option to purchase the latest iPad Pro and Magic Keyboard but do not choose iOS as "my computer". macOS is my choice OS and when Apple gives me a reason to upgrade my hardware I will be more than happy to make the purchase.
MacBook Pro from 2019 does not thrill me, neither does the Mac Pro or iMac. Apple, make me a Mac like the Razer Blade Pro with plenty of ports or give me one port and a form factor like the iPad and Magic Keyboard. Either way, it must run macOS and not iPadOS.
I want a touch experience with a bad ass trackpad that I can carry and has 64 GB and 4 to 8 TB of storage. The nonsense about not implementing touchscreens I don't understand as I have that with the Razer Blade Pro with a screen protector that is easily cleaned with a microfiber cloth. Touch is very useful, and the 4K display is not that bad. The iPad Pro has a great screen, and now with the Magic Keyboard holy crap! If that thing ran macOS for reals it would make the MacBook Pro irrelevant for most mobile power users.
For such a form factor I could easily understand the rationale for the single board, non-serviceable/expandable POSs that Apple sells for over $6k as top spec and calls "Pro". I am not fooled.
You’re too optimistic for Intel, and those Z490 motherboards are just released... today.