The 15 rMBP still uses a 47W CPU which is around half the TDP of the 6700K and at least 9 times the TDP of an A series chip. so its still a terrible comparison. Again, if you want to compare micro architectures, you need an apples to apples comparison (ha). Maybe one day Apple decides to frequency scale their CPUs to 3.0GHz (making up for that 100% performance difference) and add more cores. Then you might see an A-series with the speed of the "Pro" chip in the current rMBP.
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 Full Lineup of Skylake Processors for Notebooks and Desktops, Early 2016 Likely for Most Macs
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
ARM don't make "high end" chips because they're power hogs, which is my point. Intel can add more cores but those cores will still be power hogs (or they're perform poorly) because of Intel's legacy architecture. That's why their mobile processors only have 2 cores.
Why is it so hard to understand? Intel can't beat ARM in power usage. Low power is the future which ever way you cut it. Intel can't compete going forward so Apple will dump them in their laptops at some point.
Also your car analogy makes no sense.
If Acer can release that in October, Apple should be able to update its dated iMac by October also
You're factually incorrect. The x7 is not a power hog and doesn't perform poorly. It's a quad core, too.
Intel hasn't beaten ARM, but they started from zero in the mobile space, and now they have comparable tech. There's still room for improvement, granted, but to make sweeping statements such as "Intel can't beat ARM" "Intel can't compete going forward" seems entirely baseless, especially considering how Intel managed to reinvent itself after the Netburst debacle.
Exactly my point. Aaaand here is Asus, funny how I think I've seen this design somewhere before
http://www.golem.de/news/asus-zen-a...-ssd-realsense-skylake-win10-1509-116102.htmlNope, you're entirely wrong. Intel can't get around the laws of physics. The idea that Intel have something comparable to ARMs is laughable. I guess Intel giving away billions of dollars of mobile chips because they're so great?
ARM has the power advantage, allowing it to add cores. Parallel or threaded software is not a huge problem generally, it's just a question of existing software being adapted. You don't have to parallelize everything. There are already languages that will do most of it for you automatically.
Current software is geared towards single thread performance, but that's a solvable problem. Meanwhile you're still quoting a CPU that uses 10x to 20x the power compared to the ARM, which is the real problem Intel can't solve with x86.
The computing industry doesn't stand still. Apple may well not go with ARM laptops, given Tim Cooks lack of vision and lack of technical insight.
But all that means is that Apple will be standing still and someone else will eat their lunch.
That's the most stupid argument I've ever heard of by a blindy...
So that's the most powerful laptop uh...please tell me again how the Retina Macbook is the MOST powerful laptop?
Yeah I was right to stop arguing with you, you're level of blindness and hypocrisy is paramount.
Yup, that's what I miss too. I know there was a much lower number of applications to choose from and that the switch to intel made Macs more popular (hence, more attractive to 3rd party s/w houses) but OTOH PowerPC was a much more solid/stable platform than intel ever was. Market-wise it was a good choice. But, technically, G5 was ahead of intel back then so it's not that clear where things would go if IBM had chosen to support Apple properly. Let's not forget that Apple was actually forced to switch to intel when IBM declared that the powerful G5 cpu would not get released for laptops, leaving MacBooks out in the cold, so it was not exactly a clear choice.
At the same time ARM cannot solve the problem of providing the same performance as an Intel CPU while having a lower power consumption. And it's not only the single core performance we are talking about, it's also multi-thread.
*boom* Stalemate.
Believe it or not: for more complex applications, performance matters.
Maybe, someday in the future, ARM CPUs will be able to provide the necessary performance, but that day is still far off.
Last edited:
A laptop is a human mounted mobile computer and therefore it is optimized for weight, size, heat and performance combined. You can put an iMac on your lap, but its not a very practical laptop. You can install OS X on a Microsoft Surface Pro, but WiFi, Bluetooth, Touchscreen, Sleep and Headphone jack won't work. The best most useful optimal solution for mouse-pointer computing on your lap so far is the new MacBook. It doesn't even need a fan to not burn your lap. That's something every laptop user wants from his laptop and if you want something else, that's not a laptop anymore. It's a notebook on a desk or a Mac Pro ToGo, I don't know. Low power consumption, low heat and low weight are essential for a laptop. If you don't understand that, it's useless to talk with you Blind Edgar. Keep comparing your benchmarks and buy the 17-inch 3kg Windows notebook they tell you is the best.
Last years iPhone is a product no longer under active development. Lots of folks would like to have a new iPhone 5/5s with a better camera and a new processor, but they can't have them. They are only available as unchanges cheap options, because the assembly lines exist. Instead of updating the 5s they will stop making them next year. Same will happen to the MacBook Air, it will be made for some more years without any major difference and than it will vanish. The Air didn't even get the ForceTouch trackpad with its last processor update and that requires only minor changes compared with going 4x to a Retina screen. This line of notebooks has come to an end of development, not yet an end of production.
It would be sufficient - but the current Skylake chips would need to have a 70% improvement in their mobile chips performance-wise -- and nothing like that is coming in the next 5+ years.
Apple is making changes to their app store for application submission (app slimming, submission of bitcode [LLVM code]) to allow applications to be bought and downloaded to different chip architectures without the user being aware of which architectured application they need, and without the need of something like rosetta....
The only thing that users would be aware of would be if it is not an x86 -- then VMWare with Windows would be not really that feasible or extremely slow since the vm would have to simulate the processor instead of having the processor run the code.
The ARM chips at the top end are more than sufficient for the Macbook (but not the Macbook Air). It won't be this year, but you have to believe that this gives Apple the power to use different architectures for "OS X" without confusing the user. Without it it would just cause too much confusion.
It would be nice if Microsoft made similar moves since that would then end the monopoly of having to get an x86 machine to run Windows.
There has not been a quad-core 13" to my knowledge.
There are quad-cores that have a higher thermal packaging - and likely battery draw - so it would take some engineering (though there are 13" quad-core laptops from other vendors). The batteries size I believe is around 75% that of the 15", but then they did have one with a mechanical hard drive which draws more power, and of course each generation you save a little more power on the display, memory, etc. along with maybe a larger battery through molding like in the Macbook.... it is doable.... but the question is can they get the battery life from 7hrs up until 9 or 10hrs which then would make it fit within other Macbook battery minimums for marketing purposes.
There are quad-cores that have a higher thermal packaging - and likely battery draw - so it would take some engineering (though there are 13" quad-core laptops from other vendors). The batteries size I believe is around 75% that of the 15", but then they did have one with a mechanical hard drive which draws more power, and of course each generation you save a little more power on the display, memory, etc. along with maybe a larger battery through molding like in the Macbook.... it is doable.... but the question is can they get the battery life from 7hrs up until 9 or 10hrs which then would make it fit within other Macbook battery minimums for marketing purposes.
This is a tough one to determine. On one hand, I can see Apple wanting to integrate the look and keyboard of the recent MacBook into the MBP lineup. Streamline manufacturing and parts.
On the other hand, positioning the MacBooks as a different beast may be desired. The MacBook Airs have become so similar to the MacBook Pros that I'm guessing confused buyers. Why buy a MBP, when I can get an Air for much less.
I don't understand it either. MacBook is a more expensive, slower, retina version of MacBook Air. Except MacBook is also thinner than MacBook Air. WTF does Air mean then?
I'm placing my bets that next generation of MacBooks (Air or whatever they call them) will have no ports at all and wireless charging. Only then will Ive be able to sleep at night.
I'm placing my bets that next generation of MacBooks (Air or whatever they call them) will have no ports at all and wireless charging. Only then will Ive be able to sleep at night.
My guess is that the current MacBook Air will be discontinued once the MacBooks come down in price.
Then we'll have an all retina laptop lineup.
And maybe to further differentiate the product lines, the MBP's will have 14" and 16" screens, same overall size as today, but with a thinner bezel.
What is this regular work you're doing on an Air that you can't do on a MacBook?