Apple made it relatively easy to add multithreading with GCD and closures. But I agree that it takes a bit of extra thought how to break down one big task into many small tasks that at the end presents a single result, if possible at all...
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
I'm not really sure I'd call that an update. It was more of a rolling supply chain update than anything else.
Yep, no surprise. Like others have said
Yes, it would. MBA have plenty of battery life, and will have even more with skylake and future generations. The increased power consumption of a retina display would be well worth the trade.
No.
for starters intel has yet to release any skylake chips with iris pro.
and second the iris pro chips will have a 45W TDP, that is 3x higher than the current MBAs 15W TDP.
perhaps a core M mac mini with redesign
exactly! that is what I am looking for a thinner 13" rMBP.
correct I agree with you that there is 0 chance MBA will get iris pro.
however, the MBA will get iris 540 this generation. it is the same 15W TDP as the last MBA generations.
and intel always releases 2 types of its 15W u processors, ones with regular graphics, 4400/5500, and ones with super charged graphics and slightly slower clock speeds. 5000/6000.
the skylake generation is no different. only change now is intel is labeling the supercharged ones with the iris tag.
not to be confused with the iris 550 ones that we see in the 28W U processors
too bad, you will have to wait until mid-2016 at the earliest
wrong. the MBA and the Macbook, are in two different CPU classes, two different size classes, and two different use classes.
the macbook is not the rMBA.
?? lol no
I think he is saying that if lightroom, PS, auto cad, was rewritten and optimized for ARM. then ARM would out perform x86 on a per watt basis.
i.e. a 5W arm processor would be faster than a 5W x86 processor
wrong. the MBA and the Macbook, are in two different CPU classes, two different size classes, and two different use classes.
the macbook is not the rMBA.
or make the macbook air as powerful as the pro, and ditch the pro...
I honestly don't think either will be ditched soon
why the obsession with quad-core?
yes but skylake core M is as powerful as a 2015 MBA.
I agree with this person. mid-2016 at the earliest.
Probably the latter.
Or maybe you just need to lower your expectations on such insanely complicated components. I know you are in America and you are entitled to everything all the time with instant gratification, but physics sometimes stop you.
Generally yes> early 2016 = q1 of 2016.
We know how well that worked for apple in the past
I would be one of many leaving the platform if they did that.
Same here. I'm sure some developers will convert, but probably majority will not. And attempting to emulate will destroy the user experience. They don't get much benefit moving to ARM.
I bought custom 1.3ghz version and returned on day 14 just to be sure I gave it a fair chance. I'm with you, keyboard is awesome, trackpad is awesome but I wish it had more of a click to it like the 13" and 15"s. Was returned because performance was awful. Surface Pro 3 similar size but never stuttered like the rMB. The single port bothered me a little, mostly because you cannot do anything with it outside of charging.
What happened to the mobile Xenon announcement? I don't think this roadmap covered those chips? That would make for a really compelling rMBP upgrade.
Heres why Apple most probably will follow three MacBook lines: the different MacBooks are defined by a combination of size/weight and power/performance. The power is simply determined by the available Intel chips, which come in 4.5 W (MacBook), 15 W (MacBook Air), and 28 W (MacBook Pro).
Size/weight is also highly intertwined with the chip power rating through the cooling solution! In Apple terms, size/weight and power also define the typical user of the computer.
MacBook: no-compromise-ultraportable with passive cooling, low performance CPU/GPU (4.5 W), 1 port. 0.92 kg.
MacBook Air: Standard range. Going retina. Active cooling (15 W). More ports. 1.35 kg.
MacBook Pro: High end range for audio/video editing. High power CPU/GPU (Iris Pro/discrete, 28 W). Even more ports. 1.58 kg.
The Air going retina will probably give a smaller gap between high end Air low end Pro, compared to the current situation. The gap will still be significant though, as it is now. Yes, 1.35 kg feels quite a bit lighter than 1.58 kg during use and transport. And the lower chassis volume of the Air is quite significant side-by-side even though height at its thickest is approx. the same as the Pro.
Considering Apple dont hesitate to cannibalize products, I would expect the Retina Air to take advantage of all innovations in size/weight reduction developed for the Retina MacBook. Quite possibly bringing the weight down to around 1.2 kg. While the Pro would keep a similar/same design according to a no-comprimise approach to performance and/or battery.
One of ehe main questions is pricing. One could expect MacBook to eventually drop (like the original Air did). And possibly the Pro going slightly more high-end. The 11" Air could eventually be dropped due to the 12" MacBook (but may be kept without update as a low price entry for years just as the non-retina Pro).
The competition is catching up in design, quality and retina screen resolution! With the exception of the new MacBook, Airs and Pros are not quite as impressive as they used to be compared to the current PCs around the meeting room table...
A Retina Air with design cues from MacBook and Skylake features and performance would be killer!!
Size/weight is also highly intertwined with the chip power rating through the cooling solution! In Apple terms, size/weight and power also define the typical user of the computer.
MacBook: no-compromise-ultraportable with passive cooling, low performance CPU/GPU (4.5 W), 1 port. 0.92 kg.
MacBook Air: Standard range. Going retina. Active cooling (15 W). More ports. 1.35 kg.
MacBook Pro: High end range for audio/video editing. High power CPU/GPU (Iris Pro/discrete, 28 W). Even more ports. 1.58 kg.
The Air going retina will probably give a smaller gap between high end Air low end Pro, compared to the current situation. The gap will still be significant though, as it is now. Yes, 1.35 kg feels quite a bit lighter than 1.58 kg during use and transport. And the lower chassis volume of the Air is quite significant side-by-side even though height at its thickest is approx. the same as the Pro.
Considering Apple dont hesitate to cannibalize products, I would expect the Retina Air to take advantage of all innovations in size/weight reduction developed for the Retina MacBook. Quite possibly bringing the weight down to around 1.2 kg. While the Pro would keep a similar/same design according to a no-comprimise approach to performance and/or battery.
One of ehe main questions is pricing. One could expect MacBook to eventually drop (like the original Air did). And possibly the Pro going slightly more high-end. The 11" Air could eventually be dropped due to the 12" MacBook (but may be kept without update as a low price entry for years just as the non-retina Pro).
The competition is catching up in design, quality and retina screen resolution! With the exception of the new MacBook, Airs and Pros are not quite as impressive as they used to be compared to the current PCs around the meeting room table...
A Retina Air with design cues from MacBook and Skylake features and performance would be killer!!
Unfortunately for both of you, my comparison was to the Macbook Pro, not the Macbook, as clearly written in my original post. The 13" Macbook Pro IS the retina Macbook Air that so many people want.
With what CPUs since none are available or will be until late 2016?
I guess my question is, with the current haswell EP, CAN TB3 and USB C be supported with some addons (not by consumer, but by Apple I mean)
Not in terms of power rating (15 W vs 28 W). Therefore also not in terms of cooling. Therefore also not in terms of size/weight/design. In addition to size, weight, performance and design, differential features could be ports.
I am fully aware of the difference in power ratings of the respective CPU's. But when people complain about wanting a retina Macbook Air, they fail to realize that the machine they want is already basically made as the Macbook Pro. Apple does not appear willing to fill every possible niche in the laptop category, so if you want a thin and light 13" laptop from Apple, with a retina screen, the Pro is what there is. Any mythical retina Air that might exist would be so close in size and weight and price to the Pro that already exists that it'd be splitting hairs.
I'd bet on early 2016. 2015 has been a bad year for the 15" rMBP, to say the least.
I see your point, but still think it is room for both. I cannot see Apple keeping Airs non-retina (should be an expected feature for a premium laptop in 2016), nor skipping the whole Air line (15 W chips). I guess the 13" Air is the most popular MacBook. So what then?
I don't really understand Apple's reasoning either - the 15w parts are by far the most popular in laptops as a whole - but I guess we shouldn't complain when the Macbook Pro is thinner and lighter with considerably better battery life than most other laptops with a more powerful chip to boot. One option I'd like to see is when they re-design the Pro line (which I think will happen for Skylake) is that they offer an entry level pro-like model with a 15w chip with the possibility for even better battery life - but that might be too confusing for Apple to consider.
I prefer OSX as well and the premium is fairly small anyway, but today there's no OSX product that I actually want to buy, irrespective of price. MBPro has a design I dislike (too thick and heavy, in my opinion), rMB is useless for me, and I will not get a new Air with a frankly embarrassing 1440x900 resolution for 2015. Even if the CPU is good.
The Skylake CPUs won't make any substantial difference to the current Macbook product line. If Apple does not get their R&D in gear and produce a laptop that pushes the envelope (or at least keeps up with the competition), I will probably buy the Dell, with Ubuntu on it. I'd rather not though.
Performance itself has not been scaling that fast, but performance per watt has been scaling very well. As the world has gone more mobile, performance per watt has become a lot more important than raw speed. That said, there are other physical limitations that are making it much more difficult to eek out more performance. The benefits are flowing through, just not in the way you expect.
So if they keep with the standard of using 13-inch Retina MacBook internals for the mac mini, that means that, in the next refresh, the mini will again be denied quad core.
Which means that the 2012 mini I'm writing this post on is likely the last quad-core mini model in the next few years.
Wrong answer, Apple.
Which means that the 2012 mini I'm writing this post on is likely the last quad-core mini model in the next few years.
Wrong answer, Apple.
There's a substantial difference between the current Core M in the rMB and the i7 in the 2015 MBA, particularly in multicore performance. Skylake will improve only a bit the CPU speed. Even if it does do a 20% increase for the Core M, it won't be anywhere close to the 2015 MBA.
Obviously you misspelled rMB as rMBP, or maybe you didn't even realize that what you bought is something called "New MacBook", nothing "pro" there.
No it's not. I hate using the MBPro - it cuts into my arms when holding it in my lap and typing on it. Rubbish design, compared to the Air.
Of course you might be right, but I suspect Apple has opted to "pull a cMBP" on the MBA and position the rMB as the MBA's successor in the ultraportable laptop category. In fact, I'd say Apple has already started by not giving it a retina screen. If this holds true, then I'm guessing Apple will continue to guide the MBA into obsolescence by either giving it unsatisfactory upgrades or eventually no upgrades at all. If the MBA doesn't get a retina screen, I'd suspect Apple will look at the 15W chips with Intel HD 520 GPUs as a way to kill two birds with one stone: keep build costs cheaper and provide additional incentive for prospective buyers to move to either the rMB or rMBP. And if the MBA remains without a retina screen, Apple will likely feel the MBA doesn't "need" (yes, I know that's a loaded term here) Iris graphics.
Scrapping the larger heavier power hungry Pro models could be more plausible once the Air goes retina with improved Skylake performance rMB design with the need for just a couple of USB-C ports. I guess the Air has a significantly larger market, does anyone have the numbers?
The MBA was introduced to be a thin and light laptop to do light work on. The MacBook fills that niche. Yes, they use different CPU ... but only because Intel didn't have Core M until recently. If they had it before, Apple likely would have used it. Also, the size is irrelevant. The MBA comes in two sizes as is. Are we saying only one is the MBA because they're different sizes? No.
The MBA and MB serve the same purpose as laid out by Apple. The MB is the MBA's next form. Within the next couple years, I see the MBA being phased out as the MB becomes a better cash value proposition (the cost of parts come down).