Intel Unveils Full Lineup of Skylake Processors for Notebooks and Desktops, Early 2016 Likely for Most Macs

[Pentium]

15" Retina MacBook Pro

Intel announced a number of new 45-watt "H-Series" processors, but none with the higher-end Iris Pro graphics Apple uses in the 15" Retina MacBook Pro. Skylake H-Series chips with Iris Pro graphics are not expected to launch until early 2016, and Intel has yet to release detailed specs on these chips.

Apple does have another option for a 15" MacBook Pro update, however, as Intel announced Broadwell chips appropriate for the lineup back in early June, just weeks after Apple refreshed the family without upgrading the processors from the previous generation's Haswell chips. But given that it has only been a few months since the last update, Apple may elect to skip a Broadwell refresh of the 15-inch Retina MacBook Pro and wait for Skylake early next year.

What to do now? I didn't get the refreshed MacBook Pro 15 inch back in May cause of that, and now I need to wait again maybe for 6 months? I feel stupid!

What to do now? can't decide if it's a good idea to go for the Mac with the Core i7-4980HQ chip now!!

That's bad news!

 

[paul4339]

....

Again, where are the high end ARM chips? We keep talking about how it's easy to just add more cores, but Intel can do the same thing. They sell dual, quad, six and eight core chips right now. They'll be adding more cores in the future.

But would Apple compete with Intel at the high end? If the A-series is roughly competitive to the Core M, wouldn't they start there (low end) and just leave the mid/high macbooks with Intel? The savings is significant, say $280 vs $30. Considering that a $999 macbook materials probably costs $450+, they can cut their costs drastically.

.

 

[bkkcanuck8]

Actually, studies have shown that the average casual user (clearly the Macbook target audience) is not very likely to notice any difference between two SSDs, no matter their performance. If we're talking about "web browsing or editing a document", differences between a cheap SATA drive and expensive PCI-Express one in such tasks would be measured in milliseconds. To take advantage of all that speed you need to be constantly copying data between two comparable devices, across a channel that can sustain such speed. This is not a normal use-case for Macbook, where storage stays idle 80% - 90% (even more so than the CPU).

Fast SSDs excel at IOPS, but do very little if you're already not IOPS constrained. That's why people notice the huge jump from HDD to SSD, but almost none when they move from one SSD to another.

Putting a multiple hundred dollar storage in what should be a netbook-class device is just a way for Apple to sell it with a huge price premium.

In this I am afraid you are focusing on the wrong specification. YOu are focusing on throughput -- once the drive is up and running and you reading sequentially there is no difference to the user. It is the snappiness where the difference is very observable. SSDs are accessed like memory in which there is no spin-up and there is no mechanical head to move to a location - so you click on an application and it loads very rapidly. Then you have the operating system that uses the hard drive for random access swap disk space when memory is required and this is slower. The problem with hard drives is not the throughput so much as the random and instant on access. You will instantly notice a very noticeable difference when you replace a boot hard drive with even an SSD running on SATA3 (and that interface is slow). Your processes tend to be hampered by your slowest achilles heel. CPU uses CPU cache which swaps to memory which is multiple times slower, which swaps data to hard drives or SSDs which are extremely slow in comparison. Speeding up the CPU spec wise increases your computer a fraction of that in reality due to dependencies on slow storage. The biggest improvement you can do to old hardware is to replace the boot hard drive that holds the operating system and your primary files with a 256MB SSD.

 

[bkkcanuck8]

why the obsession with quad-core?

Dual core has less power than my 8-Core Early 2008 Mac Pro (2xHD5770 graphics cards/10GB/boot SSD driving 4 monitors).... I don't need more performance but if I have to replace it I don't want less performance. A quad-core mac mini that can support 3 4K monitors would be sufficient.

 

[joeblow7777]

Wtf is this. We have to wait until next year? Wow.

First World problems, man...

 

[vault]

In this I am afraid you are focusing on the wrong specification. YOu are focusing on throughput -- once the drive is up and running and you reading sequentially there is no difference to the user. It is the snappiness where the difference is very observable. SSDs are accessed like memory in which there is no spin-up and there is no mechanical head to move to a location - so you click on an application and it loads very rapidly. Then you have the operating system that uses the hard drive for random access swap disk space when memory is required and this is slower. The problem with hard drives is not the throughput so much as the random and instant on access. You will instantly notice a very noticeable difference when you replace a boot hard drive with even an SSD running on SATA3 (and that interface is slow). Your processes tend to be hampered by your slowest achilles heel. CPU uses CPU cache which swaps to memory which is multiple times slower, which swaps data to hard drives or SSDs which are extremely slow in comparison. Speeding up the CPU spec wise increases your computer a fraction of that in reality due to dependencies on slow storage. The biggest improvement you can do to old hardware is to replace the boot hard drive that holds the operating system and your primary files with a 256MB SSD.

The "snappiness" you're talking about is directly related to IOPS, which I mentioned in my post. The thing is, even the most basic SATA SSD would satisfy the IOPS requirements of average user that the Macbook targets. There's really no reason to put ultra expensive PCI-e storage in a netbook (which Macbook essentially is), other than raising its price to "premium" level. The CPU will bottleneck it in pretty much any usage that would require such throughput.

Also I think you misunderstood my post. I'm not arguing that they should put mechanical HDD in a Macbook; that would be ridiculous. I'm talking about difference between SSDs.

 

[freezelighter]

Wtf is this. We have to wait until next year? Wow.

****!
I need a new non-retina 27" iMac now!

 

[bkkcanuck8]

The "snappiness" you're talking about is directly related to IOPS, which I mentioned in my post. The thing is, even the most basic SATA SSD would satisfy the IOPS requirements of average user that the Macbook targets. There's really no reason to put ultra expensive PCI-e storage in a netbook (which Macbook essentially is), other than raising its price to "premium" level. The CPU will bottleneck it in pretty much any usage that would require such throughput.

Also I think you misunderstood my post. I'm not arguing that they should put mechanical HDD in a Macbook; that would be ridiculous. I'm talking about difference between SSDs.

I think you are over-estimating the price difference between PCI-e storage costs between a moderate speed one and a high speed one. The old SATA SSD storage that is slower because it is hindered by the maximum speed of SATA3 - would have knock on effects in quality of the overall construction of the laptop and increase bulk. If you are not building a low end product then cheaping out on the SSD because it is not going to significantly reduce the overall cost of the product. Not to mention as manufacturers move towards soldered SSD, the higher end SSD has a longer life. Plus I am not going to complain - I run Oracle RDBMS in VMware fusion and I can absolutely pound the SSD with a 200GB database

 

[toddzrx]

Heres why Apple most probably will follow three MacBook lines:

Nope.

As noted by other posters, the mythical Retina Macbook Air essentially already exists: it's called a 13" Macbook Pro. The difference between a Retina MBA and Retina MBP is too small for Apple to bother with; they don't fill niches like all the PC manufacturers do.

My prediction: the current Air will get a processor upgrade with Skylake and that's it. It hangs around for a year or two and gets phased out, like the cMBP did. Apple releases a 14" rMB with an extra 2 ports on it, as well as a lower end 12". And since the Pro is up for a redesign, we'll see 14" and 16" Pros. This provides a very distinct laptop lineup which is typical for Apple, with the Macbook for consumer grade activities and the Pro to do the heavy lifting if you need it.

 

[bkkcanuck8]

Nope.

As noted by other posters, the mythical Retina Macbook Air essentially already exists: it's called a 13" Macbook Pro. The difference between a Retina MBA and Retina MBP is too small for Apple to bother with; they don't fill niches like all the PC manufacturers do.

My prediction: the current Air will get a processor upgrade with Skylake and that's it. It hangs around for a year or two and gets phased out, like the cMBP did. Apple releases a 14" rMB with an extra 2 ports on it, as well as a lower end 12". And since the Pro is up for a redesign, we'll see 14" and 16" Pros. This provides a very distinct laptop lineup which is typical for Apple, with the Macbook for consumer grade activities and the Pro to do the heavy lifting if you need it.

Not to mention going forward as CPU technology and the form fitting batteries - you will find the Macbook Pro shrinking as long as it can maintain 10 hours of battery life under test conditions. Eventually induction charging of portables fairly easy - tables at restaurants and coffee bars, airplanes will deploy the technology, etc.... allowing for seamless topping up of the battery making the battery less of an issue. So the Macbook Pros will shrink depending on CPU, the line will widen to include the Macbook Air line - leaving you with two lines. The Macbook ultraportable will widen with more options and price points once the supply is no longer constrained.

 

[Mattsasa]

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.

I guess I was comparing multi core performance of the core m m7. Cpu to the broadwell i5 in the 2015 mba.

Where here the core M is more powerful than the MacBook Air. It's a strange comparison I know. Sky lake to broadwell, across tiers, and tdp class. But the point I was making is that one should not underestimate core M and it is being improved quickly.

All that being said, personally, the next computer I will be buying is an air not a rMB. For multiple reasons

 

[HoiPiet]

I've been saying that the new MacBook is for those who want a MacBook Air in 2017 or 2018. Been saying that since it launched and I continue to say that.

They may abandon the MBA more because the MBP is getting so thin and light, but I'd love a refreshed MBA with a better screen et cetera and I'm not really interested in a MB. I think its an ingenious piece of engineering. I think its targeted at business more than consumers though. It seems like the perfect unit for sales and all sorts of mobile business people as well as those who want the latest whiz bang.

I also have a hard time imagining it being solid enough after its 3 year warranty. Maybe that's my ignorance. But without Applecare to pay for repairs I imagine its going to be tough to keep going. That's perfect in a business setting where they can plan costs over the 3 years and wouldn't want it longer anyway.

Apple seems to want to have few models. It may be probable that they abandon the MBA. But a MB isn't a MBA replacement.

 

[TheGamerzZ]

One of the roadmaps leaked last month talked about an October - November 2015 launch window for these chips. Given Apple would already have prototypes of these chips it could be possible for them to launch a 15" Macbook Pro in November. Although it's probably more likely they will do it in Feb/ March just to spread out Marketing activities.

F*cking Intel!!! Because of them we all have to wait until March 2016 ... This is why a Monopol is ****!
I hope you're right so that we see a new MacBook Pro 15" with Skylake and Iris Pro this year. AMD need to be better than Intel isn't anymore so slowly with new releases!

 

[bkkcanuck8]

F*cking Intel!!! Because of them we all have to wait until March 2016 ... This is why a Monopol is ****!
I hope you're right so that we see a new MacBook Pro 15" with Skylake and Iris Pro this year. AMD need to be better than Intel isn't anymore so slowly with new releases!

You think everything is virtual and that simply flicking a switch and plants can suddenly all manufacture new chips? Even if there were a competent competitor - they would have to make the same decisions.... Selecting which chips go first, shutting down a plant or two to retool (significant investment - and it is offline for months) the plant to produce the new chips.... which would mean either they would have to overproduce chips and store them in inventory (adding inventory risk and significantly increasing price of the product) or shutting down all plants and having nothing to sell. There is no reason why all the companies have to run Intel chips, both Windows and OS X could easily be ported - it is just that Intel provides better responsiveness and product - regardless. So this fantasy that suddenly that a competitor would make your chip pop out quicker (the one you want) or that it will reduce price dramatically is sort of silly.

 

[Gudi]

Remember when Apple would update their iMacs and MacBooks two times a year? It was good for consumers so they didn't think they were buying old technology.

Who cares what consumers think? Surely not Steve Jobs! He would have answered with a quote:

“If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses.”
— Henry Ford

 

[Gudi]

MacBook has a performance of a 2013-year MacBook Air, you call this better?

You are not listening. The Retina MacBook is not just better than the MacBook Air. It is killing it. Like the MacBook Pro with optical drive the Air is now living a zombie afterlife. Only because the assambly lines already exist, they are making some more of them. It is like last years iPhone. No major engineering effort will be made to improve this outdated design.

 

[johnh57]

How long from chips being introduced to chips being in production in significant quantity to deliver?

How long does it take an manufacturer, say apple, to have machines based on new processors /chip sets on the shelves? Do they have warehouses full of these things already just waiting for a processor to stuff in the socket?

i.e. if you need something sooner than later, what to do? Are imac 27's going to be updated before mac pros? If they are, mac pro 6,1 or rImac late 2015?

aargh.

 

[Gudi]

I'm not even arguing with blind delusional people. The Retina Macbook which is barely as powerful as an iPad is a Macbook Air...? Yeah right.

Than stop arguing with yourself, Blind Edgar. The MacBook is the most powerful laptop ever made on a basis of performance per watt and performance per weight. If all you care about is raw computing power, Apple has you covered with the Mac Pro. For mobile Macs other metrics of success apply. Size matters, Ed.

 

[Hitman4000]

F*cking Intel!!! Because of them we all have to wait until March 2016 ... This is why a Monopol is ****!
I hope you're right so that we see a new MacBook Pro 15" with Skylake and Iris Pro this year. AMD need to be better than Intel isn't anymore so slowly with new releases!

Seriously, this is BS. Some of you are not relying on the new macbook pro upgrade timeline, but I am. First Intel said May, then it was August, then last October/November, now early 2016 (possibly March)? Are you serious Intel??

I needed a new Macbook Pro for college. By the grade of God, the classes I got in Architecture this semester did not demand a powerful laptop, but next semester will. Get your crap together Intel and start pumping these processors out instead of making multiple announcements about chip specs.

 

[HoiPiet]

You are not listening. The Retina MacBook is not just better than the MacBook Air. It is killing it. Like the MacBook Pro with optical drive the Air is now living a zombie afterlife. Only because the assambly lines already exist, they are making some more of them. It is like last years iPhone. No major engineering effort will be made to improve this outdated design.

I'd guess most people reading the thread have read most of the thread so they've read folks such as yourself make the declaration that the MB is replacing the MBA. Other than the screen, is the "better" part how pretty it is and how thin it is?

Last year's iPhone is the basis for this year's iPhone so whatever analogy you were trying to make escapes me.

You are not listening. Lots of folks would like a new MBA with a better screen and a new processor.

 

[dukeOfPrunes]

Not to mention going forward as CPU technology and the form fitting batteries - you will find the Macbook Pro shrinking as long as it can maintain 10 hours of battery life under test conditions. Eventually induction charging of portables fairly easy - tables at restaurants and coffee bars, airplanes will deploy the technology, etc.... allowing for seamless topping up of the battery making the battery less of an issue. So the Macbook Pros will shrink depending on CPU, the line will widen to include the Macbook Air line - leaving you with two lines. The Macbook ultraportable will widen with more options and price points once the supply is no longer constrained.

Ok, said in another way: the Air gets phased out while the Pros get Retina MacBook like redesign. In their current state, the Pros are large and heavy and have little to offer in comparison to competition. As mentioned by another user, the Pro lineup may contain 15 and 28 W chips also..

Exciting times for the Mac lineup now with Skylake!

 

[Mattsasa]

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).

Mb is a very light and thin laptop to do light work on.
Mba is a moderately thin and light laptop to do regular work on.
Mbp normal laptop form factor, to do heavy / pro work on.

Dual core has less power than my 8-Core Early 2008 Mac Pro (2xHD5770 graphics cards/10GB/boot SSD driving 4 monitors).... I don't need more performance but if I have to replace it I don't want less performance. A quad-core mac mini that can support 3 4K monitors would be sufficient.

if say a dual core cpu existed that was powerful as your 8core machine. And supports 3 4K monitors. Would that be sufficient ? Not saying this cpu exists though.

Seriously, this is BS. Some of you are not relying on the new macbook pro upgrade timeline, but I am. First Intel said May, then it was August, then last October/November, now early 2016 (possibly March)? Are you serious Intel??

I needed a new Macbook Pro for college. By the grade of God, the classes I got in Architecture this semester did not demand a powerful laptop, but next semester will. Get your crap together Intel and start pumping these processors out instead of making multiple announcements about chip specs.

The current MacBook pros are great machines

I'd guess most people reading the thread have read most of the thread so they've read folks such as yourself make the declaration that the MB is replacing the MBA. Other than the screen, is the "better" part how pretty it is and how thin it is?

Last year's iPhone is the basis for this year's iPhone so whatever analogy you were trying to make escapes me.

You are not listening. Lots of folks would like a new MBA with a better screen and a new processor.

I am one of those folks.
I do think the MacBook Air will get phased out, but I think it will get 1 more generation with skylake cpu. It just makes me sad that they won't also out a Retina display and force touch trackpad in it.

 

[Janichsan]

LOL! That's a fair comparison! A probably 2W mobile part compared to a 95W desktop part. Why don't you ask yourself this question: why is a part that uses 50x the power only 3x as fast?

You should also list all the laptops built with i7-6700K!

Yes, it's a very lopsided comparison – but not one we detractors of ARM based Macbooks came up with. However, even the 4th generation Intel Core CPUs in current 15" Pro Macbooks have up to 100% higher Geekbench scores than the mythical A9, while drawing significantly less power than the desktop i7-6700K.

 

[tomaki]

I feel like Intel needs some serious competition in the computer market; they're getting slower and slower between releases.

So apparently I am not the only one who thinks apple too is getting lazy what comes to their desktops and laptops. Kinda starting to feel that the real computers are being phased out and pretty soon new comps are only mentioned after 2 hour presentation about the latest gimmick in ipad: "Oh, and one more thing: we also updated a few computers, but really, who gives a c**p".

 

[defferoo]

Maybe you should take another look at the graph you posted yourself:

The value of 4873 you quote is the multi-core score for the A9. Single-core is 1921. Which is precisely 27.7 % of the i7-6700K's single-core score of 6946.

You can't compare CPUs like that. the 6700K is a 91W part with a base clock of 4.0GHz. It turbos to 4.2GHz and easily overclocks to 4.8GHz. You don't do a straight comparison with a <5W part like the A9 chip clocked at 1.5GHz and call it a day. If you want to compare two architectures, you need to level the playing field and compare the A9 to something like the Core m3/5/7 because that's actually within the thermal envelope of the A9 and runs at similar frequencies (even though it has turboboost).

That said, the Apple's A-series is pulling closer to Intels Core micro architecture in terms of IPC. What remains to be seen is if Apple wants to scale that out to a full blown notebook/desktop CPU and how easily that can be done. It's already clear that the A-series chips have been designed in a similar fashion to the Core chips, so maybe that was part of the plan all along.