3rd generation Iris Pro. 512-Bit instructions (AVX-512). And so on...
The speed improvement is probably only visible in apps like HandBrake, Photoshop, Final Cut Pro X, 3D tools and so on.
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's Broadwell Chips for Most Macs Not Shipping Until Early to Mid 2015
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The speed improvement is probably only visible in apps like HandBrake, Photoshop, Final Cut Pro X, 3D tools and so on.
The next step is The Machine, then after that, we break physics with the help of the quantum realm.
Intel makes it seem like Broadwell will launch simultaneously with Skylake Q2 2015.
RIP Broadwell pre-release
RIP Broadwell pre-release
Good news: Now I'm extra-glad I didn't wait to buy my new 27" iMac
Bad news: I still need to buy a new MBA and I was holding out for the rumored Retina version. I'm not sure I can hold out until 2015 though
Bad news: I still need to buy a new MBA and I was holding out for the rumored Retina version. I'm not sure I can hold out until 2015 though
wow, how will you guys survive that 1 year?
you guys sound like you buy every single iteration of a macbook that gets released. how about just dont buy one for 5 or 6 years? you should be just fine.
its my fifth year with my samsung laptop, and its still going strong. even with current games.
you guys sound like you buy every single iteration of a macbook that gets released. how about just dont buy one for 5 or 6 years? you should be just fine.
its my fifth year with my samsung laptop, and its still going strong. even with current games.
Unfortunately Spple's constraint is Low Power and Hi-performance. AMD just doesn't have the parts for that. Maybe for an iMac.. But why would Apple split its hardware for just one corner? AMD cannot deliver the QUANTITY or QUALITY Apple needs either... AMD is down to only shipping a fraction of the processors Intel does... Apple's products would tie up more of their production than is useful.
ID love a desktop mini-tower AMD MAC... But it's just not in the stars to ever align that way.
This is the saddest news ever. Been looking forward for a Christmas rMBP for a while, I guess new iPhone and iWatch will keep me company until Broadwell rMBP (and NV Maxwell) arrives.
Hopefully the logic board on my 2011 MBP survives until then.
Hopefully the logic board on my 2011 MBP survives until then.
No, the situation is totally different.
The PowerPC was falling dramatically behind general PC (x86) market. It could not compete in ether performance or power usage. IBM stopped caring about Apple and made the G5 fit for their servers and workstations, and couldn't be bothered with low-power SKUs. Apple had their backs to the wall and were forced to switch to justify their price premium.
Today Intel is the market leader. End of story. Nothing comes close in the performance and mainstream segment, and it's starting to compete with ARM in extreme low power with it's M/ULV chips.
Yes, there are some delays. Well, ****, Apple is still using the best there is, they're not falling behind anything. You're suggesting they would switch FROM the market leader to... what, a solution that doesn't even exist?
Also, why switch to ARM when they could be using Intel's new ultra low power chips that will crush ARM-anything while offering full backward compatibility?
PPC is a beast compared to x86. And very well designed. It is just not mainstream hence is really expensive and used for specific tasks.
The reason why apple switched to intel was IBM&Sony CELL deal.
Have you ever had to deal with a 3rd party vendor in some project ? And this is cpu we are talking about. It's the core thing for their products. They can't just buy patents from Intel and start their own R&D that's now how it works. They can pressure intel as much as they want but in the end they are the ones NEEDING INTEL. The only reason to bring this **** inhouse is to switch to ARM or any other architecture. Apple has the money. They can afford it and we are living in the era when it is necessary for them to do so.
Hell and if you care about the performance...they can't afford yet another fiasco with an unfinished product. I assure you they will either release as powerful arm mac as current x86 solution or they fail.
You care about apps ? I assure you apple has the money and customer base to drag attention of developers. Soon enough (if we are talking about apple) you will not notice a difference.
Last edited by a moderator:
New Broadwell rMBP coming in October!.....2015
So if the quad-core Broadwell H-series chips for rMBP are now likely to be released in July 2015, we're unlikely to see a Broadwell 15" rMBP until on-average 3 months later, making it October 2015. Depressing....
At least it will give me 15 months to save for the thing - silver lining!
Until then, I'm still very happy with my Haswell 13" MBA - it's not a powerhouse, but is a beautiful design and great for 90% of my daily work. The exception is running big VMs, where the 8GB memory is a real limitation. If they only made it with 16GB (but then it would basically be a 13" rMBP).
I think Apple will fill in the gap with incremental updates, and maybe a couple of new products based on Haswell (new Mac Mini, 12" MBA) plus focus on their future mobile products (iPhones, iWatch).
So if the quad-core Broadwell H-series chips for rMBP are now likely to be released in July 2015, we're unlikely to see a Broadwell 15" rMBP until on-average 3 months later, making it October 2015. Depressing....
At least it will give me 15 months to save for the thing - silver lining!
Until then, I'm still very happy with my Haswell 13" MBA - it's not a powerhouse, but is a beautiful design and great for 90% of my daily work. The exception is running big VMs, where the 8GB memory is a real limitation. If they only made it with 16GB (but then it would basically be a 13" rMBP).
I think Apple will fill in the gap with incremental updates, and maybe a couple of new products based on Haswell (new Mac Mini, 12" MBA) plus focus on their future mobile products (iPhones, iWatch).
Yeah. Hence why this is such a dangerous strategy for them right now. We all know AMD isn't a competitor today, but what about 6 months from now? A year?All they need to do is beat Intel to the punch, and they're going to be able to make a grab for market share, as well as contracts with big manufacturers.
And really, a year is a long while, and right now? We're a year out for Broadwell, and possibly two for Skylake following the current trend that Intel is on.
While this year may be lackluster, next year could be very interesting for consumers.
No I didn't mean any sarcasm what so ever. I am just a little misinformed about AMD.
Hint: the current chips intel are making are actually the amd64 architecture with some intel specific extensions...
Getting OS X running on amd would require nothing more than some extra drivers...
The OP said AMD, not ARM. The effort to port wouldn't be anything like that from PowerPC to Intel.
I could care less about running small, task specific applications designed for touch input on my mac. Being able to run boot camp and fast virtualisation of windows and other x64 operating systems is a massive plus for Apple and the success of their macs.
They could release them at the same time if they initially released sky lake as high end Xeon only and charged a large premium. Get skylake into servers and high end workstations for year before the general release.
And no one knows whether arm can scale up to match intel in terms of raw speed and keep that power advantage. People here seem to act like it is a linear relationship, it's not. If they make arm 3 times faster and add in all the extensions they need to make it usable as a general purpose CPU, maybe it consumes 5 times the amount of power. No one knows.
Anyone who thinks the current intel v arm situation resembles the IBM v intel switch understand very little.
Not only was intel more power efficient than Ppc, it was significantly faster in terms of raw power. Intel at the time was fast enough that Apple could ease the transition by virtualising Ppc applications, which requires a bucketload of processing power as you are translating CPU instructions as well.
To be a comparable situation, right now arm would have to be more power efficient AND twice as fast in terms of raw CPU power. It's not, it's not even close.
Last edited:
Transistor count still matters for power consumption. x86 needs billions of transistors because it contains loads of legacy crap Intel can't remove. ARM is a lot more stripped down.
