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
Isn't Broadwell mainly for laptops and tablets? I'm not saying Desktop won't happen, but Broadwell is just the die shrink of Haswell. And the die shrink is primarily a "use less power" sort of thing.
Add in to the fact that there's really no need to release a new MP every year.
OT, but...
I wish people would stop using the word zero incorrectly. It's a number. Can you say "it makes five sense"? No, therefore it's also wrong to say "it makes zero sense". Instead, say "it makes no sense".
"Zero" is not the same as "no"!
I wish people would stop using the word zero incorrectly. It's a number. Can you say "it makes five sense"? No, therefore it's also wrong to say "it makes zero sense". Instead, say "it makes no sense".
"Zero" is not the same as "no"!
It's exactly that. The better integrated GPU and power saving features that come alongside a die shrink are HUGE for laptops. For desktops? Well, you do get a performance boost from the die shrink, since it'll be able to do more per clock cycle at the same wattage, but it won't make for a huge difference.
Also: NERD FACTS. When we say die shrink, we're not using the 100% correct terminology. A smaller physical CPU is kind of a side advantage that comes along with shrinking the space between transistors, which is actually where you're getting the efficiency boost from.
I am not a technical savvy that's why i'm asking, but i know it uses xeon....so...i wasn't sure.
Yeah..i guess they don't need to bring out every year...but who knows...
This "sometime early 2015" vague time frame pushed me over the edge to buy a rMBP. i was willing to wait until October or so, but if the chips aren't even going to be ready until around Feb, then Apple would release a machine with them... May? Forget it. Sure there will be a 0.01 spec bump late this year just so they can say it's "refreshed," but not worth the wait.
You generally shrink the size of the transistors (at least their minimum length) more than the spacing between them. This is because the transistors tend to scale faster than the interconnect. Moving wires closer together increases coupling capacitance which slows and speeds up circuits in difficult-to-predict ways that can cause hold-time violations that prevent proper functioning of the chip. And transistor shrinking is generally lateral (a function of mask feature size) whereas interconnect spacing depends not just on lateral dimensions but on thickness - making wires laterally-skinnier and closer together is problematic if you don't decrease thickness, both because of coupling and because of planarity/manufacturing issues.
Yeah, you seem to know a bit more about this than I do.
I was under the impression that the die size of a CPU (22nm, 14nm, etc.) actually represented the length of the halfway point between two transistors, and the smaller that length, the less power needed to switch a transistor, and thus the less power needed to run the processor at certain speeds.
Don't mind him. If you read most of his posts, he's just a troll that LOVES shutting down others. Even though a lot of his posts may sometimes be informative, he definitely loves the "Mr Know It All" status around here. It's quite entertaining reading his replies to others. Ooops I think I'm feeding the troll. I wonder what will be his reply to this.
Sort of. The area of the transistor (for CMOS transistors) is what determines the power needed to switch it (assuming it has no load). The area is what is important because it forms a capacitor (a MOS capacitor) that needs to be charged and discharged. When you look at a chip from the top, the transistor would look like a little rectangle with a length and width. It consists of multiple layers, that form a little capacitor sandwich, essentially.
As you scale, you are scaling the minimum length of the transistor. (Width is generally a multiple of length, and is chosen on a per-transistor basis to deal with the load on that transistor). You also scale the spacing between transistors, but often not by the same factor, and you usually scale the minimum dimensions of the interconnect, but, again, by less of a factor.
Hey, so if I`m gonna be buying a MBP, I either buy now or wait til next fall, is that right?
If you decide to buy now you should probably wait until after the hardware announcements in the Fall. First, there has been no official announcement from Intel. Secondly, assuming the rumor is true Apple might still make some minor improvements that might benefit you.
It's an idiomatic usage...and idioms, by definition, don't have to make sense.
It's a figurative usage, not into to be taken literally.
Wouldn't it make sense for Apple to adopt AMD for desktop Macs? I mean AMD has built good APUs for Xbox One and PS4. If they can build a custom APU for these desktops, wouldn't that blow away Intel's Iris Pro Graphics IGPU?
AMD is stuck at 28nm, which means more power consumption and heat production. Apple want to make their devices sleeker, not taking a step backwards by having to design a thicker computer to accommodate the increased heat and power consumption.
Expect to see a lot of case redesigns when Broadwell 14nm hits the scene. The iMac may finally lose the bulge and the notebooks will be even thinner than before. The Air may possibly even lose the cooling fan entirely. The Mac mini may be much thinner and may also finally be a fanless computer.
Don't get me wrong, I love AMD. All the computers I've built in the past had AMD CPUs because of their awesome price/performance ratio, but from a high-end perspective AMD does not make much sense. I believe Sony and Microsoft pursued AMD for the same reason I did in my PC building days: to keep the cost down.
I think it is much more likely Apple will switch to ARM, so they can produce all chips in-house. The Broadwell delay has definitely left Apple longing for CPU independence.
Expect to see a lot of case redesigns when Broadwell 14nm hits the scene. The iMac may finally lose the bulge and the notebooks will be even thinner than before. The Air may possibly even lose the cooling fan entirely. The Mac mini may be much thinner and may also finally be a fanless computer.
Don't get me wrong, I love AMD. All the computers I've built in the past had AMD CPUs because of their awesome price/performance ratio, but from a high-end perspective AMD does not make much sense. I believe Sony and Microsoft pursued AMD for the same reason I did in my PC building days: to keep the cost down.
I think it is much more likely Apple will switch to ARM, so they can produce all chips in-house. The Broadwell delay has definitely left Apple longing for CPU independence.
Not as easy, ARM platform is years away in performance from Intel, also there are the same issues moving ARM to 14nm, actually Intel leads 14nm realm, so if Apple still manages how to pair arm performance to Intel, Intel still has advantage and know how on 14nm process to keep competence AWAY for years.
Why should we not believe Intel when, as the rumors suggest, it is having production issues with Broadwell. Commenters on this forum are all to willing to give Apple the benefit saying Apple does it right by not releasing a product before its ready. Why not the same benefit to Intel. Intel is motivated by the same profit motive as Apple. It benefits Intel to keep pushing new products to the marketplace.
The current Haswell chip was released just 14 months ago. Ivy Bridge was release April 23, 2012. Stop believing all these stupid rumors. Broadwell will be released when its ready not on the say so of the rumor forums.
The problem is that all the operating systems, mobile devices use ARM, it's established there; mobile is the future.
To get the companies to switch to Intel, they'll have to offer something incredible!
I really doubt Intel is stalling because of AMD. They might've beat AMD, but now they have an even bigger and more dangerous competitor, ARM. And in this game Intel is the challenger, not a leader.
Finally, nowadays things get outdated and replaced with a new version so quickly, I doubt Intel would hold back their CPUs.