Sidebar Sidebar
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

Cod3rror said:
The problem is that all the operating systems, mobile devices use ARM, it's established there; and 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Finally, nowadays things get outdated and replaced with a new version so quickly, I doubt Intel would hold back their CPUs.
Click to expand...
Mobile device are not PC devices, despite becoming mainstream, and tablets and phones getting smarter, mobile device realm it's restricted to personal consumer needs, pro-sumer and pro- it market simple can't migrate apps to mobile device, despite having same cpu power (still years away), are tons of platform specific code, just realize some apps to migrate just from Windows to OSX required to be rewritten from ground, this took years : A. E. AUTOCAD, CATIA, while others as photoshop, just offer *joke* versions of its desktop apps, just to name few, desktop market may shrink but only for those who really Don use a computer.

Most homes trend to use only tablets, smartphones, and some times (very often when someone needs to do heavy work) a pc (one shared or few pc), and few more just add shared hone NAS to the equation. ARM has access to all this market, except the pc, which is not the exception or the device no one wants, just like an organization where everybody has a car, but there are a helicopter, sure the chopper it's better than a car but rationale only few fight ares actually necessary, so no danger to the turbine manufacturer that the piston engines manufacturer take on they market just because driving a car becomes more popular, are segregated markets by nature.


The biggest treat to the x86 architecture only comes from the most erratic yet proposal from Google: Chrome OS, since it can run on arm, but Google just failed to open 3rd party apps (now too late) and goes too forward axing support for Java and Flash, maybe java/flash lack will not be a concern soon (may take at least 3yr to become unnecessary at least practically), but still the migration qeue and the performance, not easy.

Ms did just better with Windows RT, but also felt short.

Apple later may offer an osx server based on ARM, but only as server appliance (as part of an supercharged Timecapsule), but I don't see on Apple stores at least the next 2yr.
 
Mago said:
Mobile device are not PC devices, despite becoming mainstream, and tablets and phones getting smarter, mobile device realm it's restricted to personal consumer needs, pro-sumer and pro- it market simple can't migrate apps to mobile device, despite having same cpu power (still years away), are tons of platform specific code, just realize some apps to migrate just from Windows to OSX required to be rewritten from ground, this took years : A. E. AUTOCAD, CATIA, while others as photoshop, just offer *joke* versions of its desktop apps, just to name few, desktop market may shrink but only for those who really Don use a computer.

Most homes trend to use only tablets, smartphones, and some times (very often when someone needs to do heavy work) a pc (one shared or few pc), and few more just add shared hone NAS to the equation. ARM has access to all this market, except the pc, which is not the exception or the device no one wants, just like an organization where everybody has a car, but there are a helicopter, sure the chopper it's better than a car but rationale only few fight ares actually necessary, so no danger to the turbine manufacturer that the piston engines manufacturer take on they market just because driving a car becomes more popular, are segregated markets by nature.


The biggest treat to the x86 architecture only comes from the most erratic yet proposal from Google: Chrome OS, since it can run on arm, but Google just failed to open 3rd party apps (now too late) and goes too forward axing support for Java and Flash, maybe java/flash lack will not be a concern soon (may take at least 3yr to become unnecessary at least practically), but still the migration qeue and the performance, not easy.

Ms did just better with Windows RT, but also felt short.

Apple later may offer an osx server based on ARM, but only as server appliance (as part of an supercharged Timecapsule), but I don't see on Apple stores at least the next 2yr.
Click to expand...

I understand where you're coming from.

But the thing is, all the money is in the cars. So Intel has to start manufacturing cars if they want to keep making big money.

The established car brand is ARM.

That's why they're in such a hurry and making quite a progress in mobile CPUs, they know that if they don't adapt, they'll soon be a turbine manufacturer, as you put it.
 
Cod3rror said:
I understand where you're coming from.

But the thing is, all the money is in the cars. So Intel has to start manufacturing cars if they want to keep making big money.

The established car brand is ARM.

That's why they're in such a hurry and making quite a progress in mobile CPUs, they know that if they don't adapt, they'll soon be a turbine manufacturer, as you put it.
Click to expand...
Already Intel manufactures ARM based cpu, doesn't means Apple will switch to Intel (they cpus are aimed at servers), currently ARM architecture market sells cpus as commodity, so we could see in few years Intel own ARM compatible cpus without use ARM designs (currently all arm cpus derived from a licensed design from ARM, Then these designs are customized to peculiar needs and build at any foundry), but we will not see some Intel super charged ARM compatible cpu for a while, first will see it at servers, then when Apple doesn't need 32 ARM cores to do the work of a single Intel x86 cote, only then Apple may see again on a platform cpu switch (assuming there are some advantage).


But the current issue with Intel isn't it's control on the x86 architecture (obsolete from any view, but don't get happy arm advocate, arm also as obsolete as x86, there are much more powerful architectures arround as the ones on nVidia GPU), are it's delays delivering updates, as the poll the integration scale it's more difficult to control the lithography process, now it's the nature who said no, not Apple, same happens to those shrinking ARM to 14nm, seems the current lithography process reached the limit, so to improve the products Intel will need to improve material (as ditching silicone and using sapphire as substrate), increase transistor, or offer new logic solutions as on board fpga like engines which reconfigure gates to handle specific task much more efficient, etc.

This is the next 4 year, later a totally new architecture is need, no x86, no ARM, no powerPC.
 
Mago said:
Already Intel manufactures ARM based cpu, doesn't means Apple will switch to Intel (they cpus are aimed at servers), currently ARM architecture market sells cpus as commodity, so we could see in few years Intel own ARM compatible cpus without use ARM designs (currently all arm cpus derived from a licensed design from ARM, Then these designs are customized to peculiar needs and build at any foundry), but we will not see some Intel super charged ARM compatible cpu for a while, first will see it at servers, then when Apple doesn't need 32 ARM cores to do the work of a single Intel x86 cote, only then Apple may see again on a platform cpu switch (assuming there are some advantage).


But the current issue with Intel isn't it's control on the x86 architecture (obsolete from any view, but don't get happy arm advocate, arm also as obsolete as x86, there are much more powerful architectures arround as the ones on nVidia GPU), are it's delays delivering updates, as the poll the integration scale it's more difficult to control the lithography process, now it's the nature who said no, not Apple, same happens to those shrinking ARM to 14nm, seems the current lithography process reached the limit, so to improve the products Intel will need to improve material (as ditching silicone and using sapphire as substrate), increase transistor, or offer new logic solutions as on board fpga like engines which reconfigure gates to handle specific task much more efficient, etc.
Click to expand...

I was going to comment on why your analysis of the lithography situation is incorrect, but then I noticed you referred to "silicone" and realized your post speaks for itself.

One note though - one doesn't replace silicon with sapphire. One puts silicon on top of sapphire. To isolate the silicon devices.
 
cmaier said:
I was going to comment on why your analysis of the lithography situation is incorrect, but then I noticed you referred to "silicone" and realized your post speaks for itself.

One note though - one doesn't replace silicon with sapphire. One puts silicon on top of sapphire. To isolate the silicon devices.
Click to expand...
I'm not native English spoken, my autocorrects put silicone when I wrote Silicon.

BTW I only named one of N future alternative to current process.

Please now, could you give me your analysis on why I'm wrong on the lithography issues?

(lithography it's only one of the challenges going beyond 14nm, there are many things to deal, as capacitance, hall effect and N things that only happen at such scale.

My comments about the 14nm it's very close to the practical limit the industry can mass manufacture integrated circuits, comes from an science magazine I'll cite later today as I find it again.

Few Links on the SOTA of nanoelectronics

http://www.iwailab.ep.titech.ac.jp/pdf/iwaironbun/201404cinvestav.pdf

relevant: 3nm is teh fundamental limit to scaledown, next step beyond 14nm seems 10nm, going forward 8nm-4nm requires new technology.

http://semimd.com/blog/2014/01/29/3d-nand-to-10-nm-and-beyond/

another link that illustrates the challenges beuyon 14nm process.
 
Last edited:
Broadwell or Skylake is not what i'm looking for or i'm concerned with.
For me is if,with Broadwell been delayed in the late 2015 and Skylake at the end of it or 2016,Alpine Ridge -aka Tb3 will shift to 2016 or will hit Broadwell?
The one with Tb3 will be my very next machine.
 
HurryKayne said:
Broadwell or Skylake is not what i'm looking for or i'm concerned with.
For me is if,with Broadwell been delayed in the late 2015 and Skylake at the end of it or 2016,Alpine Ridge -aka Tb3 will shift to 2016 or will hit Broadwell?
The one with Tb3 will be my very next machine.
Click to expand...
I believe that Alpine Ridge is part of the Skylake Platform. The release scheduling for Broadwell and Skylake puts Intel in a very awkward spot.
 
As someone who started working in microprocessor design in the mid 1990's, I've heard for twenty years that we are at the limits of lithography. Always wrong.

Three-d hate structures, new device isolation techniques, DFM, power management tricks, etc provide plenty of room going forward. The optical issues are also quite solvable.

Mago said:
I'm not native English spoken, my autocorrects put silicone when I wrote Silicon.

BTW I only named one of N future alternative to current process.

Please now, could you give me your analysis on why I'm wrong on the lithography issues?

(lithography it's only one of the challenges going beyond 14nm, there are many things to deal, as capacitance, hall effect and N things that only happen at such scale.

My comments about the 14nm it's very close to the practical limit the industry can mass manufacture integrated circuits, comes from an science magazine I'll cite later today as I find it again.

Few Links on the SOTA of nanoelectronics

http://www.iwailab.ep.titech.ac.jp/pdf/iwaironbun/201404cinvestav.pdf

relevant: 3nm is teh fundamental limit to scaledown, next step beyond 14nm seems 10nm, going forward 8nm-4nm requires new technology.

http://semimd.com/blog/2014/01/29/3d-nand-to-10-nm-and-beyond/

another link that illustrates the challenges beuyon 14nm process.
Click to expand...
 
Eidorian said:
I believe that Alpine Ridge is part of the Skylake Platform. The release scheduling for Broadwell and Skylake puts Intel in a very awkward spot.
Click to expand...

Yes i agree-I hope The Broadwell slowdown could accelerate the TB3 Development from being unlinked by Skylake,also, given them so close ( Broad and Sky )it remains unclear what will really happen to me and i have to say this Intel behavior is not the right way to make a correct marketing and promotion around Thunderbolt,i hope they give out soon some news about it ( Chips and "Ridges" ).In the meanwhile i'll save my money for a 13 Retina Quad MacBook pro or eventually for a 15 Skylake plus TB3.
 
Last edited:
adamw said:
This is not good news for Intel or Apple. If Intel can not innovate fast enough and get new chips to market in a timely manner, then it gives their competitors a foot hold to seize market share (ARM, AMD, etc.)
Click to expand...

It's not a question of intel "innovating" (and honestly, what does that even mean anymore), it's just an issue of problems with the fabrication process. This is not an uncommon phenomenon, nor has it ever been. You'll notice every other chipmaker is behind intel's fab process.

And as far as innovation goes, arguably the only real innovations in recent years have been power saving/turbo boost, hyper threading and AltiVec (real reason SIMD is now so universal on the PC). ARM has just been lapping up all the easy, already-invented methods of speeding up their chips. That's why they've scaled so quickly, by piggybacking on existing engineering practices. Otherwise they'd be going at a snails pace.
 
LOL :D
Christian Today as a tech news source? That's a new one!

They're way off. Intel have indicated Q2 2015 (i.e. somewhere between Apr-Jun) for the Broadwell-H CPUs that will be used in MacBook Pro machines.

It's only the Broadwell-Y ultra low voltage chips intended for tablets and ultrabooks that will be available around Christmas.
 
ugh

not sure if i should get the current 13in 2.6ghz rMBP, is it worth waiting a year for the 2015 version, or whenever the next one is releasing, i heard maybe christmas or maybe next year? :confused:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back