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

jarred125 said:
You do realize that Intel makes good and bad decisions like every other company , right? Do you understand the reasons why AMD was able to catch up to Intel during the early P4 days, or are you just spouting off to spout off?

Quite honestly, I think we are at a stage where we will see much more in the way of performance gains by developers paying more attention to optimization of code. For far too long sloppy code was covered up by ample computing power.



The general public has no clue about anything with computing. AMD has no competing products in the performance category, so where is the "PC industry" going to go? They can be angry all "they" want, it isn't going to change anything. Advancement in technology takes time, the general masses have just become spoiled.
Click to expand...

The Pentium 4 was such a garbage chip. It was simply so fast, the inefficiencies appeared not to exist. Thus, we still have fools believing a 3.6GHz Pentium is better than a 1.4GHz Core i5.
 
To be honest, its finally come to the point where I don't have much use for faster CPUs. I would much rather have better video to push all these pixels I keep hearing about...

That being said, performance gains would still be appreciated, especially when it means less energy used/less heat produced. :apple:
 
FuNGi said:
I don't see any reason why Apple won't still release a redesigned MBA even if it uses the same old processors. As long as the use a better screen and minor chases redesign there will be plenty of sales.
Click to expand...

The rumors were that the fabless Broadwell chips were being used. This would have a huge impact on the redesign itself, and Apple may have to wait (or bite the bullet and just put a retina screen in the current model which I don't see happening).
 
zedsdead said:
The rumors were that the fabless Broadwell chips were being used. This would have a huge impact on the redesign itself, and Apple may have to wait (or bite the bullet and just put a retina screen in the current model which I don't see happening).
Click to expand...

I assume you mean fabless rather than non-fabricated :p. I've heard those rumors and don't believe them given the fact that this will undoubtedly increasing throttling at high loads. Put a retina in there and the thing will sell.
 
jan1024188 said:
At this pace, I am wondering if I am to see anything interesting come out of Intel in my lifetime...
Click to expand...

Are you serious? Haswell was the best thing Intel released in a long time. MacBook Air battery runtime went up by 5 hours. Which is way more important than increased CPU power these days.
 
While it's easy to point out that this is the flaw in waiting for a future product with an uncertain release, the real issue here is that this is bad news for everyone.

That future roadmap from Intel is just...depressing. Two more Haswell refreshes before Broadwell? And we're all fooling ourselves if we think for a second that they'll launch Broadwell and Skylake together. Skylake will be pushed out to 2016, whether it's ready or not. Intel isn't going to just scrap Broadwell by releasing its successor at the same time in the same market.

While everyone here is mainly focused on the fact that this means Macs will only see Haswell refreshes this fall, you have to also keep in mind that this means that the entire PC market is stuck on Haswell too. This is a full market issue, and I think it could mean trouble for Intel. Not necessarily today, but in the near future. You can only stall customers for so long before they take their business elsewhere, and competitors will use these perpetual stalls and delays to catch up and overtake Intel.
 
deputy_doofy said:
The Pentium 4 was such a garbage chip. It was simply so fast, the inefficiencies appeared not to exist. Thus, we still have fools believing a 3.6GHz Pentium is better than a 1.4GHz Core i5.
Click to expand...

I can't believe I was ever one of those people. I remember right after the Pentium 4 they came out with the Pentium D 805. The <£100 805 clocked at 2.66 GHz but you could easily overclock it to 3.6 or more which outperformed the much more expensive 840 and it felt like such a good deal at the time...

Yeah, I eventually fried that one.
 
AMD really needs to sit down and catch up. Intel has literally no competition right now.

It's not like with GPUs where if NVidia doesn't deliver, they can switch to a similar performing competitor(AMD Radeon/Firepro). This keeps NVidia always on edge to make sure they win Apple contracts.

With Intel on the other hand, if they decide to delay a chip for 2 years, Apple is at their mercy, since there is no competing similar performing CPU in the market.

As a result, we, the consumers, lose.

At the same time, AMD put themselves in a tough spot, as now battle head to head on two fronts. However, with Iris Pro Intel and NVidia may start their own war.
 
Nozuka said:
Are you serious? Haswell was the best thing Intel released in a long time. MacBook Air battery runtime went up by 5 hours. Which is way more important than increased CPU power these days.
Click to expand...

This is very true. Haswell was an amazing improvement, and it's far from terrible. I'm perfectly happy with my late 2013 rMBP, and will be for quite a while.

That being said, we're not going to be seeing much in the way of massive upgrades to Macs this year because of Broadwell's delays.
 
DavidBlack said:
That would mean porting OS X to work on AMD. Just like how Apple did the transition from PowerPC to Intel. That is very unlikely.
Click to expand...

Not even close to the same. AMD and Intel chips run the same instruction set, x86 and PowerPC did not. There are patched Kernels that hackintosh users have written to run Mac OS X on AMD chips. The bigger problem is that while the AMD's can somewhat compete on performance, at a lower price point, they aren't even in the same league with regard to power cunsumption.
 
This is good. We actually need less frequent updates to CPU's so we upgrade less. When we trash a computer, even though Apple claims it's recyclable, most of the rare metals are wasted. If we keep going through them like this we won't be able to build computers in the near future.
 
deputy_doofy said:
The Pentium 4 was such a garbage chip. It was simply so fast, the inefficiencies appeared not to exist. Thus, we still have fools believing a 3.6GHz Pentium is better than a 1.4GHz Core i5.
Click to expand...

No clue why you're quoting me. My statement never made the assumption that the P4 was a good CPU. I was saying Intel made a bad choice with the P4 and this is the reason why AMD was able to catch up. Intel took a bet (Netburst) that didn't pan out right away (pipline so long they had to compensate with higher clock speeds), AMD has the better product at the time.
 
...

:eek: Hope that release time frame for the chips for the MBP and iMac move up a bit. If not, may my 2010 iMac last another year and I'll ignore the beach balls, slowdowns and IR ("You hear me sweetheart? Hold together!")
 
Uhhh ohhh! Apple is not going to like that. That will push them to make themselves independent of intel release cycles.
 
Most Macs run hot as is with Intel chips, switching to AMD isn't really an option if you consider AMD chips' thermal performance and acoustic performance that will take hit from the heat.
 
jmdMac said:
Looks like I'm more with the "waiting for Skylake" people now. You can do it 2010 MBP I have faith in you!
Click to expand...

I am in the same boat as you!

However if Broadwell comes out in June 2015, I assume Skylake won't make it to the retina Macbook pros until Jan/Feb 2016. I don't think I am going to wait more then a year and a half from now to upgrade.
 
iBug2 said:
This is good. We actually need less frequent updates to CPU's so we upgrade less. When we trash a computer, even though Apple claims it's recyclable, most of the rare metals are wasted. If we keep going through them like this we won't be able to build computers in the near future.
Click to expand...

Disagree. Generally speaking, when computers are binned, it's not due to the processor revision -- it's when the computers stop working. More updates, constant work and a pipeline of innovative CPU revisions is paramount to engineering products of the future; furthermore it means you won't be caught out with a competitor's product due to laziness.

Deliberately holding off on developing the pipeline for future products/revisions, or feeling self-secured in your current position, is one of the reasons Nokia and Blackberry are where they are now. It also annoys the people who rely on your products and encourages them to look elsewhere.

If Intel adopted this mentality, I'd argue that it would push Apple towards developing their own in-house chips; similarly to why Apple moved from PowerPC to Intel.
 
MisakixMikasa said:
So you want pay for Sam amount of money but with much lower performance? That seems huge step backward to me... And then you stuck with same position with Microsoft did for their Windows RT, you get no apps. Maybe you will able to run all iOS apps, but you are limited with one app at a time? That is. It a desktop OS should do.

ARM is fine for most things, but not fine for a laptop.
Click to expand...

I'll look forward to pulling this quote out in a few years. By making an overarching statement like this, you're going to look like one of those that says "technology will never get to the point where ___". I mean, the fact that you say
Maybe you will able to run all iOS apps, but you are limited with one app at a time?
Click to expand...
just shows how limited your vision is.
 
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