He missed more than that particular class, he just hasn't been paying attention to the news I guess. Apple is far from cash poor, must be doing something right for the time being.
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 Processor Roadmap Leaves Uncertainty for Apple's 2014 Mac Updates
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
He missed more than that particular class, he just hasn't been paying attention to the news I guess. Apple is far from cash poor, must be doing something right for the time being.
Intel is taking it easy with a backlog of Haswell processors to clear from its inventories. Yearly updates are slipping to updates every 18 months. Not to mention this next step involve 14nm.
PC gaming has been dying for 20 years, get in line.
Fud
This is what we call "Fear Uncertainty and Doubt". What's the point of this story, except to make people scared to buy a Mac? Aside from the Intel processor, there are a lot more components inside a Mac that can be improved, and Apple can still add new features to the hardware, and their OS. Intel is not the limiting factor in when or if Apple ships new products.
This is what we call "Fear Uncertainty and Doubt". What's the point of this story, except to make people scared to buy a Mac? Aside from the Intel processor, there are a lot more components inside a Mac that can be improved, and Apple can still add new features to the hardware, and their OS. Intel is not the limiting factor in when or if Apple ships new products.
If you look at the MBP update history, every single update has included a processor update. The availability of new processors seems to be Apple's driving force behind updates. Obviously there are other things to update, like graphics, hard drive capacity, and memory, but these things always happen at the same time as a processor boost.
Myself being in the market for a new rMBP, I don't really care that much about a 100Mhz speed bump to the processor. What I do really care about is getting 32gb of RAM. If the stuff was replaceable it wouldn't be an issue, but I foresee needing it in 5 years and if I can't upgrade it then I need to get it now. I might just be waiting until that's a possibility given the way they now build these things.
Myself being in the market for a new rMBP, I don't really care that much about a 100Mhz speed bump to the processor. What I do really care about is getting 32gb of RAM. If the stuff was replaceable it wouldn't be an issue, but I foresee needing it in 5 years and if I can't upgrade it then I need to get it now. I might just be waiting until that's a possibility given the way they now build these things.
Well.
Other than sheer obstinacy there is still one GAPING WIDE weal point in all current Apple desktops that Apple could address and really make a major difference, it's the one they never care about and over the past 20 years killed Apple as the choice for millions and millions of people around the world for their entertainment device.
And if they HAD played it different the Mac could be the dominant machine in the world today, and not the PC.
That item is the weak graphics cards.
They have almost always ignored this area of their machines. It's always been THE weak link.
They fit pretty good CPU's, fast memory, SSD's, all pretty much good speed components, then kill it by fitting a laptop mobile GPU in their expensive desktop range.
They could for example, but they won't fit something nice, then give OSX programmers access to the power of the very powerful GPU's
But they won't. they never have, and I honestly do not expect they ever will.
It's a shame
Other than sheer obstinacy there is still one GAPING WIDE weal point in all current Apple desktops that Apple could address and really make a major difference, it's the one they never care about and over the past 20 years killed Apple as the choice for millions and millions of people around the world for their entertainment device.
And if they HAD played it different the Mac could be the dominant machine in the world today, and not the PC.
That item is the weak graphics cards.
They have almost always ignored this area of their machines. It's always been THE weak link.
They fit pretty good CPU's, fast memory, SSD's, all pretty much good speed components, then kill it by fitting a laptop mobile GPU in their expensive desktop range.
They could for example, but they won't fit something nice, then give OSX programmers access to the power of the very powerful GPU's
But they won't. they never have, and I honestly do not expect they ever will.
It's a shame
The PC industry is dead, it just sells more in one year than tablets have sold in the last three. >_>
So, seeing that people still ask for 17" I wasn't the only one who desire that size to come back. I tried 15" (i didn't have a choice when they killed 17") so I have 15" rMBP but I can tell you that I am not happy with it cause its just too small. When I have the luxury when there is another screen connected to it then I don't mind so much but on its own is just a little dwarf. And the 1920x1200 resolution on is it ok but everything is so small.
So real 17" retina would be welcome. Remove the bezel and you have a machine that is hardly any bigger then current 15". Apple can do it if they opt to. They did that with mac pro (and that wasn't selling that much either) so why not with 17"?
If they release 17" tomorrow I'm selling this 15" immediately. Lets hope
You and me both. I'm hoping for a 17" 3840x2400 w/ matte display. And silver, indented, backlit keys. And, a swappable battery. And, an SSD system disk with a high-capacity user disk.
The 17" was barely bigger than a cheap plastic 15" from some companies-- please bring it back.
Geekbench 64-bit Multi-Core
MBP-13 Mid-2010 = 2.352
MBP-13 Early-2011 = 4.841
MBP-13 Late-2011 = 5.014
MBP-13 Mid-2012 = 5.706
rMBP-13 Early-2013 = 5.795
rMBP-13 Late-2013 = 6.209
Mac Benchmarks
And its not the C2D cpu that makes the mid 2010 a little overdue for an update. It's the SATA II, USB 2.0 and the weight of the ODD. But it has 10 hours of battery life and I don't want to settle for less. Maybe I can maintain self-control and wait until the 13-inch goes quad-core.
Last edited:
'X' is dead
Apple is dead.
Intel is dead.
AMD is dead.
Really now? I'm not that old but I've been told that PC gaming has been dead for 15 years and talking to even older games they've been living on borrowed time since the early 90s. Now we have consoles that are nothing more than gimped x86 machines.
Who? AMD doesn't have a chip that can perform as well or last as long on a charge as a Haswell (though they do have better integrated GPUs), and ARM chips are, by this point, a lateral upgrade at best without the added bonus of backwards compatibility.
I don't think i would be able to put 27screen to my suitcase and then unpack it in the hotel
Anyway, I understand your other points. I know I'm minority here but I would love 17" to come back. Yes, it was pricey but it was worth the tag at least for me.
Difference being I've actually designed and built CPUs from the low level up. Lots of fun, yes. Pretending, no.
Barring another company suddenly making huge strides in their processor architecture...yeah.
I agree: the MBA family, just like the iPad family, has been tweaked to almost perfection over the years, so it's difficult to improve it even further.
We all want more brute power in our machines, but let's be honest: the MBA is already powerful enough for what's meant to be: a sensible balance between mobility and consumer-level use. The current Haswell + 8Gb RAM + SSD + HD5000 GPU lineup is more than powerful enough for its intended target user, so I'd argue that it doesn't need more "beef".
If I was Apple, I'd direct my research efforts for the MBA family towards longer battery life, smaller screen bezel and more software optimization.
I was more making fun of myself than anything. Android follows the *nix protocol on CPU profiles, but ROM builders sometimes go a bit overboard where I'd be picking between twelve levels between 'ultraQuiet-Powersave' and 'Super-nitrodragon-performance'.
The iPad OS and UI is a million miles away from perfect.
It's basically the exact same UI that the 1st iPhone had in 2007 on a 3.5" screen just stretched to fill a 10" screen with virtually no improments.
There is so much to change
Of course you can change an UI... the point is: can it be improved? And as far as I'm concerned, the iOS UI is pretty much perfect for what it's meant to be: a content-consumption mobile device.
Why would you be mad? If Intel falls behind there is no sense in staying with them.If Apple does another CPU chip change to their own ARM, I'm going to be pissed.
By the way I don't see them changing away from i86 in the Macs. I do see them introducing an alternative product that isn't a Mac per say and isn't an iOS device either.
Certainly not for the consumer but he vast majority of Mac owners these days are not consumers, but rather professional users. They do need vast improvements to computer performance.
----------
It really doesn't look good as far as a viable processor update goes. However Apple can bump the machines in other ways for example more RAM, larger SSDs (overdue) and TB2 across the board. These aren't exactly stunning enhancements but would be valuable to some.
I agree with you fully (especially nowadays), however in this case the spec itself isn't what is important, oddly enough. My 2012 Mini will take me several years down the line and a tiny spec bump won't change that one bit. That being said...
In the past, having a 1 month difference in models has made the difference between having a computer that can upgrade to ML/Mavericks and one that can't. It can mean you can't find a HD with an actual ZIF connector a year down the line when you want to manually upgrade because nobody is manufacturing for the old model. I could elaborate more but I think you will get what I mean.
It depends upon the software, some code bases are already highly optimized.
Apple did this with iWorks and a number of their professional apps and all they got for it is grief. It is a nice thought but sometimes you get arrows shot at you for doing the right thing. This is especially the case with software when what is happening isn't properly explained.
Who cares? The obsession with Apples stock price has nothing to do with the health of Apple as a company. That is as long as Apple can ignore the idiots on Wall Street.
As for hardware prices I'd like to see Apple narrow its margins just a bit. Even the perception of increased price competitiveness will drive sales. It would be yet another hammer blow to the PC industry.
I'd like too but my old MBP is in really bad shape. As such I'm not sure I can hold out for another year. I actually thinking Broadwell can make the AIR acceptable especially if AIR gets a higher quality screen (doesn't even need to be retina).
I'm still interested in what is happening with the Mini, I have a use for that machine if it gets a Haswell bump.
----------
Same here! Well at least for web and mail access it is. Frankly it is a much better platform.
Like you I'm running an older model iPad. I've been holding off on an iPad upgrade just to avoid unnecessary expenses but the even higher performance iPads are very desirable. I probably will jump when Apple bumps both the RAM and SSD quantities.
Well I'm not sure I'd go that far! It is with me all the time however. In fact I use it in such a way that my iPhone has been relegated to phone and notes duty.
With the recent explosion of NUCs on the scene, I'm honestly surprised Apple hasn't jumped in on that budding market yet with an even smaller, more stylish Mac Mini.
One company (can't recall who at the moment) is soon to release a machine that's basically a retina Macbook Pro you can fit in the palm of your hand. Why can't Apple do the same?