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 Skylake Processor Lineup for MacBook Air Unveiled
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Retina MBAs was what so many people were hoping for before the new MBs were announced in April. So now we have MBs with great screens, but weakfish internals, including the FaceTime camera, or MBAs with better internals/connectability, but an old school screen. I guess MBAs will be discontinued as soon as they are able to give the new MBs much needed processor boost.
Don't hold your breath. With the new lineup, seems like the Air is out after a few more CPU updates. Looking forward to Skylake for MBPr and MBr though.
No, kill the 11" version and give us 13" and 15" Retina MBAs with a 3-5 internal year goal at Apple to EOL the MBP family and replace it with a beefed-up MBA family.
This wouldn't surprise me one bit to be Apple's long-term plan.
Last edited:
Wow, take a look at the difference in performance of the current Intel HD 6000 vs. the new Intel HD 530 graphics:
http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/three-generations-intel-hd-graphics-tested/
http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/three-generations-intel-hd-graphics-tested/
I hope they will ditch the MBA series, make MB with skylake in 12'' and 14''(2 USBC). And focus on a new stunning MBP.
Last edited:
this is bad news for updated 13" and 15" MBPs. i think intel is purposeful delaying skylake chips.
How would one carry around a 12 foot or 14 foot MacBook?
Yep, this was a typo. It's Intel 520 graphics, which are not Intel 5200 graphics. I've updated the post an added a note about the change to the naming scheme.
It's not going to happen, but boy do I wish Intel would do something about their confusing naming schemes.
It was bad enough that we're now up to six generations of "Core i3/5/7" processors, the only way to differentiate between which is a somewhat random part number that means nothing unless you look it up in Intel's Ark, or an arbitrary code name that isn't printed anywhere on the box.
Now they've dropped a zero from the GPU model numbers they've been using for years, which adds additional confusion to anybody who doesn't actively follow these things. "No, no, that's a 520, which is newer and much faster than a 5200."
It's not that the information is impossible to come up with in most cases (apart from computers that come with a "Core i5" CPU without specifying in any way what generation or model it is), but it's needlessly confusing, particularly for the not-wildly technical. "Well, yes, they both say "Core i7" on them, and the GHz number is the same, but this one is way faster because it's actually three generations newer." or "Yes, they both say "i5", but this one has two cores and is a low-power mobile part, while this one has four cores and is a high-power desktop part. And also the generations are completely different."
Even Apple, masters of opaque product names, has a model year associated with each "iMac", has neatly sequentially numbered A-series processors, and their arbitrarily-named OSes have a simple version number to make it clear.
It was bad enough that we're now up to six generations of "Core i3/5/7" processors, the only way to differentiate between which is a somewhat random part number that means nothing unless you look it up in Intel's Ark, or an arbitrary code name that isn't printed anywhere on the box.
Now they've dropped a zero from the GPU model numbers they've been using for years, which adds additional confusion to anybody who doesn't actively follow these things. "No, no, that's a 520, which is newer and much faster than a 5200."
It's not that the information is impossible to come up with in most cases (apart from computers that come with a "Core i5" CPU without specifying in any way what generation or model it is), but it's needlessly confusing, particularly for the not-wildly technical. "Well, yes, they both say "Core i7" on them, and the GHz number is the same, but this one is way faster because it's actually three generations newer." or "Yes, they both say "i5", but this one has two cores and is a low-power mobile part, while this one has four cores and is a high-power desktop part. And also the generations are completely different."
Even Apple, masters of opaque product names, has a model year associated with each "iMac", has neatly sequentially numbered A-series processors, and their arbitrarily-named OSes have a simple version number to make it clear.
It's funny because while we complain, rightfully, about the ridiculous iPhone battery, the Macbooks batteries are way plenty enough, the CPU performance is okay but the graphic performance are absolutely crappy.
Yet recent Intel updates (which have been driving Apple upgrades for the past few years) only add more batterie, little CPU power, and still nearly not enough graphic improvement to match anywhere near discrete GPUs like Nvidia or AMD from...2010.
Yet recent Intel updates (which have been driving Apple upgrades for the past few years) only add more batterie, little CPU power, and still nearly not enough graphic improvement to match anywhere near discrete GPUs like Nvidia or AMD from...2010.
You know nothing, mb=mba give it a few years it's the same concept just better. Now the air is just an overlap. The pro wil get thinner and more powerwull just as the macbook wil get larger and faster.
I doubt these will be in the MBA anytime soon. It was updated less than a year ago and is Apples lowest cost (and lowest priority) laptop. The Air is basically only sticking around until the MacBook can drop in price and improve in performance. If you want higher performance, and a Retina display, they want to sell you a Pro. If you want extreme portability and a Retina display, they want to sell you a MacBook. If you want cheap, they'll sell you a MBA. It's the new plastic MacBook/iPad 2. It will be available until people stop buying it. Don't expect chip updates every generation though.
I wouldnt get my hopes up for skylake. All the benchmarks for the currently released stuff shows a drop in performance, and where it was better, it was minimal. Its an energy efficiency update it seems.
So will the 520 graphics be better than the 6000 currently inside the MacBook Air?
The naming is confusing
Intel's GPU naming scheme is even worse than AMD and nVidia. I didn't think it was even possible to a create a worse a GPU naming especially with all the re-branding AMD and nvidia does. But Intel has done the impossible.
I'm quite happy with my MBA, but I agree with you. MBA will stay mostly as it is, with a few updates that improve battery/performance somewhat, rMB will continue to get better (but not TOO quickly, first at least 2-3 updates) and rMBP will remain the powerhouse option.
Again, though, I'm happy with what I have, and I think others will still be buying it for a while, too; I just don't see it changing appreciably in coming years. That doesn't mean there's still not a market for it, especially as the rMB still can be developed further.
10-15% increase in performance seems really optimistic given what we're seeing with the i5 and i7 desktop variants.
Come on Apple. MacBook Air with at least Full HD if not Retina.
Well, from your mouth to...but I'm a bit doubtful. However, the good news: I really know nothing at all!
It is a well-known fact that Intel hates money.