Intel's Skylake Processor Lineup for Retina MacBook Revealed

[zhenya]

It's still part of the spec, although optional. You don't not need an extra card, at the most a controller, i.e a small surface mount chip. The fact that the MacBook only have 1 port, makes the need for Thunderbolt more pressing since you can add any port with a breakout box on your desktop.

Yes, a separate chip of some sort - of which the Macbook has virtually no room for. Further, there is little call for Thunderbolt in such a computer, as USB-C already does everything you are stating as an advantage for Thunderbolt within the needs of a computer of this size. One port to a dock with charging, display, usb ports, etc. And to get the extra bandwidth Thunderbolt 3 offers over USB-C/3.1 you need bulky active cables. Thunderbolt is going to be limited to the Macbook Pro lines, I'm virtually certain of it.

 

[subsonix]

Yes, a separate chip of some sort - of which the Macbook has virtually no room for.

That's an awful lot of certainty, you can go too far in reduction as well, let's remove the screen it would make it even thinner. If we look at the original Air, we can see that it added features in later revisions, not removed them.

Further, there is little call for Thunderbolt in such a computer, as USB-C already does everything you are stating as an advantage for Thunderbolt within the needs of a computer of this size.

Why arbitrarily make a judgement of what a computer need? There are protocols that are not supported over USB. If they decide to remove the Air, this computer need to fill the gap that is made in their lineup.

 

[zhenya]

Thunderbolt has always been a premium port reserved for more powerful devices. Given that it has specific costs in adding it to a minimalist device like the Macbook, and nebulous benefits, it just doesn't make sense.

 

[subsonix]

Thunderbolt has always been a premium port reserved for more powerful devices.

That's not the way I see it, the controller costs less than $10 and is a port made to fill the gap of vanishing desktop PCs to give the same capabilities to mobile computers. But this discussion is pointless, since we're both reading tea leaves.

 

[DEMinSoCAL]

That's not the way I see it, the controller costs less than $10 and is a port made to fill the gap of vanishing desktop PCs to give the same capabilities to mobile computers. But this discussion is pointless, since we're both reading tea leaves.

After reading your back-and-forth, it seems to me that the difference between the Macbook and the Macbook Pro is features and cost. Those who opt for the Macbook are budget conscious and have decided they don't need the premium features of the MBP. As such, the likelihood that a MB owner will spend premium dollars on any expensive TB peripherals is low when cheaper USB drives, etc., are available.

As far as the chip only being $10, Apple is well-known to maximize profit by shaving every cent from a product. It's no surprise that they would choose to not add a $10 chip. That's how they make their billions.

 

[chucker23n1]

Thunderbolt has always been a premium port reserved for more powerful devices.

Er. Before the introduction of the rMB, every Mac had it. The Airs, which are a third cheaper than the rMB, have it. The mini, which is less than half the price, has it.

It's not at all unlikely that in a revision or two, they'll find some room for a Thunderbolt controller and replace the USB-C port with that. Nor is it unlikely the layout will eventually become efficient enough that there's a second port on the right, just as happened with the MacBook Air after several revisions.

 

[zhenya]

After reading your back-and-forth, it seems to me that the difference between the Macbook and the Macbook Pro is features and cost. Those who opt for the Macbook are budget conscious and have decided they don't need the premium features of the MBP. As such, the likelihood that a MB owner will spend premium dollars on any expensive TB peripherals is low when cheaper USB drives, etc., are available.

As far as the chip only being $10, Apple is well-known to maximize profit by shaving every cent from a product. It's no surprise that they would choose to not add a $10 chip. That's how they make their billions.

I don't see it as a matter of cost - the Macbook is currently placed as a premium product in the lineup. I see it as who the device is targeted at. The Macbook is not a machine for power users - it's a machine for business travelers who need a full-fledged machine in the smallest package possible but don't need massive amounts of power. Today's model can already drive an external monitor and all your USB peripherals from its single port. The next generation will likely be able to drive more monitors and connect to those peripherals at higher speeds still. The type of person who buys the Macbook isn't worried about connecting Thunderbolt devices to it. Those users are almost universally professional users who have need for powerful computers and will be buying the Pro machines anyhow. So if it takes up extra space to add it to the Macbook, there is no way Apple will add it. The 'cost' to which I was referring to was really in the design-sense rather than in the monetary one.

 

[chucker23n1]

As far as the chip only being $10, Apple is well-known to maximize profit by shaving every cent from a product. It's no surprise that they would choose to not add a $10 chip. That's how they make their billions.

This statement doesn't work when generalized so much. If that were the case, they'd equip the rMB with a worse screen, worse trackpad, etc. They'd ship the MBA with Celeron and Pentium instead of Core i5 CPUs.

 

[RightMACatU]

Intel's sixth-generation Core M processors are expected to launch next month, possibly at the IFA Berlin trade show this September 4-9.

So when would that make the new rMB available?

 

[chucker23n1]

So when would that make the new rMB available?

When Apple feels like it.

 

[zhenya]

Er. Before the introduction of the rMB, every Mac had it. The Airs, which are a third cheaper than the rMB, have it. The mini, which is less than half the price, has it.

It's not at all unlikely that in a revision or two, they'll find some room for a Thunderbolt controller and replace the USB-C port with that. Nor is it unlikely the layout will eventually become efficient enough that there's a second port on the right, just as happened with the MacBook Air after several revisions.

When the time comes that they can add it to the Macbook with no compromise to the design, I can then see it happening, depending, of course, on the current state of Thunderbolt as even with its new capabilities it's at risk of being overshadowed by usb-c/3.1. Same with adding the second port; once they can do so, and make the 2nd port be on complete parity with the first, we'll see one.

And while those other machines have had Thunderbolt for a long time now, what percentage of users do you think have ever used anything Thunderbolt with it? I'd wager it's in the low single digits, especially on computers like the Air line.

 

[Frizers]

2 usb c ports and I'm sold

 

[0x000000]

So when would that make the new rMB available?

The Broadwell Y-Series used in the rMB were announced in autumn 2014, the first devices were available in Q4 and the rMB was launched in March, half a year after the CPU announcement. But it was the first for both, the CPU and the device.

Broadwell U-Series CPUs were launched in January, the MBAs were refreshed two months later in March. Usually apple refreshes laptops every 7-8 months and the rMB is about 5 months, so a CPU upgrade later this year would fit well in line. At least that's what I hope ;-)

 

[JGRE]

The Macbook Air does look disgustingly dated compared to Apple's other Macbook's now - the screen is truly horrendous, as is the bezel. I can see them dropping in favour of the Retina Macbook to be honest, which is the true air - there's no way on earth id want to own an 11" MBA over the 12" Retina Macbook.

Yes I think so as well, the Air is stuck in the middle, Neither light neither fast, just an overdue compromise.

 

[subsonix]

After reading your back-and-forth, it seems to me that the difference between the Macbook and the Macbook Pro is features and cost. Those who opt for the Macbook are budget conscious and have decided they don't need the premium features of the MBP.

You may actually prefer the thin form factor, and not require a larger CPU and graphics, that doesn't necessarily imply that you're budget conscious. The thin form factor is itself a feature. My thoughts are based on the assumption that the MacBook Air will disapear at some point, so keep that in mind. If the MacBook Air stays around, then you have a point, but still, I don't see why Apple wouldn't want to improve on the MacBook in future revisions. One obvious improvement would be to support Thunderbolt. If the MacBook ends up replacing the Air, it will need to support features currently supported by the Air, after all, the MacBook is very much like an improved Air, if you remember how the first revision of the Air looked. It was also a machine with only one port and a spinning 1.8" hard drive.

Personally I hope that the Air stays around and get an improved screen as I prefer the formfactor over the MacBook Pro. It also has a "better" keyboard and expansion possibillities not found in the current MacBook.

 

[physicsprof]

It's clear you don't keep up with tech news, MS released office native Mac versions

Odd when someone strikes such a tone ("it's clear you don't keep up") when it is clear that he/she actually didn't carefully read (or comprehend) the comment. The original poster didn't mention native vs. non-native. You do realize that "native" Mac versions are x86-based?

 

[merkinmuffley]

Oh joy, Apples very pricey little chromebook will get a processor.​

 

[sudo1996]

You make a valid point. However, it is my understanding that the kernal for both iOS and OSX is the same linux foundation. as the UI between the two continue to get closer, my assumption is that bridging applications between the two OSs will be easier than say going from the PowerPC chip to x86. as for gaming, my point was the 80/20 rule. yes apple is fine for 80 percent of games. the ipad is good for 70 percent. but for the true gamers, the 20 percenters, the PC is still where its at. Maybe that is shrinking (i have not followed the gaming world as of late).

The main problem is that they use different libraries for many things, especially GUI. And they're different form factors. One is touch, and one is on a PC. PowerPC to Intel, I would argue, would be easier since it only required Apple to provide an emulator, no tricky UX (user experience) decisions involved. They could emulate x86 on ARM, which might be good enough for MS Office and such. BTW, neither OS is based on Linux but on BSD, but they're very similar.

Yes, true gamers WILL use Windows. Won't change any time soon. Those who own a PC primarily for gaming need not spend the extra money on Apple hardware that they can't upgrade, and game makers still support Windows better. To add to it, a lot of them seem to develop a closed mind about what OS they use... and then they get screwed over when they can't use Unix tools in the Berkeley computer

 

[subsonix]

The main problem is that they use different libraries for many things, especially GUI.

Yes but the reason for this is not that the underlaying CPU is different, but that they are different form factors. One is a traditional "point and click" desktop interface and the other is a touch based interface for small screens. iOS is still a proof of concept regarding the idea that OS X could potentially run on ARM.

 

[V.K.]

9-10 hours real world is now 'weak?'

Just who is this that actually gets 9-10 hours of real world battery life from rMB? these are the maximum numbers that Apple advertises under light workload and 75% brightness. real world moderate/heavy usage at near full brightness is closer to 6 hours according to people who actually use it. I am not interested. I want something that can last all day on a single charge like the 13'' MBA. rMB might get there by the 3rd or 4th iteration but it's certainly not there now and based on the skylake promised battery improvements it won't be there there by the second generation.

 

[Edgar Spayce]

When did MBA ever has dGPUs?

As for the MBP not running emulators or 10 year old games, what utter nonsense. Just BS. I have an hd4000 GPU and could run newish games at the time like CSGO, Rage, COD, etc.

You never had a Macbook Air, I had one with a Geforce 320M.

As for the MBP, so you're proud of running a 5 year old game on low setting like Rage, and a very cheap 10 Year old game like CS?

 

[Edgar Spayce]

Do you think the iGPUs are so weak that Apple should stick in power-hogging dGPUs? I was able to play Counter-Strike well on a 2012 rMBP w/o dedicated graphics, and the iGPU in that is junk compared to the new ones. Not sure what business, "computing", science, or design applications need something more powerful, but if you need it, you can buy an rMBP with a dedicated GPU! Most MacBook Air people will not need it.

The only thing that Intel has been bringing these past year is battery life. We don't need more.

However by mentioning Counter-Strike has an example you lost all credibility, there's no argument to have with an Apple apologist, you know they won't face the truth one bit...

 

[subsonix]

The only thing that Intel has been bringing these past year is battery life. We don't need more.

In case of the Y-Series chips, they actually offer the largest increase in performance of all the new Intel CPUs. Up to 17% faster CPU and 41% faster graphics, quoting Intel's figures.

https://www.macrumors.com/2015/07/24/intel-skylake-processors-leaked-slides/

 

[RedCroissant]

I'm awaiting processor lineup for the new 15" rMBP...dying to upgrade my 2010 13" MBP...

Just buy the current 15" MBP. The fact that it's a quad i7 makes it a better buy in my opinion than any 13" rMBP for that reason alone. Couple that with the possible discreet graphics option and the larger/better display, better audio...and you have a much better machine.

 

[RedCroissant]

I wonder when Apple will have their Ax CPU ready for notebooks.
I bet Apple hates having to wait for Intel (like IBM - G5 and Motorola G4, G3, etc... before) to be able to make the best computer.

I bet they're not too far away from having this ready. I say that based on my understanding of iOS/OS X and the differences between the operating systems and how they are optimized.

The way that Apple has been altering the UI of OS X to appear more like iOS and changing the functionality of their professional apps to make them simpler and less powerful (according to power users of these professional titles), leads me to believe that Apple will most likely move to their own CPUs within 5 years for their consumer level products while their professional level products will continue to use Intel CPUs. I at least hope that this is the case because that would mean that the coding for OS X/iOS would need both types of code installed and allow for greater compatibility for the future.

This happened for a while once Apple made the switch to Intel from PPC and kept Rosetta for a while to allow more updated versions of OS X to run apps made for the PPC architecture. It wasn't for long though once Lion was released but it was something.

Anyway, the iPhone 6 plus was clocked at 1.4GHz and it runs very well. So if a phone can run an OS very well at that clock speed with minimal ram along with great memory management algorithms, I would say that it's close! It should be awesome.