Leaked Intel Roadmap Reveals More Efficient Chip Than M1 Pro and Max to Launch Within Two Years

[Krazykev]

Intel does manufacture many of their own chips but per the article:


In this case TSMC will be producing these chips just as they're producing Apple's. It speaks to me that they don't think they will get the process where they need it by then.

Consider also that there is more than just die size involved. Intel architecture still requires more instructions per clock cycle. That will always be the case as long as they continue to cling to X86. They should preserve options while the world moves away from X86.

 

[Moonlight]

Do people get paid to say "Competition is a good thing" on here?

 

[pasamio]

Consider also that there is more than just die size involved. Intel architecture still requires more instructions per clock cycle. That will always be the case as long as they continue to cling to X86. They should preserve options while the world moves away from X86.

I was more making an observation that they're continuing to plan to leverage TSMC which indicates to me that their own process improvements are still behind so they're trying to balance shipping competitive product using TSMC versus using their own fabs to make their chips.

 

[Veeper]

It's a dead giant. I don't see me buying anything Intel for the foreseeable future.

What, you don’t see yourself in two years buying a brand new Intel-based laptop that’s only as good as a machine released a year ago from present day?

 

[Deliro]

I don’t have hate on intel and I’m not in awe of everything apple does. I’m glad there is competition. It spurs innovation. With that said I’ve used AMDs my last two PC builds and my laptop is always a mac.

 

[ian87w]

Why did it take Apple to make the M1 for Intel to suddenly innovate?

Because a lot of money were lost when Apple dropped them? Money tends to be a huge motivator in businesses.
And intel doesn't "suddenly" innovate. Note that this is still 2 years away, and that's assuming intel can stick with their own roadmap (which they don't have a good track record). And the recent improvements can be partly attributed to simply moving to 10nm from 14nm++++.

And now the roadmap tells us that intel is going to use TSMC. It kinda tells me that the ones innovating are TSMC, while intel's own fabs are not doing great.

 

[CASMAS]

I think Intel proves that increasing only little core is very useful. They are planning to increase only little cores for 15th gen. So why not add more little cores for Apple Silicon? I think there is no reason to increase more than 8 big cores. They already planning to make 8+32 cores.

Let big 8 cores to cover the clock speed and little cores to cover multi core performance. 12th gen already proves it. They laptop H series will get 24 cores in 2023 so Apple should do something with M1 Pro/Max too.

 

[hagjohn]

Do people get paid to say "Competition is a good thing" on here?

No, but it is true. Better components make it better end user experience. We just need more competition in other components and equipment.

 

[SenorWhyMe]

To late intel

not too late for competition, what’s wrong with you

 

[leicaman]

Not only will it NOT be more efficient than what Apple has, it will still suffer from a much more important stumbling block for best bang-for-the-buck.

Intel does not control the whole stack. They have to deal with a vast array of engineers for hardware and software that work with competing interests. There's no way they can compete with Apple, who controls every single bit of the design, and can do things the others simply are not capable of doing.

 

[huge_apple_fangirl]

Because a lot of money were lost when Apple dropped them? Money tends to be a huge motivator in businesses.

They didn't lose a ton of money. Apple was maybe 6% of their profits? It is a bad look though. It is odd that Intel is so concerned about losing Apple. Apple has been unhappy with them for YEARS now. Apple has a history of switching platforms. If Intel has suddenly decided to make power efficient chips because of Apple, why didn't they make those chips three years ago so Apple wouldn't leave? Everyone knew Apple was planning to.

 

[NoImage]

A leaked roadmap by Intel suggests that the company is developing a new lineup of CPUs that are targeted at outperforming Apple's 14-inch MacBook Pro with the M1 Pro and M1 Max chips by late 2023, or early 2024, which would be almost two years after the new chips and laptop made their debut.

The roadmap by Intel, initially leaked by AdoredTV and interpreted by Wccftech, explicitly states that Intel wants to compete with Apple's 14-inch MacBook Pro with its Arrow Lake series. According to the roadmap, Intel's 15th generation Arrow Lake processors could be ready to ship by late 2023, or early 2024 with a priority on delivering high-performance while using minimal energy.

Leaked Intel roadmap shared online by AdoredTV​

The roadmap also says that Intel will utilize TSMC's 3nm process. Apple currently utilizes the 5nm process for its latest chips and is expected to adopt the 3nm chip architecture in 2023 with the "M3" Apple silicon chip and A17 chip in the iPhone 15.

Intel has already beaten Apple's M1 Max chip on paper if you ignore high-energy consumption and poor battery life. Benchmarks show that Intel's latest Core i9 processors received a higher score than Apple's M1 Max chip in tests, but that 4% increase in performance is offset by a marked reduction in battery life compared to Apple's chips. Tests show that a laptop with Intel's latest i9 Core chip only lasts six hours for video playback. In comparison, Apple advertises the latest 16-inch MacBook Pro as getting up to 21 hours of battery life for offline video playback.

Ever since Apple announced its transition away from Intel during the summer of 2020, it has been slowly transitioning its Macs to custom-made chips. So far, Apple has released four laptop computers with Apple silicon, alongside two desktop computers. In just a few weeks, Apple is expected to announce at least one new Mac with Apple silicon, with possibilities being a new high-end Mac mini and an update to the low-end 13-inch MacBook Pro.

Article Link: Leaked Intel Roadmap Reveals More Efficient Chip Than M1 Pro and Max to Launch Within Two Years

Won’t matter at all because that gives apple about 2 years to keep innovating and make something else that Intel will have to struggle to compete with.

 

[asmlnxe]

Won’t matter at all because that gives apple about 2 years to keep innovating and make something else that Intel will have to struggle to compete with.

who helps apple to manufacture their Mx chip if china follows russia on ukraine & invade Taiwan...

Ukraine Invasion Sends Chill Through TSMC Shares​

TSMC shares dropped Thursday as traders worried about Taiwan-China relations in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The chipmaker’s drop was in contrast to gains for the broader semiconductor sector.

 

[Thehangmn]

So intel is not using their own FABs? That's gotta hurt. the only way they can make power efficient chips is to use TSMC? or is this the only way they make 3nm chips by 2023?

 

[Nuno Lopes]

I think this is good news both for M and Intel users.

For Intel users (Windows, Linux …) means that in two to three years they will be able to enjoy what M users enjoy today if not better.

For M users means that they will be able to enjoy even better Ms pushed in part by competition.

On a side note, considering that stationary PCs such as the iMac’s don’t suffer from the same space conditioning that mobile do. I really hope that Apple does not limit its imagination to performance pairing stationary and mobile PCs. Stationary users deserve clearly better performance than mobile not just bigger displays and better audio.

Cheers.

 

[nieks]

Intel has already beaten Apple's M1 Max chip on paper if you ignore high-energy consumption and poor battery life.

So, on paper? Not like, in a computer, where it would matter?
And to add to that, lets just ignore key selling points, like energy consumption and battery life. Okay.

 

[Velli]

Why did it take Apple to make the M1 for Intel to suddenly innovate?

They didn't suddenly innovate. They have had very innovative and class-leading CPU's on the future roadmap for many years. That future is going to arrive aaaany day now.

 

[Carlos970]

Intel is like a dying animal... or more like a kiddo in kinder garden crying over one of his friends new toys...

for the intelligent minds... saying: "In 2 years we will have something more efficient than what they have now" is just the analog equivalent to being beat up and saying "my dad is stronger than yours"... it is completely useless, basically they are announcing their own technology they launch in 2 years that it will be as obsolete and the current one will be in that time. Lets make it simple, if you compare a upcoming product that is gonna be release in 2 years with current technology, first, it is only logical that the tech will be relatively better but, none the elss, they are disregarding the fact that by then apple will have the M3, meaning, 2 full updates of the product the competitors are trying to beat now. This is a big concern because it shows not only the lack of vision from intel to be able to produce something that doesn't resemble an industrial heater and also their willingness to stay the same and don't "leap ahead" (no pun intended, or maybe?).

they indeed managed to boost up their raw performance of their chips, but that was never the race goals. Boosting the speed is easier, you can do it at home with current dies, overclockers known this for years. The race was and it is still about powers and efficiency, is how you get 200 HP with only 2 watts of power (this is only an holistic comparison to get in context. while apple succeed on doing so, intell still offers the same 200 HP but instead a mere 2 watts it will basically eat exponentially more than apple's, as one is only using 2 watts the other might be around 15 watts. Again, these are NOT real numbers, this is just an analog comparison to get a better picture of what we talking about. In other words, they are not offering any improvements rather than "we listening to the customers and we gonna evolve with the competition" that is far beyond that saying "we listening to the customers and now we gonna break havoc and bring you something completely breath taking because we have almost a century in this business.. much more than some lifestyle company"

I'm not impressed by intel, not now, not never... last time I was impressed by it was about 10 years ago, when the industry was still under a blanket in their comfort zone. Back then there wasn't any thoughts at at all put into the efficiency + performance market, it was just a bunck of folks trying to create the biggest fastest chip. BTW we know how that ended for intel... they got their ass kicked by AMD for a good set of years and... they still struggling.

Next time someoen post anything about drowned animals, please... post something really interesting about it

 

[PBRsg]

Intel is notorious for overpromising and underdelivering.

 

[SactoGuy18]

Apple isn’t producing anything

Technically true, but given Apple's near-control of TSMC....

 

[PC_tech]

Technically true, but given Apple's near-control of TSMC....

Apple doesn’t own them, do they? No?

 

[randian]

The x86 is so physically complex and requires such a large transistor count that their heat problem is unfixable. The x86 is wart piled on wart. They have what, 3 different vector instruction sets, plus the x87 legacy FPU?

 

[MysticCow]

Consider also that there is more than just die size involved. Intel architecture still requires more instructions per clock cycle. That will always be the case as long as they continue to cling to X86. They should preserve options while the world moves away from X86.

It's the airplane analogy again. You can either just cut it all off and watch the plane crash and take a few hundred with it...or you can work to a smooth landing where people actually survive the flight!

 

[randian]

Consider also that there is more than just die size involved. Intel architecture still requires more instructions per clock cycle. That will always be the case as long as they continue to cling to X86. They should preserve options while the world moves away from X86.

They tried to replace x86 with Itanium but it was a dud, in part because Intel sunk all their money into improving x86 while spending effectively nothing on Itanium, in effect competing with themselves.

 

[SactoGuy18]

Apple doesn’t own them, do they? No?

Given how much of TSMC's production is for Apple's SoC's, it's pretty close.