Mac Update Cycle Faces Uncertainty as Intel Abandons Tick-Tock Strategy

[manu chao]

this is news?

Given the slower release of Intel CPUs, MacRumors has moved to a new model where it will write additional articles about the same Intel news.

 

[jerwin]

I remember the switch from 32-bit processors to 64-bit processor being a big deal. Why has there not been a switch to 128-bit processors? Maybe not everything, but why are Xeons, and other similar type processors, not moving to 128-bit?

Wikipedia says:

A 64-bit register can store 264 (over 18 quintillion or 1.8×1019) different values. Hence, a processor with 64-bit memory addresses can directly access 264 bytes (=16 exbibytes) of byte-addressable memory.

Now, your iMac may have 64 GiB installed, and odds are decent that you aren't in danger of running out.

16 EiB= 16384 PiB= 16777216 TiB= 17179869184 GiB

Or 268,435,456 iMacs, each fully loaded with non ECC Ram.

 

[manu chao]

I don't see this as a good move for intel.

You don't see it as a good move the roadmap to the new reality instead of constantly falling further behind on their earlier roadmap?

 

[hi.lalo65]

hilarious...

Now it is TICK - TACK - TOCK

 

[satchmo]

Great - Mac's now updated every 2 years, and in the case of the Mac Pro, every decade.

But new watch bands every 6 months.

 

[manu chao]

It's in nicely with Apple's overall plan. They seemingly don't care about Mac anymore anyways. rMBP has been a year since it's seen updates.

A full year? They used to release them twice-yearly, what is happening?

 

[apolloa]

Why has this story been removed of the front page? It's a damn site more interesting then reading about the latest TV adverts!

EDIT: Never mind, it's below the story about the TV adverts.

 

[williamyun7]

This definitely shows Apple can't do anything by themselves without any aid of suppliers. CPU from Intel, Display, Flash memory, SSD and Ram from Samsung, LG... Apple is just good at putting all together with a good look.

 

[nt5672]

Actually there is a big difference-- the latter has SSDs. Which brings up the real point-- the main new product differential isn't the processor any more, it's the peripherals.

And yet Apple's has this silly single port design goals.

 

[Benjamin Frost]

Steve said they considered atom processors for the iPad.

Wow, I didn't know the technology was so advanced.

Certainly, if they can get the processor down to the weight and size of an atom, they'll be able to reduce the overall weight of the iPad, as well as make it smaller, I should think, possibly even thinner.

 

[dav1dd]

Maybe the chips are already extremely good/fast and so they are red-lining the dev cycle anyway? My late 2013 MBPr runs just fine.

 

[Benjamin Frost]

Oh no, what am I going to do? My plan is to replace my retina iMac every year because after about 9 months it really starts showing it's age.

As long as that? Sorry to hear you're so hard up.

I plan to replace my iMac every week, as I find it gets hot when I leave it on for longer than a day. Always look forward to the new one that has that 'cool new' touch.

 

[ValiumEater]

Bring on the A10x architecture for the next rMBP

 

[nt5672]

One thing happens when you get a bunch of ivy league MBAs together. Its not about keeping customers happy anymore, its about the next big thing. You know growth or bust at all costs. Any company transitioning from growth to commodity products has to change mindsets. Some get it, most do not. Apple is at a crossroad and they would be wise not to abandon good markets (Mac) just because they don't see irrational growth. But again that is not how MBAs are taught.

 

[jasnw]

And yet Apple's has this silly single port design goals.

Exactly. I am far more concerned about Apple's overall design concepts than a 5% faster CPU. Things like soldered-in RAM, thinner-is-better, single port (heading towards no ports - everything via WIFI and Bluetooth), and difficult/impossible to DIY upgrade are far more of a concern on the hardware side than having an incrementally faster CPU. And don't get me started on the damn OS.

 

[KidAKidB]

Great - Mac's now updated every 2 years, and in the case of the Mac Pro, every decade.

In all honesty they don't really need to be updated every year anyway

 

[El Hikaru]

I am ok with the change. I don't replace my computer every year anyway. Take time and make a good one.

 

[Mal67]

Makes sense for Intel. No big deal for Apple though. They choose not to update based on design/form requirements more than anything else and they still sell loads of computers.

 

[Studioman]

There will still new processors every year, it just means that instead of having a new architecture (and socket) every other year, there will be two rounds of refinement instead of one. Call it whatever you want, slowing down or otherwise, but there are plenty of improvements to be made to memory bandwidth, power usage, integrated GPUs, etc.

What this does not have anything to do with, is how Apple is severely late at adopting Skylake across the board on their notebooks - and that's not Intel's fault.

Apple will switch desktops and notebooks to A-series ARM chips instead? Yeah, let's hope they don't try to pull that sort of dumb move.

Recall few thought ARM would be good for tablets or phones initially.

 

[loby]

Slow news day, never seen anything like it on MacRumours.

This isn't news? Yes, this is, though this has been covered before.

Some of us are trying to plan on our future purchases and need to be updated or confirm to forcast. Macs are expensive of course and are not worth the actual hardware to cost comparison. If you want to buy a Mac Pro for instance, you want to get the "best for the buck" at the time of purchase and not have "buyer's remorse". Mac pros are close to the end of their normal product cycle, but this helps us to verify regardless that the product cycles will not be consistent in the future and tell us we are screwed farther than we are all ready and the apple tax will probably we higher vs. worth.

So "Yes" this is news, telling us we have to wait longer and may not have updates in the mac product line this June (or at least worth the purchase).

For the mini...duo core forever...

 

[arggg14]

This definitely shows Apple can't do anything by themselves without any aid of suppliers. CPU from Intel, Display, Flash memory, SSD and Ram from Samsung, LG... Apple is just good at putting all together with a good look.

Gross oversimplification...

 

[Studioman]

It's in nicely with Apple's overall plan. They seemingly don't care about Mac anymore anyways. rMBP has been a year since it's seen updates. Mac Mini is a long lost step child. Mac Pro is 3 years old. MB Air still doesn't have Retina. 12" Macbook since like it was a mistake.

Yet they can release 3 iPad versions in a year. I guess that's what happens when Mac is only 10% of your profits.

I said hello to a Dell XPS 15 over the weekend. We had a good run Apple.

My 5 year old MacBook Pro and2 year old mini run circles around the 1 year old PCs I've had to work with. It's the fact that Windows is Windows.

 

[loby]

So the question becomes, When is the best part of the cycle to purchase a Mac--at the shrink, at the introduction of a new architecture, or at the optimization? All have advantages and disadvantages.

Making it now almost impossible to predict. We must continue to welcome ' buyer's remorse'.."buyer's remorse my old friend...."

 

[throAU]

yesterday:
less competition

today:
no competition

Never mind that intel and others are getting close to the limits of silicon lithography....
[doublepost=1460419839][/doublepost]

Because 2ˆ64 is already a pretty big number.​

Also, CPUs have already been 128 bit and larger in ways that they need to be for many years already.

The "bit-ness" of a CPU these days is a bit of an arbitrary measurement. 2^64 is plenty of address space, but that (memory address capacity) not the only way to measure "bit-ness".

MMX, SSE and 3dNOW, etc. have been 128 bit or larger for decades.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streaming_SIMD_Extensions

(SSE working on 128 bit operands)

SSE came out in 1999 with the Pentium 3.

AVX instructions work on 256 and 512 bit operands.

 

[loby]

I'll be the devil's advocate here. This is more of a marketing issue for Apple than a true product issue on many levels. The truth is - there is more computing power for a large part of the consumer population than they would even use or need. I am not discounting those that want/need more for video editing/production and other intensive work. But really - how much computer processing power do you need for Microsoft Office (or Apple's suite), facebook, twitter, youtube, etc. Which - let's face it - a HUGE portion of computers are used almost exclusively for. I think this is definitely an issue. Companies always want to tout more/faster/better. But for the consumer (many) it's not that much of an issue.

Unfortunately, you are correct. Really only those who do high intensive productivity require faster and powerful processors...like us in video production. Gaming is another, but requires more so GPU performance which is very weak in most Apple products. Apple has shown no interest in the gaming field and leaves that bone to Microsoft. But the market for faster and powerful processors is becoming obsolete for profits and the apple tax. Cook is a "bean counter", so the Bucks strategy has paid off for Apple $$$, not in technological advance.