Maybe..., just maybe....

[Fried Chicken]

...do I know why we're not seeing any new Macs.

I think apple's relationship with intel is strained. Intel is trying to force new terms on apple, and apple isn't having any of it.

I think apple is waiting for the AMD Zen architecture.

*grabs popcorn*

This' gonna be good.

 

[Floris]

History shows october/november releases, it is still november.
I don't think anything is going on just yet..

 

[maflynn]

I think apple's relationship with intel is strained. Intel is trying to force new terms on apple, and apple isn't having any of it.

Or, that Apple's schedule is for October and we're still in September.

What evidence do you have, that supports a strained relationship?

 

[CWallace]

Intel is trying to woo Apple's business for iPhone components (modems now, but they're also trying to get an ARM fabbing deal). So no way is Intel trying to upset Apple on CPUs (heck, Apple is probably the biggest purchaser of their higher-end / higher-margin units considering the ASPs of most Windows machines).

 

[Fried Chicken]

Or, that Apple's schedule is for October and we're still in September.

What evidence do you have, that supports a strained relationship?

Just a hunch. During the x86 transition intel wooed apple hard. Successfully, I should add. Apple stuck with intel exclusively for their processor architectures. Since then I've gotten the impression that one or both parties are not happy with the arrangement.

Since the initial honeymoon, I've occasionally noticed a flare-up, like apple sticking with C2D for a long time until the contracts for the core i series could be hashed out.
Then there was the frankly absurd rumor that apple was developing an ARM version of OS X. Again, could be apple trying to send a message to intel.

Now we're again seeing intel wield their might again with unjustified chip delays, and possibly they're squeezing apple again.
Maybe apple is once again fighting with intel, and maybe, just maybe, apple will introduce AMD macs.

 

[SystemSettings]

...do I know why we're not seeing any new Macs.

I think apple's relationship with intel is strained. Intel is trying to force new terms on apple, and apple isn't having any of it.

I think apple is waiting for the AMD Zen architecture.

*grabs popcorn*

This' gonna be good.

Heh, we will see come October/November.

 

[CWallace]

Now we're again seeing intel wield their might again with unjustified chip delays, and possibly they're squeezing apple again.

Intel's late on CPUs because their fabrication process is suffering yield issues. They're coming up against the limits of how small they can shrink a CPU, which is why Kaby Lake will not be a process shrink and Intel is no longer doing "tick-tock".

 

[vapourtrails]

2013 iMac was late September on a Tuesday. In the last few cycles only two have been in Oct and 1 in November.

 

[cynics]

The Intel fanboys would have a fit if the iMac saw an AMD CPU update!

Personally I can't wait to see some real world benchmarks of Zen. If nothing else I hope it pushes Intel to market a higher than 4 core CPU to consumers. I need to curb my own hype but that 8 Core AMD Zen in an iMac? That could potentially have me buying a new iMac since I would see noticeable improvements in my usage (video encoding).

 

[varian55zx]

The Intel fanboys would have a fit if the iMac saw an AMD CPU update!

It would force me to switch.

Would be too embarrassed to have a computer with an AMD CPU.

Don't do it Apple, you clowns.

 

[tubeexperience]

...do I know why we're not seeing any new Macs.

I think apple's relationship with intel is strained. Intel is trying to force new terms on apple, and apple isn't having any of it.

I think apple is waiting for the AMD Zen architecture.

*grabs popcorn*

This' gonna be good.

I wouldn't be surprise at all.

In fact, it's more likely than not going to happen.

 

[maflynn]

The Intel fanboys would have a fit if the iMac saw an AMD CPU update!

I prefer Intel, always have, but I bought my wife an HP AIO which runs on an AMD chip and it's fine, we've not run into any problems. I suppose, as long as there's no performance or compatibility issues, I'll be happy

 

[cynics]

It would force me to switch.

Would be too embarrassed to have a computer with an AMD CPU.

Don't do it Apple, you clowns.

Embarrassed? Explain if you wouldn't mind.

 

[Fried Chicken]

It would force me to switch.

Would be too embarrassed to have a computer with an AMD CPU.

Don't do it Apple, you clowns.

You’re kidding right?

I couldn’t care less what processor is in my computer.

 

[Fried Chicken]

http://www.dailytech.com/AMD+Zen+Pr...+upcoming++Apple+MacBook+Pro/article37663.htm

BAM

 

[toddzrx]

Now we're again seeing intel wield their might again with unjustified chip delays, and possibly they're squeezing apple again.

"Wield their might"? "Squeezing Apple"? Not buying it. Intel has been laying employees off because of the general down turn in the computer sector that's been happening over the last few years. Intel is not in a position to force its terms on Apple like you suggest. The delays in my mind are a combination of low chip yields on Intel's part, and Apple desiring processors that are on the higher end of the performance scale (which are produced in lower numbers than the rest of the range).

And as others have noted, we're certainly not seeing any release delay yet. Remember 2012?

 

[Krevnik]

Personally I can't wait to see some real world benchmarks of Zen. If nothing else I hope it pushes Intel to market a higher than 4 core CPU to consumers. I need to curb my own hype but that 8 Core AMD Zen in an iMac? That could potentially have me buying a new iMac since I would see noticeable improvements in my usage (video encoding).

Yeah, the problem is that consumer scenarios are still very much constrained to single-threaded work in many cases. And if the apps outside of certain areas are still not taking full advantage of Quad Core chips, adding more won't buy you much. Especially if you have to take a hit on single thread performance to do it. If the Zen provides similar single thread performance, and gives me 4 more cores compared to Skylake, sure. But with my workload on my iMac, cutting single thread by 13% to get the extra cores (based on the supposed benchmark leaks and some napkin math) isn't a great trade.

Would it be nice to see a machine that you can make that trade with, without paying out the nose for a Xeon system or Broadwell-E? Sure. I'm just not sure the iMac will switch to Zen, at least not this time around. Not when the 6700K from a year ago is still a better chip for workloads that are primarily single thread, with some wider workloads thrown in.

 

[Grade]

It would force me to switch.

Would be too embarrassed to have a computer with an AMD CPU.

Don't do it Apple, you clowns.

I had two AMD base computers and to be fair, had no complains about them. They were very reliable, each lasted 5 years at the least. Try Intel based PC, before coming to Apple Universe. First week the processor went bust. maybe I was unlucky. Then Had no issues for 2 years, until I sold the PC and bought Mac Mini.

So going one way or another depends. If Apple benefits with AMD, the great.

What Apple can't do is not updating is computer lineup and charging for hardware at the same price it did 3 years ago when those hardware were released.

We all here a little of Apple fanboys, but i think it is time to be little critical about Apple's posture of these lack of releases of their computer lineup. We all agree this drought, so to speak, doesn't benefit the costumer and can back fire into Apple's face, if things don't go their way. Windows, Linux and ChromeOS are the true beneficiaries of this situation.

I prefer Apple each year made small spec bump (even if that means 1% upgrade, comparing the last year release), then what apple is doing. I really hope that Apple can really surprise or then Apple will only concentrate on Iphones and Ipads, in the forseable future, because those still make money. Yes, I'm being that pessimistic.

 

[cynics]

Yeah, the problem is that consumer scenarios are still very much constrained to single-threaded work in many cases. And if the apps outside of certain areas are still not taking full advantage of Quad Core chips, adding more won't buy you much. Especially if you have to take a hit on single thread performance to do it. If the Zen provides similar single thread performance, and gives me 4 more cores compared to Skylake, sure. But with my workload on my iMac, cutting single thread by 13% to get the extra cores (based on the supposed benchmark leaks and some napkin math) isn't a great trade.

Would it be nice to see a machine that you can make that trade with, without paying out the nose for a Xeon system or Broadwell-E? Sure. I'm just not sure the iMac will switch to Zen, at least not this time around. Not when the 6700K from a year ago is still a better chip for workloads that are primarily single thread, with some wider workloads thrown in.

I'm not too sure. Short of gaming what task are constrained to any noticeable affect by frequency of a single core? You could say "near everything" but I'm referring to a literal constraint, something processing that you need to wait for.

Every task I perform or can think of that is CPU bound and you are waiting for could benefit from multiple cores. Apps tend to be designed that way, if its going to send your CPU into a processing frenzy its typically coded to utilize as many cores as possible to speed up that task.

I think its unlikely your average consumer would say "That is 4 ghz and definitely not 3.5 ghz!" whereas if their iMovie takes 15 minutes less time to encode they might actually notice that i.e. real gains.

The difference you are talking about (13%ish) is going to be the difference between the 6700k and 7700k (give or take)....when that comes out is the 6700k going to be unreasonably slow?

There are no gains in these incremental bumps. You'd need a magnifying glass to notice a difference between those two, benchmarks measuring microscopic differences or a VERY specific work load.....a work load that would likely benefit from more cores I might add.

For my workload 8 cores (assuming they are on par with Intel) would free up hours of encoding every day. And its unlikely I'd notice a hit in single core performance. Honestly I can't tell a difference between i5 and i7 in normal task, most everything is bound by storage speed not processing power (task that I do).

 

[tubeexperience]

It would force me to switch.

Would be too embarrassed to have a computer with an AMD CPU.

Don't do it Apple, you clowns.

Bye-bye

 

[varian55zx]

Bye-bye

Look.

I don't think they're going to do it. alright

They aren't that stupid, and as we know here, they are stupid.

I don't care if it performs the same as an Intel processor, I don't want to be mocked by everyone I talk about computers with (literally) because I have an AMD processor. And then I have to say "Oh you know this ones different look at the specs"... I'm not buying a computer with an AMD processor. Everyone knows AMD is the laughing stock of the CPU world. They've always been terrible.

And it is for that reason that Apple won't do it. Us Mac users can successfully fend off the Apple haters because we have substance to back up our side, if Apple's quality drops so low that they're using AMD everything, we don't have a case anymore.
[doublepost=1475297521][/doublepost]

I had two AMD base computers and to be fair, had no complains about them. They were very reliable, each lasted 5 years at the least. Try Intel based PC, before coming to Apple Universe. First week the processor went bust. maybe I was unlucky. Then Had no issues for 2 years, until I sold the PC and bought Mac Mini.

I haven't used a PC since OS 9 in the 90s for that exact reason. Also won't buy crapMD (AMD), better out there for my money.

 

[EJ Lala]

Look.

I don't think they're going to do it. alright

They aren't that stupid, and as we know here, they are stupid.

I don't care if it performs the same as an Intel processor, I don't want to be mocked by everyone I talk about computers with (literally) because I have an AMD processor. And then I have to say "Oh you know this ones different look at the specs"... I'm not buying a computer with an AMD processor. Everyone knows AMD is the laughing stock of the CPU world. They've always been terrible.

And it is for that reason that Apple won't do it. Us Mac users can successfully fend off the Apple haters because we have substance to back up our side, if Apple's quality drops so low that they're using AMD everything, we don't have a case anymore.
[doublepost=1475297521][/doublepost]
I haven't used a PC since OS 9 in the 90s for that exact reason. Also won't buy crapMD (AMD), better out there for my money.

Right now and in the past few years I'll agree their products are a joke, but in the past I certainly don't agree. Athlon Classic/Tbird/XP/Early Athlon 64 were great products.

 

[T'hain Esh Kelch]

It would force me to switch.

Would be too embarrassed to have a computer with an AMD CPU.

Don't do it Apple, you clowns.

Fanboyism level 1.000.000.

Do you also care about the power supply in your fridge?

 

[varian55zx]

Fanboyism level 1.000.000.

Do you also care about the power supply in your fridge?

You like being ridiculed by other people about the stuff you spend thousands of dollars on? Have fun !!

It's not fanboyism it's called (very) simple logic.

I couldn’t care less what processor is in my computer

How preposterous

And you people are making fun of me.

Oh man!!!

 

[Krevnik]

I'm not too sure. Short of gaming what task are constrained to any noticeable affect by frequency of a single core? You could say "near everything" but I'm referring to a literal constraint, something processing that you need to wait for.

Every task I perform or can think of that is CPU bound and you are waiting for could benefit from multiple cores. Apps tend to be designed that way, if its going to send your CPU into a processing frenzy its typically coded to utilize as many cores as possible to speed up that task.

The problem is that tasks that are written for multiple cores are the minority, even if they can benefit from them. Lightroom and Photoshop for example, are primarily boosted by single core perf, while certain subtasks may be multi-threaded like filters. Photoshop in particular is just too old. And tasks in that case which are massively parallel are already being moved to the GPU rather than being left on the CPU. And if your work tends to be of the office variety, you can stress the CPU when working in Pages/Word/whatever and those are primarily single-threaded apps. Apps like browsers will also tend to feel more performant when you have stronger single-threaded due to the final compositing that tends to need to be done all on a single thread (because UI interaction is required to be on the main thread, even if you can do some work off the main thread).

The reality is that CPUs at the moment have gotten ahead of the workloads people put on them in most cases. Basically, if you know more cores will help you, great. But if you aren't sure, the answer is likely "no". I do have some things that would benefit from Zen or Broadwell-E, but I don't honestly do them often enough on an iMac for it to matter. And ironically, in the office, I have a Mac Pro for the one day-to-day thing where it does.

My main point here is that if we are looking at common workloads, 8-core systems are currently overkill. And I'm not convinced it would be the right call to push Zen across all iMac models, and Apple is unlikely to put Zen, and the required motherboard design changes into a single high-end model.