My bad - I wasn't speciffic: running without the fan noise. Yes, they have fans. Just comparing them with other products, they are not on all the time.
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.
More on Intel's Ivy Bridge Notebook Chip Delays [Updated]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
My bad - I wasn't speciffic: running without the fan noise. Yes, they have fans. Just comparing them with other products, they are not on all the time.
My bad - I wasn't speciffic: running without the fan noise. Yes, they have fans. Just comparing them with other products, they are not on all the time.
Wait what ? Which Apple laptop doesn't have a fan permanently running ? Even my 13" MBA has its fan running at 2000 rpm at all times, faster as heat requires it.
Someone (Mad-B-One) seems confused because apple laptops are quieter than all the competition.
Interim refresh
Bad timing for me. I'm going to be in the market for a notebook within the next month or so, so I was hoping for Ivy Bridge.
I'm still hoping for the rumored 15" MBA. If it's actually coming, I hope they introduce it in an interim Sandy Bridge version. I can't wait until June or later to buy.
Bad timing for me. I'm going to be in the market for a notebook within the next month or so, so I was hoping for Ivy Bridge.
I'm still hoping for the rumored 15" MBA. If it's actually coming, I hope they introduce it in an interim Sandy Bridge version. I can't wait until June or later to buy.
Key there is "failed to produce." Apple dropped Moto (IBM had long dropped out of the PPC consortium) because Moto always promised then always delayed. The refresh period is even smaller now and Apple's requirement for growth even more demanding by investors. The big barrier from dropping PPC immediately was the Mac's architecture. But it wouldn't be nearly as sloppy going from Intel to ARM. I'm not advocating, just noting that ARM is coming quick at Intel. It's not a stretch of an analogy or imagination.
Uh ? What in the Mac's architecture made the PPC to x86 transition hard exactly ? What in the ARM architecture and current offerings would make this easier ?
ARM coming quick at Intel ? ARM doesn't even sell chips, just designs. Intel can make ARM chips tomorrow if they want (and they have done so in the past, with the StrongARM acquisition and line-up they had).
No, really, it's quite the stretch. In fact, I think you brought it to the breaking point. Stop stretching, it'll tear.
I think he meant AMD and not ARM? The Intel to ARM transition is a whole different topic than Intel to AMD.
Nope, pretty sure Chuppa Chuppa meant ARM. He's been pretty active in "ARM in Mac" threads.
Intel to AMD transition would be pretty straightforward for Apple, at least on a software level, both being x86/x86_64 chips indeed. The only concern with AMD is the performance per watt and battery life/heat problems their mobile offerings have.
So, the iMac uses desktop CPUs, which may or may not appear on April 29th. How does this imply anything for the MBPs and the mobile CPUs they use?
I don't understand this part of the news:
The important questions are whether they can get the yields up for all the CPUs, and whether or not they are willing to throw them on the market and possibly loosing money on the stock of SB CPUs they have lying around.
I don't understand this part of the news:
I would guess that all of the 22nm CPUs are based on the same die... whether its dual or quad core or something else.
The important questions are whether they can get the yields up for all the CPUs, and whether or not they are willing to throw them on the market and possibly loosing money on the stock of SB CPUs they have lying around.
Eh, more time to save up to get the shiny new CPU.
do you also think jews did wtc and the moon landing was staged, bro?
Well, first it was x86 to PPC, and if you don't remember the transition then maybe you should speak about how not difficult it was. For us Mac users at the time is was a giant PITA.
The same PITA it would be to switch to ARM. I don't really get your point. There's nothing in the architecture of Macs except for the differences in x86 and PPC that made it hard. A x86 to ARM move would be just as hard.
Am I not getting your point here ?
You were claiming Intel to ARM would be easier than PPC to Intel. Now are you claiming otherwise, backtracking your previous statement ?
How exactly? There are zero, zero ARM based CPUs used in mainstream laptops and desktops. In fact, there are zero ARM based CPUs that can compete with Intel's CPUs in laptop and desktop environment. Just because we are seeing quad core ARM CPUs doesn't mean that they are automatically as fast as quad core Intel CPUs. It doesn't work that way. Intel's architectures are a lot faster in terms of core for core, clock for clock performance - and that's what counts in consumer PC market.
Yes yes, ARM CPUs have a lot lower TDP than Intel's chips that are meant for PCs. However, you can't just increase the frequency to a point where the performance should be equal. Frequency/power consumption graph is not linear, plus there is no evidence that ARM based chips are capable of achieving a frequency that would make them on-par with Intel (at some point, the system becomes unstable when a certain frequency is achieved).
Also, leaving Intel would put Apple on mercy of 3rd party fabs. Right now, GF, TSMC etc are struggling to get 28nm chips out in acceptable yields. At the same time, Intel is preparing their 22nm CPU with new FinFET transistors (while others are still using old planar transistors). Hell, the current iDevices are using 45nm SOI in their SoCs. That's what Intel used in 2009.
Seriously, this "ARM is better than Intel" argument is getting old. Wake me up when there is an ARM based chip that has:
- Better core for core, clock for clock performance than Intel's current chips at that time
- Better performance per watt ratio than Intel's
- Is faster than Intel's offerings in the same price category
- Is aimed for consumer PCs (i.e. laptops and desktop), similar to Intel's Core iX family
Until that happens, the ARM argument is junk.
Last edited:
It'd be nice to ascertain what the delay is actually for. Personally, my only vested interest is in the mobile quad-cores. They could do whatever they want to or delay however much they want on the MacBook Air and 13" MacBook Pro centric dual-cores or the desktop iMac-bound quad-cores. Though the iMac is most due for an update (and a design refresh) out of the entire line.
Nope, not confused. Just was a little slack to go into detail. I mentioned ULV - the reason they can be more quiet than the competition, did I? Compared to the lap warmers the competition is selling, Apple's notebooks appear different. I got 3 Windows laptops at home and using them has the sound of a small turbine to it if you don't use a USB laptop fanbox (or whatever they are called - the thing you can set a laptop on) with big diameter fans.
Hopefully, no technical problems are involved.
Now that would really delay the next generation MacBook Pro.
Now that would really delay the next generation MacBook Pro.
Disregard the thermal sensors when at load. They are quiet though.
Otherwise do not keep a MacBook on your lap and more so in the summer or fall asleep...
And if that is all you're after, AMD has their APU platform and Intel has their Atom platform that don't require a full own CPU architecture change like ARM does.
So really, ARM knocking down the door ? ARM has yet to even enter the address in their GPS unit, much less get to driving to the door to knock it down in the first place.
All Ivy Bridge CPUs are based on the same architecture, but there are multiple dies. Consumer Sandy Bridge CPUs have three dies: dual core with HD 2000, dual core with HD 3000 and quad core with HD 3000. Why? Because it's waste of money to make quad core chips and sell them as dual core. Instead, you can make a dual core die and get more dies per wafer, which obviously means more money.
Excellent post! ARM is years away from reaching the performance of Intel today. Do the ARM advocates think that Intel is going to freeze in time and not continue advancements?
Bit of a stretch on that analogy.
IBM failed to produce a mobile G5 chip for years and PPC and x86 never were quite far apart in the performance arena to begin with.
Constrast this with a few months of delay from Intel on the latest generation with ARM nowhere near the performance of current x86 chips, much less Ivy Bridge.
If ARM manages to Knock down the door, they'll get booted out and arrested for trespassing at this point.
PPC smoked x86 so bad you must have never tried PPC chips before. The G4 was as fast as most Pentium 4, the G5 made all intel offerings look like clown-shoes until Apple quit using IBM in 2006. Intel D, Dual Core, whatever was laughable in comparison. And in 2006, Intel had dualcore chips or maybe quad at 2.6ghz core duo all the while IBM had 3, 6 and 8 core chips at 3.2ghz in 2006, up until 2009 Intel has lagged terribly behind in terms of being above average in tech breakthroughs. There not exactly on the cutting edge of anything, there just the only option.
I suggest we do the following:
Tell everyone you know to wait for the next revision of their preferred Mac computer. Including all these annoying buy now or wait threads.
Hopefully when apple sees their profits being affected they can scold intel and pressure them into compliance.
AMD can't put pressure on intel, even the consumers are powerless on their own... but let intel experience the wrath of apple.
Tell everyone you know to wait for the next revision of their preferred Mac computer. Including all these annoying buy now or wait threads.
Hopefully when apple sees their profits being affected they can scold intel and pressure them into compliance.
AMD can't put pressure on intel, even the consumers are powerless on their own... but let intel experience the wrath of apple.