Skylake is only a 10% boost over Haswell?

Razeus

macrumors 603
Original poster
Jul 11, 2008
5,165
1,769
Please explain the hype around Skylake. I'm a bit lost in all the information out there.

Looking to sell my 2012 iMac for a 2015 rMBP, but I'll wait for Skylake if the speed improvements are worth the hypes.
 

Quu

macrumors 68030
Apr 2, 2007
2,659
4,186
Every major architecture upgrade from Intel for the past 9 years or so has been around 8-12% increase.

The reason people are waiting for Skylake is not for the CPU IPC improvements, at-least not that IPC improvement on its own. They are waiting for the 100% GPU improvement over Haswell, (50% over Broadwell) Thunderbolt 3, USB-C Connector's + USB 3.1 in the chipset, redesigned chassis that come in multiple colours like the MacBook etc
 

Dark Void

macrumors 68030
Jun 1, 2011
2,614
465
In basic terms, the hype for Skylake is more focused on what will be implemented along with it, and not just raw CPU performance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Codeseven

campyguy

macrumors 68040
Mar 21, 2014
3,415
932
And, there's a whole bunch of information and discussion in the "Waiting for Skylake MBP thread" sticky. I've seen a couple of demos of Win 10 by friends from Intel and IMHO there's a palpable difference over Ivy Bridge and Haswell (I own one of each), but...

... soon then there will be a "Waiting for Kaby Lake MBP thread" after yesterday's announcement by Intel... Sigh.
 

Razeus

macrumors 603
Original poster
Jul 11, 2008
5,165
1,769
And, there's a whole bunch of information and discussion in the "Waiting for Skylake MBP thread" sticky. I've seen a couple of demos of Win 10 by friends from Intel and IMHO there's a palpable difference over Ivy Bridge and Haswell (I own one of each), but...

... soon then there will be a "Waiting for Kaby Lake MBP thread" after yesterday's announcement by Intel... Sigh.
I guess that's what happens when AMD isn't even trying.
 

Quu

macrumors 68030
Apr 2, 2007
2,659
4,186
I guess that's what happens when AMD isn't even trying.
AMD are trying but you need to consider the circumstances. For half a decade Intel illegally subsidized their processors to Dell, HP and other manufacturers and part of those subsidies were the stipulation that they didn't release new AMD powered products.

We're not talking a few million here and a few million there. Intel paid Dell alone 6 Billion dollars in rebates under the stipulation Dell did not release any new products containing AMD processors.

AMD only received something like 1.09 Billion from Intel after fighting them in the courts for years. Barely anything compared to how much Intel paid out to Dell and others over a 5 year period.

AMD really needed that money. At the time this was going on AMD were faster but they didn't have the funds coming in you would expect from being faster due to Intel's illegal and anticompetitive rebate program.

This eventually lead AMD to have to spin off their manufacturing arm. They had built a 3 Billion dollar state of the art fab in Dresden Germany but without the money from the deals that Intel sabotaged they couldn't afford to keep it, AMD span it off into Global Foundaries which now is a competitor to TSMC and Samsung in the general fab industry.

All this ^ is just one disadvantage. The other is AMD isn't just fighting one battle. It's not just AMD vs Intel. They are also fighting NVIDIA who is an enormous company now with 75% of the discrete graphics market, the highest market share they've ever held against a competitor in this market.

So not only does AMD need to spend billions of dollars fighting Intel (Intel spends 10.5 Billion on R&D every year) but they also have to fight NVIDIA. And this is also discounting AMD's flagging server and mobile businesses.

We desperately need AMD in the market. Competition is important but they will never be the fastest when spread so thin fighting multiple juggernauts. NVIDIA doesn't make CPU's and Intel doesn't make dedicated graphics chips. AMD is the only one doing both and struggling.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TechZeke and FuNGi

ecommerceedward

macrumors member
Dec 10, 2014
37
20
AMD are trying but you need to consider the circumstances. For half a decade Intel illegally subsidized their processors to Dell, HP and other manufacturers and part of those subsidies were the stipulation that they didn't release new AMD powered products.

We're not talking a few million here and a few million there. Intel paid Dell alone 6 Billion dollars in rebates under the stipulation Dell did not release any new products containing AMD processors.

AMD only received something like 1.09 Billion from Intel after fighting them in the courts for years. Barely anything compared to how much Intel paid out to Dell and others over a 5 year period.

AMD really needed that money. At the time this was going on AMD were faster but they didn't have the funds coming in you would expect from being faster due to Intel's illegal and anticompetitive rebate program.

This eventually lead AMD to have to spin off their manufacturing arm. They had built a 3 Billion dollar state of the art fab in Dresden Germany but without the money from the deals that Intel sabotaged they couldn't afford to keep it, AMD span it off into Global Foundaries which now is a competitor to TSMC and Samsung in the general fab industry.

All this ^ is just one disadvantage. The other is AMD isn't just fighting one battle. It's not just AMD vs Intel. They are also fighting NVIDIA who is an enormous company now with 75% of the discrete graphics market, the highest market share they've ever held against a competitor in this market.

So not only does AMD need to spend billions of dollars fighting Intel (Intel spends 10.5 Billion on R&D every year) but they also have to fight NVIDIA. And this is also discounting AMD's flagging server and mobile businesses.

We desperately need AMD in the market. Competition is important but they will never be the fastest when spread so thin fighting multiple juggernauts. NVIDIA doesn't make CPU's and Intel doesn't make dedicated graphics chips. AMD is the only one doing both and struggling.
Wow, I hope AMD can pull something off, we need competition
 

Razeus

macrumors 603
Original poster
Jul 11, 2008
5,165
1,769
Thanks for the insight. I'm not sure what's going on with Apple, but charge $2k for a computer with a 2 year old processor??? Generally weak hardware launches (Mac Mini, 12" Macbooks, A wrist watch? Software and OS's riddled with bugs. Cloud services that are always done?

I'm not sure what the heck is going on at Apple, but I'm trying to stay strong.
 

jerwin

macrumors 68020
Jun 13, 2015
2,457
4,451
I'm not sure what's going on with Apple, but charge $2k for a computer with a 2 year old processor??
If the new processors are only marginally more efficient, the SSD, the graphics card, the battery, the overall weight, the screen, etc are all more important than having the latest cpus.
 

TechZeke

macrumors 68020
Jul 29, 2012
2,361
1,969
Rialto, CA
Thanks for the insight. I'm not sure what's going on with Apple, but charge $2k for a computer with a 2 year old processor??? Generally weak hardware launches (Mac Mini, 12" Macbooks, A wrist watch? Software and OS's riddled with bugs. Cloud services that are always done?

I'm not sure what the heck is going on at Apple, but I'm trying to stay strong.
Too be fair, Apple didn't have any chips to upgrade the 15" rMBPs with. All the laptops released with quad-core Broadwell now are non-Iris Pro CPUs, which is an important factor everyone complaining seems to be missing. If the rMBPs didn't rely on the Iris Pro, we would have had Broadwell CPUs in the rMBPs right now. Although Intel announced these chips, they clearly won't be ready for months.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheWelshBoyo

steve23094

macrumors 68030
Apr 23, 2013
2,616
1,331
AMD are trying but you need to consider the circumstances. For half a decade Intel illegally subsidized their processors to Dell, HP and other manufacturers and part of those subsidies were the stipulation that they didn't release new AMD powered products.

We're not talking a few million here and a few million there. Intel paid Dell alone 6 Billion dollars in rebates under the stipulation Dell did not release any new products containing AMD processors.

AMD only received something like 1.09 Billion from Intel after fighting them in the courts for years. Barely anything compared to how much Intel paid out to Dell and others over a 5 year period.

AMD really needed that money. At the time this was going on AMD were faster but they didn't have the funds coming in you would expect from being faster due to Intel's illegal and anticompetitive rebate program.

This eventually lead AMD to have to spin off their manufacturing arm. They had built a 3 Billion dollar state of the art fab in Dresden Germany but without the money from the deals that Intel sabotaged they couldn't afford to keep it, AMD span it off into Global Foundaries which now is a competitor to TSMC and Samsung in the general fab industry.

All this ^ is just one disadvantage. The other is AMD isn't just fighting one battle. It's not just AMD vs Intel. They are also fighting NVIDIA who is an enormous company now with 75% of the discrete graphics market, the highest market share they've ever held against a competitor in this market.

So not only does AMD need to spend billions of dollars fighting Intel (Intel spends 10.5 Billion on R&D every year) but they also have to fight NVIDIA. And this is also discounting AMD's flagging server and mobile businesses.

We desperately need AMD in the market. Competition is important but they will never be the fastest when spread so thin fighting multiple juggernauts. NVIDIA doesn't make CPU's and Intel doesn't make dedicated graphics chips. AMD is the only one doing both and struggling.
AMD's precarious position isn't only from Intel efforts, they have had some pretty horrible management over the years from founder Jerry Sanders.

This article is very well written and informed:-
http://arstechnica.com/business/2013/04/the-rise-and-fall-of-amd-how-an-underdog-stuck-it-to-intel/