Skylake v Core M for the layman?

Discussion in 'MacBook' started by jobu02, Mar 10, 2015.

  1. jobu02 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2010
    #1
    To start- I'm typing this from a 2008 Macbook whose battery lasts maybe 20 mins. I'm by no means a power user- tons of Chrome tabs, Office, Spotify/Sonos/iTunes, no peripherals.

    It's time. However, I've read a few times about the huge jump that Skylake will offer (and, yes, we don't know exactly how the Core M will do). And this new MB is rev 1.

    I was hoping someone could give a basic lowdown of what Skylake may bring. I would very much appreciate having an idea of what may come next before committing. Or is this "underpowered" MB more than enough for me already?

    As much as I want to upgrade, maybe I'll buy a battery and wait a year.

    I appreciate the insight.
     
  2. Diversion macrumors 6502a

    Diversion

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2007
    Location:
    Jacksonville, Florida
    #2
    Skylake will be a bigger jump than Haswell was to Broadwell.. however, if you're on the fence I would definately hold out for Skylake Core M (that will be in the next year's new Macbook). I just feel like the Core M is just not far enough away from an Atom cpu for the money they are demanding for Core M machines.. There's some benches out there showing how a Core M potential beats Haswell 15watters but in reality it feels much slower all around.. Although I have experience with Lenovo's use of the Core M and nothing else (Yoga Pro 3).

    So yes, i'd wait if you have no issue with waiting, Skylake should be what you'd expect .. I feel like Broadwell is half of what Skylake will be.

    On the technical side of the architecture of Skylake, I can't say much, haven't studied it.. but it sounds like it'll be a jump like Sandybridge was when it came out.
     

Share This Page