The current rMBPs are fast enough. The OS is the limiting factor. Install Windows 8.x or even Linux and you will see how fast your machine can be under a different OS. iHope that OS X 10.11.x is like a Snow Leopard for the Broadwell-era.
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.
Supplies of 15-Inch Retina MacBook Pro Continue to Tighten Ahead of Broadwell Refresh
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Forgive my complete and utter lack of understand when it comes to intel processor naming schemes....but why are they still using the i5 designation?
It seems like it would increase i5-->i6-->i7 etc....like A7-->A8-->A9. I don't entirely understand. Maybe it really isn't important....but I've been wondering.
To further your illustration: "i3", "i5", and "i7" is equivalent to "F150"; the model name remains the same. However, just as you look at the year of an F-150 to know more about it (a 2005 F150 is obviously a different generation from a 2015), you look at the first digit of an Intel chip after its model name to know which generation it is. So: an i3-5XXX processor is Broadwell, which will be replaced later this year by the i3-6XXX (Skylake, which is the 6th gen). The remaining digits further describe the processor capabilities.
Make sense?
Here's an article for further reading:
http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/processor-product-names-decoded/
And here's the explanation from Intel:
http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/processors/processor-numbers.html
Last edited:
I agree. Both Apple and Intel can market this way better.
The trick is to look at the full model number of the processor.
"iX-ABCD(E)"
X = Tier. 3 is low, 5 is mid, 7 is high. To be clear though, 3 is still very capable.
A = Generation. When the core i-series processors first came out, it was 1. Today, most processors Apple user are 4th generation. Next will be 5th, and so on. Most people refer to these generations by their project names that Intel uses. Haswell is 4th generation. Broadwell is 5th generation. Skylake is 6th generation.
BCD = More complex stuff I don't concern myself with.
E = Type, if any. Notes whether this is desktop, mobile, low-power, ultra-low-power, etc.
Yeah it makes sense - and I suppose it probably is the best way to name the chips.
It is just is a little confusing to me bc the full designation for the chips aren't prominently displayed (or even easily accessed?) when you're buying the computer. It's just an i5 or i7.
Good to know what exactly I'm looking for now.
Everymac.com and Wikipedia are great, easy to access resources for figuring out what exactly comes in each Mac too.
No new processors for the 15", no new processors for the Mac mini. The fast PCIe SSD is a bit useless without Quad Core performance. That's the reason why I use a Mac mini Late-2012 (2.3 GHz 4 Cores/8 hardware accelerated threads), 16 GB Crucial RAM and a Samsung 850 Pro SSD. The newer hardware is also overpriced (Mac mini and rMBP).What about Mac Mini!
What about Mac Mini!
They are waiting for quad-core models to become available.
Sorry, couldn't resist.
Actually that's the 6th generation. If you read your own link you might realize this.
See the i3, i5, and i7 designations as "Do you want the four-cylinder or the six-cylinder engine".
That's because you recently got the biggest performance boost we've seen in a desktop CPU in years! (I built a couple of X99 systems myself the week they were released - perform great!)
Hopefully Apple will let go of their "Xeon only" policy and put these 6- and 8-core i7s in some of their next-gen Mac Pros.
Prior to the new MacBook, I would have agreed. But after, I think that'd be a change for the sake of change; the new MB is pushing into new territory (fanless/lowpower Intel Macs) using the M chipset, and I would like to see further support be dumped into that rather than switching architectures at this point in the game.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
I was hoping they could make it considerably thinner & lighter, smaller overall, maybe with a new kind of keyboard that will "take some getting used to" (per just about every reviewer that reviews it), dump all the ports but maybe one (but make it a new port with hardly any third party product support (yet)), force touch, maybe a much weaker processor also in support of thinner & lighter and maybe offer it in colors like the new 
Watch.
Hopefully, they could do all that while keeping the pricing about where it is so they can enjoy healthy profit margins while a good chunk of us call it "the future", "just wait 2 or 3 generations" and the old "the MBA started out much like this". Don't worry Apple, we'll just attack anyone that finds any fault with any of the above, spinning anything you want to do- or leave out- better than your own paid marketing team can.
Roll out some accessories to make the one port usable but price those accessories for healthy profits too (and don't count their weight when touting "lighter" at launch).
Lastly, hopefully they could launch it in very, very short supply so that perhaps there's not even any in stores for days after it's supposed to be available.
Sounds ideal to me... even like "the future"
Watch. Hopefully, they could do all that while keeping the pricing about where it is so they can enjoy healthy profit margins while a good chunk of us call it "the future", "just wait 2 or 3 generations" and the old "the MBA started out much like this". Don't worry Apple, we'll just attack anyone that finds any fault with any of the above, spinning anything you want to do- or leave out- better than your own paid marketing team can.
Roll out some accessories to make the one port usable but price those accessories for healthy profits too (and don't count their weight when touting "lighter" at launch).
Lastly, hopefully they could launch it in very, very short supply so that perhaps there's not even any in stores for days after it's supposed to be available.
Sounds ideal to me... even like "the future"
Why only one? I put in two 850 Pro SSDs and get 1GB/s reads and writes.
You can't imagine how much better my (otherwise identical) system is than yours! I save at least half a second on application loads, and my file saves are lickety split!
Actually, I don't seem to be able to take advantage of it most of the time, but it runs nicely and the system is very responsive. Plus when I bought them the pair cost the same as a single drive of the same capacity.
No Intel chips = no more Macs for me. I run VM's and do all sorts on my computers and Intel's tech is so far ahead of anyone else's.
There are a bunch of other important factors that could also be updated, beyond the processor chip (in addition to Force-Touch): - Enhanced Video (4k+), more (max) Ram, greater SSD (options), a longer-life Battery, HDMI(2.0) etc. So YES - I hope that they do announce an updated 15" MacBook Pro (Retina) at WWDC.
Also - the 13"(2015) version is getting lonely, and Skylake could suffer more delays.
Last edited:
No. Just no.
I don't want an iPad with a keyboard or some fancy netbook, I want a machine with power. ARM CPUs cannot provide that. A Macbook Pro with a crappy low power oversized cellphone processor is not worthy to be called a "Pro" machine.
Certainly you jest. You know the situation:
http://www.extremetech.com/computin...itect-moores-law-will-be-dead-within-a-decade
Silicon can't scale that much more; we either need a great breakthrough or an entirely new technology.
Why should Intel be in a hurry to hit this brick wall when there's no clear alternative on the horizon? Especially when they have limited competition (in the desktop/laptop/server space). It's been pretty hard work as it is.
