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.
Wait until Skylake? (MBP)
- Thread starter mikext
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Not always. The 2012 Mac Pro had better hardware, but cooling was far worse compared to the 2010 tower. Are Apple's engineers increasingly dim or are they told to put out such impractical designs?
True, Skylake might be 10% better in performance - which can be cost-effective for big companies that see a net financial gain, but for most people the 4 minutes of rendering time saved or 12FPS better gaming won't be noticed (unless the previous hardware only did 7FPS in that resolution, then having 19FPS net is going to be nicer.)
bhphotovideo is usually where I go.
Even Best Buy had the 2015 15" base for $1600 a few weeks ago, and the base rMB for $999.
Really?! does this apply to phones? would you buy the current model knowing the next generation is coming out in just over 2 months?
Unless someone absolutely need a new computer right now, then the common sense response would be to wait. As a brand spanking, redesigned (only happen every 4 years) MBP is only a few months away.
The next iteration, of any make or model, is always a few months away. If your rule is wait "a few months" for the next one with better specs you'll never buy anything. Sooner or later, that rule has to be broken for you to actually acquire anything.
Not the relevant chips, desktop and top end Kabylake mobile chips that are used in the iMacs and MacBook Pro respectively will not be with us until next year, and the ones with the best mobile igpu's often take even longer for Intel to release.m
The problem is that Apple kept holding back, the 15" MBP is still on Haswell, and now Skylake is being replaced by Kaby Lake. I have no idea when the Kaby Lake variant for the MBP will be out, but one thing is for sure. Rolling out a brand new refresh of the MBP on Skylake so late in Skylake's life cycle is a bit absurd.
I know its not all of Apple's fault, but they do have themselves to blame for the mess. I think it was their hubris to sit back and not do anything because they saw people continually buy these machines at absurdly high prices. Only until the prior quarter did the bottom drop out of their laptop sales and now they're facing competition who has great designs, current chipsets and are selling them for less.
I disagree, but it's all a matter of opinion I think the issue here is the complete lack of any patience in a massive proportion of self entitled people with no sense of proportion.
So what if the 15 inch didn't get broadwell it made very little difference in the 13 inch and practically no difference at all in any other laptop I used.
So what if we have to wait a couple of months for skylake to get the new AMD GPU's in there, it's not the end of the world, yes people who have a broken machine and need a new one are buying older tech but that's life if your computer breaks you have to get a new one. It may happen the day after a new one from your favourite vendor is released or one month before the new one is due that's just luck good or bad.
Most companies have announced a lot of machines with new GPU's etc but they aren't out yet, razor blade still on a 970 m for example. I have yet to see a hd550 equipped laptop or an hd580 laptop for sale anywhere from any vendor in the uk.
It's not like Apple are massively behind everyone else this is a misinterpretation of the evidence and a misunderstanding of technology and idiots believing nonsense in the media. More importantly it's about just having a bit of patience, I applaud Apple for ignoring this nonsense, it's modern self entitled whining of the highest order.
It makes a lot of difference to me, and my hard earned money.
I think that's an overly caustic and harsh opinion of consumers. Many people have issues in spending upwards of 2,000 dollars on a product that has not been effectively updated for 3+ years. So in defending Apple's curious decision, you call all the people who wanted Apple to use Intel's current products self entitled whiners? Sometimes its ok to say that Apple screwed up and imo, they have.
I could spend 1,400 for a 15" XPS, that is running the latest and greatest technology or I could spend 2,000 dollar for 15" MBP that is running a 3 year old chipset.
Additionally the price delta between the 13" laptops is even greater, and I think consumers (you know the self entitled whiners) have caught on to the premium pricing for old technology, since laptop sales for Apple has dropped dramatically but for HP, Dell, and others, its risen.
You may applaud apple for continuing to use Haswell in 2016 and charge 2,000 dollars but many of us have decided that Apple's competitors offer a better value and a better product.
I understand your frustration, but please understand that Dell is not using the same chipset as Apple. Dell's 15" XPS is using a chipset which requires a CPU and EITHER only a dGPU OR only an Intel HD iGPU. These chipsets are available. Apple's 15" uses a chipset that requires a CPU and BOTH an iGPU with eDRAM AND a dGPU. Those Skylake chipsets are not yet available. They are slated to be released with the (ultra) low voltage Kaby Lake CPUs.
I'm not trying to cherry pick, but are you saying that Apple stayed on Haswell for the 15" MBP because no other chipset has the ability to support iGPU and dGPU?
While I understand that Apple uses different variations, I'll still say Apple messed up when the rest of the industry already moved on to Skylake.
I'm not really frustrated as much as disappointed, given the premium pricing of Macs, you'd expect some level of premium products and a 3+ year old chipset is not what I'd call premium
I understand how you feel. I am both frustrated and disappointed, especially because the most important features of chipsets now are not the frequency of the CPU but rather the I/O and the capabilities of the GPU. However, the perception that an October 2016 Skylake MBP release will be outdated or late demonstrates a general lack of understanding about Intel's release schedule. Let me explain.
Intel is releasing the chips for its new platform gradually over the course of 10-12 months, as yields improve. This is bad for Apple because instead of Intel releasing all of its chips at once, it releases them in such a way that not only must Apple's updates be staggered, but the most complex chipsets are produced last. For this reason, the chipsets suitable for the 15" MBP are always being released just prior to the debut of the next platform.
As an example of what is happening, let's look at Intel's Broadwell release.
Intel first released Core M Broadwell in September, 2014, but these came only with Intel HD GPUs and were suitable only for the MacBook. Dual-core CPUs with Iris GPUs were released in Q1 2015. These were used to update Apple's 13" MBPs. Quad-core CPUs with Iris Pro 6200 GPUs (to which dGPUs may be added) were not released until June, 2015, at the end of the release cycle for Broadwell. Thus based on the release dates, you will notice that Broadwell quad-core chipsets suitable for the 15" MBP were not released until (June 2015), ten months after the first Broadwell chips were released (September 2014) and two months before the initial release of Skylake (September, 2015). Thus the release of Broadwell occurred over a period of 10 months and dovetailed into the release of Skylake!
This brings us to the current mess in Apple's lineup. The initial release for Skylake in the Fall of 2015 included chipsets suitable only for the MacBook. Intel released Skylake CPUs with Intel Iris GPUs suitable for the 13" MBP in Q1 2016, but despite Intel's announcement for a quad-core chipset with Iris Pro, no such chipset has been released. This is where we are today. Unfortunately, the 13" MBP has not been updated, so the only reason I can deduce for Apple not releasing an update to the 13" MBP is that Apple is redesigning its notebooks and wants to release both the 13" and 15" MBP at the same time. Thus the 13" is being held back by a lack of available chipsets for the 15".
I am not saying Apple could not have updated its 15" MBPs to Broadwell, but I am saying Apple has had no opportunity to update to Skylake. I do not know why Apple did not upgrade the 15" MBP to Broadwell, because Apple did have the opportunity to upgrade to Broadwell in June, 2015. This lack of an update for the 15" MBP to Broadwell is squarely on Apple's shoulders.
However, there has been no such chipset release for Skylake yet, so the current lack of an update for the 15" MBP to Skylake is on Intel, not Apple. Unless Intel changes this staggered release, the 15" MBP will continue to appear to be one generation behind the newest platform (e.g., updating to Skylake when Kaby Lake is introduced).
[Edit: Yes there are quad-core Skylake CPUs which offer an Intel HD or Iris iGPU or a dGPU (e.g., this is what Dell uses), but there are no available quad-core Skylake CPUs which offer an Iris Pro GPU with eDRAM.]
What about the fact that 15" MBP is on Haswell, not even Broadwell. While you make the point that Intel has not released a specific chipset that apple could use for the dGPU equipped MBP, they also have the iGPU only model which could have been upgraded beyond Haswell. The 13" MBP could have been upgraded to Skylake. Now lets mention about the Mac Mini and Mac Pro and we see a clear pattern of Apple choosing not to update their models.
I understand what you're saying, but I think you're pushing the responsibility (or blame) to Intel, and I think much of the onus is still on Apple.
Other makers like Microsoft, Dell, Asus, and HP have had no issue in providing current models using Skylake.
Last edited:
Also, AFAIK, the low-end CPUs (Core-M) yielded the most performance improvements with Skylake. The "less crippled" chips received only modest or even barely perceptible performance-improvements.
Most improvements were in the energy-consumption and GPU departments...
And even Skylake doesn't have TB3.
Most improvements were in the energy-consumption and GPU departments...
And even Skylake doesn't have TB3.
I agree with the gist of what you are saying. Apple could have and should have updated their 13" MBPs to Skylake and their 15" MBPs to Broadwell long ago. (The Broadwell chipset Intel released would have been suitable for the both the iGPU only 15" MBP model and the 15" MBP iGPU/dGPU model.) I will not excuse that. However, my point stands that there has been no Skylake iGPU chipset available for the 15" MBP.
[Edit: The chipsets with integrated graphics used by Dell, HP, Lenovo, etc., rely on Intel HD or Intel Iris GPUs which do not included eDRAM. Rather, these chipsets use iGPUs which draw from the system RAM. This results in a performance hit to the system. If Apple were to use such a chipset, there would be a noticeable downgrade in the performance of its 15" MBP line.
OTOH, when Dell, HP, Lenovo, etc., use a dGPU, it is not paired with an iGPU. Were Apple to follow this course of action, it would result in a noticeable decrease in battery life. For this reason, Apple has not updated its 15" MBPs to Skylake. Still, they should have upgraded to Broadwell.]
Skylake does not have TB3 support natively, but a(n Alpine Ridge?) controller can be added to add TB3 support.
Last edited:
The issue is apple is waiting for the "perfect" combination of features on Intel chipsets, and that's the issue. Waiting.
Apple's competitors are not waiting, they've already leap frogged Apple in design, features and pricing. I think consumers are seeing this, because the latest reports of sales shows Dell, Asus and HP, having increasing sales but Apple's has fallen off the cliff.
So while Intel is not producing the combination of features that Apple wants, its still Apple to adjust, and over come that, instead of sitting on the sidelines and waiting.
Waiting is the issue. So is the cost for a chipset which is at least one generation out of date.
Out of curiosity, would you feel differently if Apple had at least updated the 15" to Broadwell? What would you have had Apple use for a GPU if they had updated to Skylake earlier? If Intel HD, would you have been satisfied with slower performance? If dGPU, lower battery life?
I'm not defending Apple. I'm just curious what you prefer.
So you're saying that upgrading the MBP two generations of chipsets would actually slow it down? That's a pill I'm not willing to swallow. I can't believe a Haswell computer is going to beat out a Skylake based computer.
Dell seemed to have figured out how to produce a laptop with a long battery life (they advertise up 17 hours on their 15" XPS), I think Apple could too.
I think you're bending over backwards tying to excuse Apple when there really isn't any excuse for them. They made product decisions that have now bitten them in the behind.
Apple's notebook shipments plummet
We can debate the semantics of the Skylake chipset being slower then Haswell or Broadwell, till the cows come home, but the fact remains consumers are not willing to pay Apple's premium pricing on a product that hasn't seen any significant update in 3 years.