Close. A Tick such as Broadwell improves performance, especially performance for a given power consumption level, which is what matters in laptops. A Tock such as Skylake adds features. Some of those features may improve performance.
Correct.
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.
Waiting for Broadwell MBP Thread
- Thread starter UBS28
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
marginally at best. It uses the same architecture as haswell and will provide roughly the same processing performance.
Which is essentially what I said, better power efficiency.
----------
It really comes down to a need vs want. If you need it now, get it now. The current model is great. If you want it, it depends how much you want it. There will always be another model a year out. I'm using a 2011 MBP that is meeting my needs but I'd like a newer model. I was waiting for Broadwell because I don't want to get a laptop with a processor that came out in 2013. At this point, Skylake is supposed to release in the second half of this year, I might just wait for that.
The only part of that which is correct is that Broadwell uses the same microarchitecture as Haswell.
Each Tick, including Broadwell, roughly doubles the number of transistors per square centimeter. That doubling of transistors, not tweaking the microarchitecture, is the ultimate source of nearly all performance improvements in CPUs. There are several things Intel could do with that doubling, including any combination of:
- adding cores, execution units, etc.
- increasing cache sizes
- reducing the die size (to lower production costs and power consumption).
In recent years and probably continuing for a few more years, Intel have used the opportunities presented by the Ticks primarily to increase GPU performance by massively adding transistors and secondarily to reduce power consumption -- especially for the mobile processors. Adding cores is not currently a priority for mobile and desktop CPUs, though we see an increase in cores for the server CPUs with each Tick.
On top of the above, clock speed increases come from the Ticks, not from the Tocks, though clock speed increases have been moderate in recent years to keep power consumption and heat dissipation issues in check.
Whoa ! Whoa ! Wireless Charging !! That is so F ****n OMG !!
Wireless Data Transfer (Doesn't Bluetooth already do that ?
Last edited:
Whoa ! Whoa ! Wireless Charging !! That is so F ****n OMG !!
Bluetooth supports wireless data transfer, but not wireless charging.
I know that, so I am saying we already have Wireless Data Transfer, someone just mentioned that Skylake would also bring Wireless Data Transfer and I was pointing out it is already there isnt it ? Yes But wireless Charging Hmmmm...that sounds interesting !
My understanding is that the 'Tock' is the doubling and the 'Tick' is the shrinking i.e. Broadwell will have nearly the same/similar amount of transistors just in a smaller package. Skylake will up the transistor count. Usually its the new architecture that brings the performance dividend and the shrinking of that architecture brings the power dividend. I could be wrong but that was my understanding.
That's not correct. If it were correct, there would be a massive reduction in TDP from Haswell to Broadwell but, at least with the 15W and 28W parts which were announced this month, there is no significant reduction in TDP. Instead, there is a massive increase in transistor counts such that overall power consumption is approximately unchanged, with most of those additional transistors going into the integrated GPUs.
Each transistor in Broadwell will use less power than Haswell due to the die shrink (making the transistors smaller).
Intel will use this power saving to increase the amount of transistors on the die. Mostly for graphics.
Expect up to a 50% improvement in graphics performance on Broadwell vs Haswell but do not expect a huge gain in CPU performance. I would say the CPU performance increase from Haswell to Broadwell will be less than 10% and that's optimistic.
You're welcome.
I make my purchase decisions based on what Apple provide, not based on what Intel provide. For example, if the 15" Broadwell rMBP will include a Thunderbolt 3 port supporting Displayport 1.3, then I'll buy one. If not, I'll wait for Skylake.
I'm no expert here, but I got my Haswell in Oct 2013. It's an awesome machine. But here we are in Jan 2015 and Broadwell is still pending. So why would you think Skylake will be out in the 2nd half of this year?
"Hope springs eternal." -- Alexander Pope
"People believe what they want to believe." -- unknown
Isn't Thunderbolt 3 basically what Intel provides, though? Apple can't provide Intel's technology which Intel's chipset doesn't support.
If I remember correctly, support of Thunderbolt 3 will be a new feature of Skylake architecture chipsets. Apple could skip it if it were already supported. But they can't include it if they want to when Intel's chipsets aren't ready for it yet.
Thunderbolt isn't integrated in to the CPU supporting motherboard chipset. It is provided to the system through a separate dedicated chip.
For example the Mac Pro is based on the C602/C606 platform from Intel which has no Thunderbolt support of any kind. Apple simply included three Thunderbolt integrated chips on the motherboard for the six Thunderbolt ports on the back.
This is how it is done on the MacBook Pro's as well, they have a single dedicated Thunderbolt chip to drive both Thunderbolt ports. It connects directly in to the PCIe bus making it independent from the normal chipset.
The question is of course when will Thunderbolt 3 chips release. I'm of the opinion they will ship before Skylake. We might even see it make an appearance this year as I think Apple would very much like to release a 5K Thunderbolt panel and they'll need to use a newer Displayport standard on the notebooks and the Mac Pro to power such a display and it would be conceivable that they'll do so with Thunderbolt 3 to make it easier on consumers.
And by that I mean it's much easier to say Thunderbolt 3 Cinema Display than needing to list a whole bunch of Mac models it will and will not work with on the website.
Just my 2 cents.
This isn't accurate. The MacBook Pro 2013-2014 Haswell uses the DSL5520 Thunderbolt controller, the very same chip that is found three times inside the Mac Pro 2013.
The Mac Pro is an Ivy Bridge-E based XEON system with a C602 chipset which has no Thunderbolt support of any kind.
If what you're saying is true why would Apple use the exact same Thunderbolt IC in both the Mac Pro and MacBook Pro? - You said that the one used in the MacBook Pro is simpler, but it's not as it's the exact same chip in both computers.
I think based on Apples usage of the DSL5520 Thunderbolt 2 controller we'll probably see them use Thunderbolt 3 at the earliest opportunity regardless of Skylake. Now we just need to learn when Intel will be releasing it.
I think Intel will provide a Thunderbolt 3 chip when Apple insist on having one. Intel have had Thunderbolt 3 working for a while. It's a matter of allocating the resources.
According to news sites today, it looks like Intel might kill off Broadwell H chips and move straight to Skylake. Intel announced today that Skylake will ship 2H of 2015 (complete with Skylake H chips).
I can see Skylake based MBPs for the back2school/fall season.
I can see Skylake based MBPs for the back2school/fall season.