Hard to really say that when there are brand new Ryzen 3000-series CPUs that have yet to be benchmarked, and yet to be compared to the latest Intel paper launch...
So caught up in AMD fanboy fever that have forgotten that AMD has already benchmarked the 3000 series? Every single tech press article write up I've seen that wasn't pure superficial spin has included the results from the AMD benchmarks.
https://www.anandtech.com/show/1440...-cores-for-499-up-to-46-ghz-pcie-40-coming-77
What is missing is independent and wider benchmark set of the 3000 series; not all benchmarks. AMD probably spent months putting together theirs. It is highly unlikely that the 3rd party ones are going to turn in better AMD results than what AMD got itself. ( perhaps some compiler optimization changes come out for AMD later that move the results slightly but ball-park these are pretty close what will see on similar workloads. ). Most likely AMD is going to be a little lower on several broader benchmarks and in the 3rd party testing.
Single threaded AMD has closed the gap. Ice Lake ( Sunny Cove microarch ) puts a bigger gap between them ( Intel touts double digit gains but have limited clock bump available and MDS/Meltdown/etc overhead that is still probably still around and/or part of that speed bump. ). However, for Apple that gap ( if relatively narrow +/- 2-3% ) probably isn't as important as steady, predictable progress. Apple doing "round robin" Mac system upgrades means they need future parts to be ready when roadmaps say they'll be ready. That way Apple can finish up product X and move on to product Y. Otherwise screw up more than one products schedule.
Won't be able to do "head to head" marks for the next 6-18 months anyway because Intel is going "small mobile" first and AMD "desktop GPU-less" first. Their "new" microarch implementations aren't going to overlap in being deployed for more than a few months.
So if Intel got back on the steady execution track again, any short term benchmark gap that AMD had they'd probably pass on. Apple isn't selecting parts 100% solely on benchmarks (e.g., Nvidia) .
That would satisfy a vast majority of the prosumer class of "Pros", while also satisfying the demands of the ML / AI / CUDA crowd...
It is probably going to be hard enough to do one additional Mac model, let alone
two more. If Apple building everything for everybody, they would make every " make exactly what I want or we'll storm and burn the castle down" group happy. Apple isn't going to do that. The explicitly have said they aren't going to do it. A limited number of Macs to cover has many folks as they can ( but not everybody).
Unless Ryzen 3 is going into the iMac isn't probably isn't coming to the Mac line up. Period.
[doublepost=1559234803][/doublepost]
"A recent
Intel client roadmap indicates that the new Cascade Lake W parts should land in the third quarter of the year." ding ding ding.
The second "half" of that article that points at the SIPP ( stable image platforms program) is substantively flawed. I'm not sure why they keep trotting that out as some prominent doom and gloom roadmap. it is for "stable" ( long term platforms for embedded or extended lifecycle business stuff).
It is the same first one from this article.
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-roadmap-10nm-14nm-gpu-cpu,39163.html
the more relevant graph is the second one there. the "Stable Image' one trails because it doesn't stat until "stable". It isn't Intel suddenly flip flopping their roadmaps.
They are on track though that it is missing Intel's 10nm move. Probably about the same time they make the 2nd Cascade Lake-W move with Apache Pass added. The 10nm Xeon W will probably be a diffrent socket. Those who who want a boost on Memory capacity will go for the Apache Pass. Those looking for IPC bump (and maybe clock bump) will probably go with the Ice Lake move. ( the Ice lake move may not move the core count much at all. Unless go double dies in W line up. )
