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 Skylake MBP thread
- Thread starter adildacoolset
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
Imagine there's some emulation going on now since Macs are on Intel chips and iOS is on arm chips (or whatever they're called). I'm probably wrong though. Sorry.
Maybe MacRumors should give Apple a little more time to innovate or maybe they should simply focus on the most important products?
Thank you very, very much for posting this.
It's really sad looking at this image.
Most of all, it reminds me of the good old days...
Maybe, just maybe they've just been honest telling us they won't be able to innovate anymore, their ass?
Maybe MacRumors should give Apple a little more time to innovate or maybe they should simply focus on the most important products?
The Mac Mini made sense when most people already owned an external display, but desktops are no longer dominating the market. In the age of streaming, manually uploading your music files to a player like iPod Shuffle or iPod Nano doesn't make sense as subscription to Apple Music and mobile broadband is cheaper than buying a computer. Ditch the MacBook Air, the screen has horrible viewing angles and has been replaced by the only BUY NOW item in the buyers guide. Displays became irrelevant with the iMac 5k. The market is filled with displays that are far more professional and technological advanced. The iPad Mini may survive, but I feel it's existence and sales numbers are high because of the lower price point. Personally I would rather buy an iPhone Plus if I was in the market for a bigger screen.
That's about half of the entire line-up. Right now the only thing that makes sense to buy from Apple is the MacBook along with an iPhone and a Watch, even though new models of the watch and phone may debut soon. The move from a hardware company directed at professionals to a peripheral company targeted at consumers is now complete.
Well, its definitely the general gist of what Apple wants for the consumer:
12" MacBook or iPad Pro as your "Computer"
iPhone as your smartphone.
Apple Watch for your smartwatch.
Funnily enough, despite being put on the back burner, the non-retina MacBook Pro and the Mac mini still have nice a following. Used and refurb Mac minis sell like hotcakes. At third-party used Mac stores, the sales people always say they are the first to go. The only mac mini model available on Apple's refurb store is $1699.
That "can't innovate anymore, my ass" comment will haunt Phil forever. I'd bet a decent amount of dough that people at Cupertino give him a bunch of $h** and make fun of him over that comment.
I'd be a bit careful with that. Mine stopped clicking properly because of an expanding battery
I'm not going to dispute that Apple has neglected some updates, and is slowly discontinuing old models while continuing to sell them.
But while we're on the topic, does anyone think MacRumors's buyer's guide should use something more advanced than calculating the mean time between updates for its buy/neutral/caution/don't buy codes? Every product on there has seen slower updates for the last 2-3 iterations, but the average includes numbers from update cycles a decade ago. I think the average should weight the more recent releases more heavily. Otherwise, it misleadingly assumes product updates will occur on a roughly yearly cycle when it's clear Apple is moving away from that model on almost everything but the iPhone (and based on the 6SE probably should slow down those as well).
Tech progression has slowed across the board for personal computing. I think it might be time to reevaluate the concept if yearly updates. A nice side benefit would be that "top of the line" will last longer, and old products will have longer usable lifespans as software developers won't be coding for faster and faster machines.
But while we're on the topic, does anyone think MacRumors's buyer's guide should use something more advanced than calculating the mean time between updates for its buy/neutral/caution/don't buy codes? Every product on there has seen slower updates for the last 2-3 iterations, but the average includes numbers from update cycles a decade ago. I think the average should weight the more recent releases more heavily. Otherwise, it misleadingly assumes product updates will occur on a roughly yearly cycle when it's clear Apple is moving away from that model on almost everything but the iPhone (and based on the 6SE probably should slow down those as well).
Tech progression has slowed across the board for personal computing. I think it might be time to reevaluate the concept if yearly updates. A nice side benefit would be that "top of the line" will last longer, and old products will have longer usable lifespans as software developers won't be coding for faster and faster machines.
I can tell you that Apple is not in the habit of dropping prices on current product lines, so it's expected. That, and the fact that if I had to buy a new MBP right now I wouldn't flinch at the current model if I didn't have the time to wait for the next gen, if it was something I needed for work. If you're going to get into a raw specs battle then go get a Dell if a small speed bump matters more to you than working on a Mac. It's not their fault you have a 5 year old machine, you could've upgraded last year. OR, you could just patiently wait for the update that we all know is coming which will likely prove you wrong with regard to "caring" about actual computers. The point that keeps getting missed is that we can extrapolate pretty easily the components that have been holding up the update, at least in part — it's not a giant mystery — so the complaining they didn't use something else is pointless.
[doublepost=1470432139][/doublepost]
I'd be happy if they used the mobile Xeons, but I was going by the general consensus of what's expected: The i7-6970HQ, 6870HQ, and i7-6770HQ's. All I asked was which products those were (besides Skull Canyon NUC) and would be happy to be proven wrong, but so far I haven't seen anyone post a link to any other shipping product using any of those three chips which Apple is most likely to use. I fully admit the mobile Xeons are a wildcard.
[doublepost=1470432427][/doublepost]
You honestly think that's what they're going to do for the next gen MBP?
Last edited:
Of course there is, but that has no negative effects whatsoever, since the Intel CPUs are so much faster than ARM processors and Apple know how to write a good emulator for them since they made them.
Broadwell -> Haswell is approximately 5-10% speed bump. Again, not something most users would ever notice in the real world. You're not missing out on much. And for the second part, you order the one with the dGPU.
I understand WHY people are complaining, I'm just saying it's not like they didn't upgrade anything on that machine and that the 5-10% speed difference is pretty insignificant when it comes to real world use, so the whining comes off as excessive.
[doublepost=1470432821][/doublepost]
Tap to Click FTW.
Broadwell also brought a die shrink so you'd get better battery life (and presumably less heat). This is something users would notice in the real world.
Since it uses the same socket as Haswell it's as simple as dropping the chip in... most speculation here was that Apple didn't bother to switch the 15" to Broadwell since an update wouldn't be very far away. Granted, Intel's delay with Skylake H chips was likely not anticipated by Apple, but it's still a sour taste to have so much time now between an update and they still won't throw Broadwell in there. Even if I'm only seeing a 5-10% performance increase, I want the latest generation chip that they can reasonably provide if I'm spending $2,000+ on a 15" MBP.
Please prove Apple will use i7-6770HQ, i7-6870HQ and i7-6970HQ and not E3-1515M, E3-1545M and E3-1575M. Could it be new @Serban?
General consensus is that Apple will use Iris Pro CPUs in the new rMBPs. Since mobile Xeons are a thing now there can be no consensus on Apple going i7 or Xeons for that purpose.
P. S. It's Haswell -> Broadwell, not vice versa. Hope it's a typo, not a mistake.
General consensus is that Apple will use Iris Pro CPUs in the new rMBPs. Since mobile Xeons are a thing now there can be no consensus on Apple going i7 or Xeons for that purpose.
[doublepost=1470435210][/doublepost]Are you talking about CPU, iGPU or both speed bump? I think only in one of these three cases you'd be right.
P. S. It's Haswell -> Broadwell, not vice versa. Hope it's a typo, not a mistake.
Last edited:
I totally understand...but the thing is they *did* increase the battery life in the 2015 MBP (and new 2.5x faster storage, new trackpad design, new dGPU option, support for 5K displays, etc). So the whole "3 year old hardware" thing is truly an exaggeration. They didn't go with Broadwell because the quad cores were significantly delayed. Which brings me back to the point regarding the 2016 MBP — if they shipped them already without waiting for the chips we all expect them to use (the H/580 chipsets and newest AMD Polaris dGPUs) in favor of something less great because they were available earlier, everyone would be making the exact same complaints as with the 2015 situation, but next year — "2 year old hardware! wah!"
I just think the whole should've could've would've scenarios are unimportant at this point.
Well, no? Because they could've updated them again maybe? This way they would always be at most a year late. But this is like the maximum. Apple of the past was able to be up to date every year. Other vendors still are.
[doublepost=1470435834][/doublepost]
It actually is unimportant, I agree with you. But not because of the reason you state. It's unimportant because Apple still has inertia of the past that will make everyone hype about how cool new rMBPs are once they are released and forget about how Apple treated its loyal customer base, reasonable critics will just not be possible to hear within this hype. Unfortunately. As it should be quite different: "Sincerely (and I mean it) thank you, Apple, for your effort. Don't do it again please."
Last edited:
Heh. I do not claim to have any insider knowledge, I'm going by what I've read ever since the chipsets were announced in January. And like I said, the Xeons are a wildcard, but most speculation is that the price is a non-starter as they're significantly more expensive than the i7s.
https://www.macrumors.com/2016/01/27/skylake-macbook-pro-15-chips/
There are myriad other articles out there pointing to the same chipsets as the most likely candidates, and the smarter articles also mentioning the Xeons but indicating they're less likely for the aforementioned reason.
But hey, it'd be cool if they used the Xeons or offered a BTO option, though I'm not sure the latter would be feasible engineering-wise. All I'm saying is most people suggest it's unlikely, and that's what I'm going by — that and the fact that it fits the pattern of the last three releases ... but yes I realize the Xeons are a possibility this time around.
That was a typo — I did mean the opposite. My understanding was overall performance with regard to CPU primarily, but maybe it was also iGPU performance. I don't recall where I read that. Are those numbers off?
[doublepost=1470436432][/doublepost]
I have a feeling that every time Intel slips on its release schedule, they get a call from Bob Mansfield saying "Hey, you guys wanna see our new prototype silicon benchmarks?"
You see, MacRumors article is not "most people". And I won't even highlight the fact there is "Rumors" in the name.
On the other hand there is a fact that other vendors exclusively went for mobile Xeons to get Iris Pro despite their hold to non-Iris Pro i5s and i7s while similar Xeons are available, sometimes even in the same machines.
I'm not telling that Apple will 100% follow them. No. I'm just telling that this fact (contrary to the rumor) makes the rumor fiercely uncertain.
So the only thing we can be 99% sure about is that Apple will use Iris Pros and it will be either Cores or Xeons.
From that POV your initial point that CPUs for new rMBPs have been seen nowhere is just wrong.
iGPU performance got +20% in Broadwell. And then some more in Skylake.
Right, at this point it's fairly unimportant, assuming an update is actually coming this year.
But, I'm not claiming anything about it being 3 year old hardware, that is other people in this thread. I wouldn't call it 3 year old hardware no matter what as the upgrades to the SSD alone have been fairly significant. What is a factual claim, though, is the CPU in the 15" is unnecessarily out-of-date. There isn't a single good reason for the 15" to still be on Haswell. If I made this same statement a year ago it still would be as true. The dGPU upgrade wasn't much, and unless you had a strong OpenCL use-case, the improvements were minimal over the prior nVidia chip. If you relied on CUDA, it was a downgrade. The battery increase you mentioned could have been even better had they moved to Broadwell, too. Not to mention the big improvements Broadwell brought to the iGPU performance which would have been a real noticeable difference for most users as the iGPU-only model was more popular. Apple has really dropped the ball on the 15" MBP.
If Apple was equally prioritising the Mac, this conversion would not exist. inversely Apple relies on it`s sales & marketing to sell overpriced, out of date hardware, coupled with shoddy software. Personally, and in business I am voting with the one thing that Apple understands $$$$$...
The future of the Mac is almost certainly the same path as the iPad; consumption toy for the masses. I sincerely hope to be proved wrong.
Q-6
Last edited:
Like I said, there are a ton of articles that were/are guessing the same thing, for the same reasons. It's not just a MR article, that was just the easiest to go back and find since I was already here. All I've been saying is that the expected chips are nowhere to be seen in shipping products, which is likely one reason for The Wait™. Just because something else IS out there doesn't make me wrong.
It's all speculation based on educated guesses. The general consensus certainly fits with the reality in which those i7/580s are just coming out now though, as are the next gen AMD dGPUs, etc, but maybe the holdup is yields on next gen retina screen tech yields or liquid metal coffee cup holders — WHO KNOWS but it's not likely for the Apple Doesn't Care reasons being thrown around here.
And will get even more with the IP580's, so it's a win all around.
FWIW, the 1515M and 1545M Xeons aren't yet listed on the Wikipedia Skylake page - perhaps they are still effectively vaporware like the other IP 580 chips?
What products have been announced with Xeon IP 580's? Which are shipping?
...
Could Apple use this/these mobile Xeons? I'd say this is in the realm of the possible: The i7 and Xeon variants are likely the same die, the Xeon version simply would bond out several more lines for the ECC code. Apple could have a special purchasing agreement that gets them Xeons for essentially the same price as i7's.
So what are you guys now realistically expecting in the new MBP? My list is:
Expected:
Expected:
- quad core Skylake processor
- slightly thinner design with similar battery life
- Polaris dGPU
- 2 x USB-C ports
- butterfly keyboard, less travel than current MBP but more than MB
- eGPU support, perhaps through new TBD
- OLED function key display
- Status