Become a MacRumors Supporter for $25/year with no ads, private forums, and more!
  • Did you order new AirTags? We've opened a dedicated AirTags forum.

auralux

macrumors demi-god
Original poster
Mar 7, 2017
1,756
2,119
This is a genuine question. Why does Apple act like Intel is always holding them back from releasing current machines every year? Does Intel not release new chips every single year? We are on to 10th gen. right now.

Let’s take the Mac mini for instance. It is running 8th gen. Why couldn’t have Apple updated it every single year with 9th gen. and now 10th gen. to keep it current? The same goes for their entire lineup? Why couldn’t the iMac line be updated every single year with 7th gen., 8th gen., 9th gen. and now 10th gen. Intel processors? I just don’t get it.

Apple has always played it off as though it is Intels fault. I could be totally wrong, but it sure looks like Apple is just lazy to me. I mean if I built a PC tomorrow it would have 10th gen. Intel silicon in it. Then next year I would update it again to 11th.

Just trying to make sense of it all. It sure does feel like Apple plays the victim a bit and throws shade when it seems like they could get off their hind end and update their Intel machines with what Intel releases each year.

This is not a debate about the benefits of Apple using its own silicon, but rather simple a question as to why they have never kept current with what Intel has available.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

NT1440

Contributor
May 18, 2008
12,721
16,398
It’s blatantly clear that the current MacBook chassis were designed for an Intel chip that was delayed....again.

10th generation doesn’t mean a damn thing, Intel hasn’t hit their roadmap for years and has been churning out slight refinements as a stop gap FOR YEARS now.
 
Comment

chrfr

macrumors G4
Jul 11, 2009
11,009
4,569
Let’s take the Mac mini for instance. It is running 8th gen. Why couldn’t have Apple updated it every single year with 9th gen. and now 10th gen. to keep it current? The same goes for their entire lineup? Why couldn’t the iMac line be updated every single year with 7th gen., 8th gen., 9th gen. and now 10th gen. Intel processors? I just don’t get it.
Why bother chasing every generation of processor if there's no real performance benefit from one to the next? Intel's processors have been stagnant for years, and calling it a new generation doesn't change that.
 
Comment

auralux

macrumors demi-god
Original poster
Mar 7, 2017
1,756
2,119
It’s blatantly clear that the current MacBook chassis were designed for an Intel chip that was delayed....again.

10th generation doesn’t mean a damn thing, Intel hasn’t hit their roadmap for years and has been churning out slight refinements as a stop gap FOR YEARS now.
Fair enough, but you still didn’t answer my question as to why they don’t at least use Intel’s current yearly lineup? What would be the harm? It would at least be minor spec bumps and look much better overall.
 
Comment

Merode

macrumors 6502a
Nov 5, 2013
619
542
Warszawa, Poland
It's not even about hitting roadmap. Intel has stalled when it comes to R&D and real progress. Intel chips bring about 3% to 5% performance increase YoY. That's miniscule and the reason why Apple doesn't even bother to upgrade lineup.

Meanwhile AMD innovated, caught up and overtook them. Apple chips have huge performance increases YoY as well. It simply wasn't in Intel's best interest to innovate with no competition and now they're in for IBM's 90s treatment.
[automerge]1593008462[/automerge]
Fair enough, but you still didn’t answer my question as to why they don’t at least use Intel’s current yearly lineup? What would be the harm? It would at least be minor spec bumps and look much better overall.
It costs money to develop and bar for new Intel sticker (which Apple doesn't use) it doesn't give much.
 
Comment

auralux

macrumors demi-god
Original poster
Mar 7, 2017
1,756
2,119
It's not even about hitting roadmap. Intel has stalled when it comes to R&D and real progress. Intel chips bring about 3% to 5% performance increase YoY. That's miniscule and the reason why Apple doesn't even bother to upgrade lineup.

Meanwhile AMD innovated, caught up and overtook them. Apple chips have huge performance increases YoY as well. It simply wasn't in Intel's best interest to innovate with no competition and now they're in for IBM's 90s treatment.
[automerge]1593008462[/automerge]

It costs money to develop and bar for new Intel sticker (which Apple doesn't use) it doesn't give much.
That makes sense and thanks for the clearer explanation. So what you are saying is from 7th gen. Intel to 10th gen. Intel there is very little gains?
 
Comment

Puonti

macrumors 65816
Mar 14, 2011
1,107
655
I can see a couple of reasons:

  • Apple prefers specific CPU variants for their products. Those have not always been available when Apple has wanted them due to Intel's schedule and delays
  • Keep in mind also that Apple wants a specific mix of hardware in their systems, not just a new CPU. There's overlapping schedules and design goals that need to be met
  • Sticking with specific processors for a couple of years means savings for Apple, as the unit prices of those chips go down over time but Apple prices stay the same
  • Switching up every couple of years means more meaningful performance improvements than updating annually
  • Updating the abovementioned mix of hardware annually would mean extra expenses for Apple. They've done the math and concluded that a slower pace works better for them
  • Thinking beyond a single Mac SKU, Apple needs to manage a matrix of products and maintain some differentiation between them. That's easier when the timeline is longer
 
Comment

chabig

macrumors 604
Sep 6, 2002
7,894
5,230
It’s important to understand what Apple values and what they don’t. Apple makes products that fit their vision for what they want their products to do. If a product doesn’t advance that vision, it doesn’t get made. So if a next generation Intel chip offers little improvement, what’s the point of incorporating it?

Right now, none of the products on Intel’s roadmap take Apple where they want to go—thus the change to Apple silicon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: redfirebird08
Comment

auralux

macrumors demi-god
Original poster
Mar 7, 2017
1,756
2,119
I can see a couple of reasons:

  • Apple prefers specific CPU variants for their products. Those have not always been available when Apple has wanted them due to Intel's schedule and delays
  • Keep in mind also that Apple wants a specific mix of hardware in their systems, not just a new CPU. There's overlapping schedules and design goals that need to be met
  • Sticking with specific processors for a couple of years means savings for Apple, as the unit prices of those chips go down over time but Apple prices stay the same
  • Switching up every couple of years means more meaningful performance improvements than updating annually
  • Updating the abovementioned mix of hardware annually would mean extra expenses for Apple. They've done the math and concluded that a slower pace works better for them
So in typical Apple fashion the number one factor is money. Got it!
 
Comment

iluvmacs99

macrumors 6502a
Apr 9, 2019
751
539
Majority of the sales revenue Apple made over the years are from iOS devices, namely the iPhone and they all use Apple chips. So it becomes obvious that the end result is a transition from Intel to Apple silicon where they can integrate the Macs into their full line of A series chips. Mac sales has been stagnant for years, so in putting the ARM chip inside future Macs, they are hoping the people who would have no issues spending $1000 and up on an iPhone 11 would buy a Macbook with an ARM chip and allow them to run iOS apps natively on the Mac. There are many amazing and impressive apps on iOS (music and video related) that would benefit a bigger screen and connectivity of a normal Mac, but is not feasible with Intel macs due to thermal issues and battery life. The Mac Mini 2018 and the Macbooks have all face similar thermal issues when pushed, so it is clear Apple wants to release Macs that are not impeded by thermal issues and consume less watts. They believe the time is now for Macs. Apple wants to sell more macs to customers that are using their iOS devices. It is the way it is. The reason people like myself use an Apple is not only because they use Intel chips, but the tight integration of all devices; phone, tablet, watch, wireless earbuds, input devices and now Macs into one system.
 
Comment

auralux

macrumors demi-god
Original poster
Mar 7, 2017
1,756
2,119
Focusing solely on that particular detail from my list tells more about you than Apple. Apple making money is old news.
What does it tell you about me? I wasn’t being anything but honest. Is that not Apple’s first priority? Your snarky response to my genuine one tells me plenty about you as well. Have a nice day!
 
Comment

auralux

macrumors demi-god
Original poster
Mar 7, 2017
1,756
2,119
Majority of the sales revenue Apple made over the years are from iOS devices, namely the iPhone and they all use Apple chips. So it becomes obvious that the end result is a transition from Intel to Apple silicon where they can integrate the Macs into their full line of A series chips. Mac sales has been stagnant for years, so in putting the ARM chip inside future Macs, they are hoping the people who would have no issues spending $1000 and up on an iPhone 11 would buy a Macbook with an ARM chip and allow them to run iOS apps natively on the Mac. There are many amazing and impressive apps on iOS (music and video related) that would benefit a bigger screen and connectivity of a normal Mac, but is not feasible with Intel macs due to thermal issues and battery life. The Mac Mini 2018 and the Macbooks have all face similar thermal issues when pushed, so it is clear Apple wants to release Macs that are not impeded by thermal issues and consume less watts. They believe the time is now for Macs. Apple wants to sell more macs to customers that are using their iOS devices. It is the way it is. The reason people like myself use an Apple is not only because they use Intel chips, but the tight integration of all devices; phone, tablet, watch, wireless earbuds, input devices and now Macs into one system.
Yes, the walled garden. I understand completely.
 
Comment

NT1440

Contributor
May 18, 2008
12,721
16,398
What does it tell you about me? I wasn’t being anything but honest. Is that not Apple’s first priority? Your snarky response to my genuine one tells me plenty about you as well. Have a nice day!
To be fair, starting a thread in what appears to be good faith, to then only respond to a multipoint response with a glib “it’s about the money” certainly lends the appearance of not actually discussing in good faith. Comes off more like you’ve got an axe to grind...

Edit: your further responses seem to give weight to that appearance.
 
Comment

auralux

macrumors demi-god
Original poster
Mar 7, 2017
1,756
2,119
Nobody outside Apple's management knows what Apple's top priority is.
I would say it is blatantly obvious what their number one motivating factor is. LOL C’mon now!
[automerge]1593009575[/automerge]
To be fair, starting a thread in what appears to be good faith, to then only respond to a multipoint response with a glib “it’s about the money” certainly lends the appearance of not actually discussing in good faith. Comes off more like you’ve got an axe to grind...
Well then your perception is off. I don’t know what to tell you.

”To be fair”... LOL
 
Comment

chabig

macrumors 604
Sep 6, 2002
7,894
5,230
What does it tell you about me? I wasn’t being anything but honest. Is that not Apple’s first priority? Your snarky response to my genuine one tells me plenty about you as well. Have a nice day!
No. Making money is not Apple’s first priority. Their first priority is making great products. If they are successful at that, making money follows.
 
Comment

NT1440

Contributor
May 18, 2008
12,721
16,398
Alright, I’ve seen enough to know where this is going. Toodles.

To finish off, Intel’s dominance in the space HAS held the entire industry back with their nonstop delays and inability to move on from older processor nodes anywhere near their projected roadmaps. We’ve had at least two generations of the insanely thin and long battery life machines from ALL manufacturers gimped by Intel not delivering their roadmap on time.
 
Comment

auralux

macrumors demi-god
Original poster
Mar 7, 2017
1,756
2,119
No. Making money is not Apple’s first priority. Their first priority is making great products. If they are successful at that, making money follows.
So then you must work for Apple’s upper management then right? Continuing to click the “angry” face on all my posts really says something...
[automerge]1593009976[/automerge]
It’s blatantly clear that the current MacBook chassis were designed for an Intel chip that was delayed....again.

10th generation doesn’t mean a damn thing, Intel hasn’t hit their roadmap for years and has been churning out slight refinements as a stop gap FOR YEARS now.
Can you please tell me how it is “blatantly clear”?
 
Comment

NT1440

Contributor
May 18, 2008
12,721
16,398






Gee, why does Apple pin delays on Intel when literally only the entirety of the industry from the consumer laptop field to servers have been held up for years?

You’re right though, clearly Apple has secretly been making Intel inept for 5+ years. No problems at Intel, no sir.
 
Comment
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.