Apple to thank for Intel slashing cpu power consumption?

Macworld UK and Wall Street Jorunal

 

Thank you Apple? I usually see Apple as being the exact opposite of something I want in a computing environment, but if Intel comes out with these new chips relatively quickly, that'd be nice.

 

Yah, wishful thinking. It they prove this by late 2012, it'll create a whole new mobile world

 

That is what they plan to do. Haswell will be a game changer.

 

Wasn't the rumor that Apple was switching to AMD x86?

 

The latest rumor was that they were examining ARM. And it's not really anything new for Intel, they already have low power chips. The only thing is that they might be moving all chips to a 17W TDP from the 35W TDP they have now. All that means is slightly more binning.

 

Yes there was.

 

That would be a good thing only if it could be achieved those goals without effecting the performance of the chip otherwise. And I don't know about you, but I'm also not comfortable with Apple (or anyone else) unilaterally dictating advancement across the computer industry. I'm hesitant to think something that advantageous can be achieved merely upon a request.

When the government mandates that autos get X mpg or suffer the penalties, that usually means auto manufactures will cut corners somewhere, and it's typically not to the advantage of the consumer.

Lets just hope that doesn't mean the price will simply go up.

 

Are we to thank Apple for the general trend towards more power efficient CPUs, or for Haswell's downward TDP shift specifically, or both?

 

Could also be that apple finally realizes it can't compete with higher end notebooks and sees a trend towards a more mobile form factor.
Either way I'd be cautious of apples attempt at steering the direction of the computer industry.

 

Isn't it the case that Intel will eventually produce ultrabooks to compete with Apple's MBA? It seems that encouraging your business partner to be too competitive might give them the idea of turning against you.

 

That is pure BS I think.

Since 2006, Intel has been the only mobile choice for low heat/low power usage scenarios with the maximum possible performance.

What were they threatening Intel with? AMD or their own CPU design? Even the new/predicted AMD systems are still not at current SNB levels.

When Apple dictates anything to the real world, then I agree with everyone else that that will be the time to start getting worried.

Right now, Apple is still in it's own imaginary world where real performance and power savings/heat (MBA and MBP 'heaters') are concerned.

 

Fusion's graphics are superior to SB. Processor performance however still remains at the Athlon II/Phenom II level.

 

Windows to thank for the other 99% of their sales.

 

I love you Apple...That's all...

Hopefully better battery life is on the coast for most laptops.

 

That's one place where macbooks are consistently better.

 

I dare you to find a laptop that has the same build quality, battery life, trackpad, and mobility as a macbook for even the same price.

 

The battery life alone makes that impossible. You can't find a laptop of equal power and battery life for the same price as a Macbook.

Mac haters are just ridiculously blind.

 

So uh, erm, where would Apple go for their erm, CPU's then? Use the iPad CPU? So laughable. As if Intel gives a rat if Apple is a customer. They probably make up a few % of their profit.

I can see it now, iPhone, iPod, bigger iPod (iPad), and iPad with a keyboard... whatever.

 

Not a hater, but I would imagine that business notebooks have at the very least the same, if not better, build quality than a MBP. Battery life is still great at ~7-8 hours for a 9-cell, and the 15" laptops weigh around the same. Trackpad on the MBP is pretty good admittedly, though the Trackpoint is great too. Prices are around the same or lower between a 15" MBP and 15" business-class laptop.

 

Not a hater, but not blinded by the Apple 'love' mentality either.

My U30Jc gets better than 6/7 Hrs actual battery life under Windows 7 (something that a Mac can't touch yet...) and it is almost 1 1/2 yrs old... not to mention a lot less expensive than a MBA/P with 8GB RAM and a 160GB SSD inside

I would have tried the 2011 MBA's, but 7 hrs battery life (with no option to add a second battery, huh!) is very limiting, as it requires using the cartoonish OS/X to achieve those numbers and none of my business software runs under that OS. Under Windows (where my 'work programs' operate under), it gets less than 3/4 hrs on battery - and the the priviledge of spending $2K or more to get that mediocre performance too.

Add to that that Apple thinks that systems should be personal heaters (whether we want/need them to be or not...) makes it pretty clear that the cost of owning an Apple product is more than just giving up your $$$$... it also means giving up a little of your individuality too (I melt under heat...).

See:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/7766632-post2079.html

 

I think the Sony Viao line do a pretty good job.

They're not haters, they just prefer to have a bit more control over the computer they buy. With Apple I need to depend on the factory just to change a battery?

Anyway, I don't think there's anything wrong with them asking Intel to manufacture a leaner CPU for their product if that's what their customers want.

 

Not saying I'd buy a mac (check my sig =p) but PC users can be just as blind.

 

Also target market for Apple is entirely different. College students want that shiny new Apple product, and the fact they squeeze it into that unibody and still get pretty decent battery life (last gen Core 2 could achieve 10 hours on standard battery) makes them appealing, though with the Core i series introduction, is it no wonder why Apple forced Intel's hand with heat, the i7 in a MBP could reach 105C+ under heavy load.

 

Tsunade, this is not an Intel (cpu) problem, it is the inferior cooling a MBA/P has been designed with.

I don't even need to push an Apple product hard at all to have the heat the system gives off bother me (surfing the 'net is enough sometimes). To push it hard seems like a good way to have your shiny new toy go up in smoke, to me.

When Apple can do replaceable batteries (or 24 Hr ones...) and have the system run at room temperatures at a real load, then I will seriously consider them as a work system.

 

I have to agree with tiller here. The CPU is designed with a TDP and if Apple can't manage it, don't stuff it in their laptop, or design the cooling system properly. If that means adding a half inch to the thickness so be it. It's like complaining that you can't cool the Camaro V-8 using a Camry cooling system. Apple should really use the ULV versions of the Sandy Bridge CPU's to be honest, like the ones in the M11x.

 

AMD and ARM, apple had working prototypes using a variety of CPUs from both companies.

Since they are x86 cpus, it would actually be easy to make programs run on those things

And intel do give a rat flavored bottom for apple. they have exclusive agreements with them. Not to mention developments, like thunderbolt. The mbp 13 is the only thing that carries a i series standard voltage cpu with the socket for ulv chips (i5 2415m and the modified i7 2620m). This requires some development money just to satisfy apple.

Sincerely Im hoping that AMD gets back with some good bulldozer cores and try to make the competition on the medium and high budget range, currently the only thing that they can do is to use the gpu advantage and the price as their major selling points

And I can agree with apple on this regard the TDP of a quad should be 35w, and dual cores 25w or lower

 

Since when has ARM been x86?

Don't know what all the fuss is about. Seems Apple just want some lower TDP processors for those who want long battery life. High performance users should still be able to get the higher TDP processors that comes with that.

 

Yea, since when is ARM = x86?
Most guys I talk to who REALLY knows their ABCs of hardware knows that.
Apple's Products gain traction because they switched to x86 not the other way round.
The dominance and performance of x86 Architecture is not at the mercy of a shiny product manufacturer called Apple.

 

Yeah sorry about that, forgot that they are indeed advanced RISC based cpus.

The change for X86 processors indeed gave it traction, however the way that apple is now is mostly Jobs work and the CFO.

You dont know how is the performance of future iterations of cortex processors, like the a15

 

On second thought, I'm inclined to agree with tiller. Apple has nothing to use as leverage if they want to push Intel for improved CPU power consumption. AMD is miles behind in mobile CPU power consumption and ARM processors are still a long way from reaching Apple computers, even IF the rumours are true. This leaves Apple without any mobile CPU alternatives at the moment or in the near future.

However, I do believe that Apple may be motivated to seek alternative mobile offerings simply because of Intel's ambitions to sell "ultrabooks".

 

I see this as just the Intel guy using the hot name 'Apple', kind of free ad. Nothing to do with anything technical.

 

I'm also with tiller on this. However, i do find the idea of striving for lower power consumption and still keep good performance commendable. I was under the impression that CPU manufacturers were heading down that road already though the habit was more of keeping the consumption at the same level to get as much performance as possible. It seems Apple is simply pushing for more aggressive development in an already present trend than something revolutionary. I believe their demand might incline Intel to do something about that but probably not because they are afraid of loosing Apple as a customer, but more because it would be good for the business anyways providing the R&D costs don't skyrocket due to that.

 

Well ultraportables are clearly a rising market and Intel would be stupid not to go that route whether Apple exists or not. Apple isn't doing anything special with regards to that either other than engineering a solid chassis, but clearly not well enough to cool the components they decide to put in there.

 

What I believed happened in/around 2006 was that Intel let manufacturer's know about what was to come in the next half decade or so...

So, Apple started designing for the future and a couple of years later, the 'Air' was introduced.

Even though it was a hot and sweaty pig of a system, it was still sexy enough for a lot of people to be wowed by the looks, rather than be deterred by the actual experience of working with it. Definitely a 6 dressed up as a 9 in my books - I picked one up and less than 45 seconds later I dismissed it as the toy it was.

Almost 4 yrs later, the form factor is finally growing into what it should have been initially: a system that doesn't throttle itself to sub-netbook performance levels, performance that is finally comparable to what is nominally available (assuming the most expensive model/cpu/memory choices are selected) and heat output that is almost (but not quite there for me...) excusable for the amount of work/productivity the cpu/ram combo can do.

So, Apple really is smart: build a perfectly 'finished' system to look good with for a half decade or so... and... when Haswell or Rockwell finally shows up, sell them what the 'Air' should have been from the beginning.

Many on this forum may say that all systems are like that - that they're continually getting better/ligher/cooler/etc. - but they're not. The proof is in the throttling not only on the early Air's, but also on the MBP's too. The fact that you could cook your breakfast on them if pushed anywhere above medium was also an indication (and of course the reason for the throttling in the first place) that the Apple veneer was not as polished and shiny as it looked from 10 feet away.

Any Windows PC that was sold with those disadvantages simply did not get sold in high volume nor was it lusted after - no matter how svelte it was.

Not because Windows PC buyer's are all tech heads - no, they simply have a choice to buy something better designed for the job/load it could do.

In the next 2 years or so, the 'Ultrabooks' will be smashing any records the 'Air' has ever held - but the not-so-knowledgeable people will say that Apple did if first.

Yeah, they did it first and they did it wrong - when everybody else correctly picks the time/place/components/cost for an Ultrabook (in the next few months...), I'm positive Apple will lead their followers down a long... wrong... road... - once again.