2017 MacBook will only use i5 and i7 processor?

[Appleaker]

Before anybody corrects the title, I am basing this off the leaked information that the Core m3, m5, and m7 will be rebranded the Core m3, i5, and i7 with the next generation (Kaby Lake) chips.

The m5 has seemed like the sweet spot and a significant upgrade over the m3, which, along with the speed boost from the new chips, could mean power isn't an issue for almost all buyers (assuming others will get the Pro).

If this rebrand occurs, do you think Apple will keep the m3 model around or replace it with the Y-Series i5?

It seems to be the logical option since all other Macs have i5 or i7 processors, so I don't think they'd continue an 'm3' among them. It also make sense if they will use the M processors for larger models of the MacBook (in terms of power and branding).


UPDATE:

The i5 and i7 naming for the 5W processors has been confirmed in the official Kaby Lake announcement today.

That, along with the similar price of m3 and i5 cpus and the exclusion of some features from the m3 back up my argument.

 

[Frosties]

I would think m3 will be kept until the price has come down a bit, you have to have an instep model.

 

[Appleaker]

I would think m3 will be kept until the price has come down a bit, you have to have a instep model.

Maybe, but I just don't think it will be what Apple want to sell, especially for the aim of the MacBook. Just how they wouldn't put an i3 in any other MacBook. Right now the only thing stopping them decreasing the price is the relative pricing among other MacBooks - If they priced it any lower it could cannibalize sales of other MacBooks.
I think you could be right if they had the m3 model at a lower price then it is currently.

 

[KPOM]

Before anybody corrects the title, I am basing this off the leaked information that the Core m3, m5, and m7 will be rebranded the Core m3, i5, and i7 with the next generation (Kaby Lake) chips.

It seems to be the logical option since all other Macs have i5 or i7 processors, so I don't think they'd continue an 'm3' among them. It also make sense if they will use the M processors for larger models of the MacBook (in terms of power and branding).

The Core M gets a bad rap. It is a really good processor. That said, I can see why Intel might want to rebrand it, but it will just add to the confusion.

Anyway, I think Apple will continue to offer the m3 assuming they update it to Kaby Lake next year (and don't just skip it to wait for the 10nm Cannon Lake processor). Apple is the one PC designer who has doubled down on the Core M, so my guess is that they will keep doing so.

 

[Appleaker]

The Core M gets a bad rap. It is a really good processor. That said, I can see why Intel might want to rebrand it, but it will just add to the confusion.

Anyway, I think Apple will continue to offer the m3 assuming they update it to Kaby Lake next year (and don't just skip it to wait for the 10nm Cannon Lake processor). Apple is the one PC designer who has doubled down on the Core M, so my guess is that they will keep doing so.

Yeah I agree, it's a good processor but most people seem to really underestimate it, which can be partially attributed to its name.

The rebrand will be great for sales, and since the base clocks are higher I'm hoping Apple overclocks them as they have done with the current ones, so we get higher clock speeds.

The reason I don't see it happening is because they are positioning it as a premium device and the m3 may cause confusion among the i5 and i7 options. Apple don't even put an i3 in their baseline Mac mini. Just to be clear, performance wouldn't be the issue with the m3, it would be the name.

 

[KPOM]

The reason I don't see it happening is because they are positioning it as a premium device and the m3 may cause confusion among the i5 and i7 options. Apple don't even put an i3 in their baseline Mac mini. Just to be clear, performance wouldn't be the issue with the m3, it would be the name.

But there are performance reasons for not using the Core i3. It doesn't include Turbo Boost, for instance.

 

[Appleaker]

But there are performance reasons for not using the Core i3. It doesn't include Turbo Boost, for instance.

Yeah but for something like a Mac mini, I don't think Apple would care too much. Like I said, I think the naming is the key issue in terms of fitting in with every other Mac.

 

[toddzrx]

But there are performance reasons for not using the Core i3. It doesn't include Turbo Boost, for instance.

FWIW: I have a 2010 iMac 21.5" with an i3 (the 3.2GHz chip, which was a step up from the base model). While not a direct comparison to the current MacBook, it's pertinent to the topic being discussed. While it's an older model iMac, it's still very usable with an SSD. I quite honestly don't know if that particular chip has Turbo Boost (my guess would be that it doesn't), and I'm pretty sure I don't miss it anyway. it functions just fine for my needs, and hopefully will continue to do so for another 2 years or so.

I think for a base model that Turbo Boost and other performance features don't matter as much, since the usual point of such a product is to give the lowest acceptable performance at a specific price point. In Apple's case, at some point they're most likely going to eliminate the Air and they'll need a low-cost MacBook, maybe one that can make the $999 price point. I would imagine a Core M3 would fit the bill for such a machine.

 

[mtneer]

Werent the rumors going the other way - that sooner or later the rMB will be the first Apple "laptop" that will go ARM? Maybe with the A11 or 12? If I remember correctly, the A9 already smashes the Core m chips in raw processing benchmarks.

 

[danckwerts]

Werent the rumors going the other way - that sooner or later the rMB will be the first Apple "laptop" that will go ARM? Maybe with the A11 or 12? If I remember correctly, the A9 already smashes the Core m chips in raw processing benchmarks.

It's a pity that SoftBank is in the process of buying ARM. It's one of the UK's great computer successes. On the other hand, SoftBank is promising to pour a lot of money in and double the UK staff in a couple of years so perhaps it'll end up as a serious Intel competitor in desktop processors..

 

[TechZeke]

m3 will definitely stick around. Gotta have a $250 BTO to increase the profit margin with something.

Although I have to say I'm impressed how fast Intel is improving the core m line. i5 or i7 branding will definitely help the MacBook's public opinion of being of being a fancy netbook.

 

[KPOM]

This adds a lot of information. 4K video should be good in next year's MacBook.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/10610...s-six-notebook-skus-desktop-coming-in-january

 

[RoboWarriorSr]

FWIW: I have a 2010 iMac 21.5" with an i3 (the 3.2GHz chip, which was a step up from the base model). While not a direct comparison to the current MacBook, it's pertinent to the topic being discussed. While it's an older model iMac, it's still very usable with an SSD. I quite honestly don't know if that particular chip has Turbo Boost (my guess would be that it doesn't), and I'm pretty sure I don't miss it anyway. it functions just fine for my needs, and hopefully will continue to do so for another 2 years or so.

I think for a base model that Turbo Boost and other performance features don't matter as much, since the usual point of such a product is to give the lowest acceptable performance at a specific price point. In Apple's case, at some point they're most likely going to eliminate the Air and they'll need a low-cost MacBook, maybe one that can make the $999 price point. I would imagine a Core M3 would fit the bill for such a machine.

The value of i3 are very dependent on what category they are referred to. For example the desktop i3 is sometimes considered superior to i5 due to its extremely high single thread performance over multithreaded due to eliminating the extra two cores.

 

[Appleaker]

I'm surprised by the result, with most people saying they'll keep an 'm3' model along with the i5 and i7 models.

Well have to wait and see what they'll do. I think they'll drop the m3. If not on the 12" model, then certainly on any larger models they may introduce.

 

[KPOM]

I'm surprised by the result, with most people saying they'll keep an 'm3' model along with the i5 and i7 models.

Well have to wait and see what they'll do. I think they'll drop the m3. If not on the 12" model, then certainly on any larger models they may introduce.

Apple uses all 3 equivalent Skylake chips today. What is happening is that Intel is rebranding the two faster Kaby Lake equivalents as i5 and i7, probably because most manufacturers other than Apple don't use the Core M chips because consumers perceive the Core M as underpowered (when for the most part they aren't). That hasn't been an issue for Apple.

 

[Appleaker]

Apple uses all 3 equivalent Skylake chips today. What is happening is that Intel is rebranding the two faster Kaby Lake equivalents as i5 and i7, probably because most manufacturers other than Apple don't use the Core M chips because consumers perceive the Core M as underpowered (when for the most part they aren't). That hasn't been an issue for Apple.

Yes I am very aware of the situation. This post was made on the basis of the (then unconfirmed) renaming.

You are right about the reasoning behind the change, but there are also slight feature differences for the m3, which is now aimed for tablets. The renaming is also to signify the increase in performance.

In terms of Apple, reception has certainly been a problem with all core m processors, mostly because of people referring to it as a mobile processor. Reception would have been even worse if they hadn't increased the clock speed to over 1GHz.

Although a lot of average consumers don't care about the processor naming, most of them do know the tiers (that i5 is better than i3, etc.). An 'm3' along with i5 and i7 models for every other Mac, including other models of the MacBook would stand out. Given the price difference is very minimal, Apple has no reason to keep the m3 other than to push consumers to the next model.

 

[KPOM]

In terms of Apple, reception has certainly been a problem with all core m processors, mostly because of people referring to it as a mobile processor. Reception would have been even worse if they hadn't increased the clock speed to over 1GHz.

Although a lot of average consumers don't care about the processor naming, most of them do know the tiers (that i5 is better than i3, etc.). An 'm3' along with i5 and i7 models for every other Mac, including other models of the MacBook would stand out. Given the price difference is very minimal, Apple has no reason to keep the m3 other than to push consumers to the next model.

The MacBook has been selling reasonably well. It certainly isn't priced as a volume seller, and the decline in overall Mac sales is more likely the result of the aging MacBook Pro and MacBook Air lineups.

It's certainly possible that if Apple intends to "mainstream" the MacBook they may drop the price a bit and use only the i5 and i7 chips. However, if we see any type of update to the MacBook Air (and there is currently a rumor of an update to incorporate USB-C, which may be either Kaby Lake or Skylake), then the "mainstreaming" is likely another year out.

 

[TallManNY]

The MacBook has been selling reasonably well. It certainly isn't priced as a volume seller, and the decline in overall Mac sales is more likely the result of the aging MacBook Pro and MacBook Air lineups.

It's certainly possible that if Apple intends to "mainstream" the MacBook they may drop the price a bit and use only the i5 and i7 chips. However, if we see any type of update to the MacBook Air (and there is currently a rumor of an update to incorporate USB-C, which may be either Kaby Lake or Skylake), then the "mainstreaming" is likely another year out.

Got to figure that calling it the MacBook means they intend to mainstream it.

But if rumors of the A10 chip performance are true, then an iPad is going to be a viable laptop replacement for many people. If I can get screaming performance from an $700 iPad, nearly unlimited cloud storage, cheap apps, and light weight portability, maybe I just have to go iPad.

 

[T'hain Esh Kelch]

Since there's not really any differences between the m and the i series in this case, I see no reason why Apple wouldn't keep the 3 tiered setup they have now. It may even increase margins, as people think "Oh, an i is better than an m!" and upgrade for no reason.

 

[KPOM]

Got to figure that calling it the MacBook means they intend to mainstream it.

Eventually they will. Not necessarily in 2017.

But if rumors of the A10 chip performance are true, then an iPad is going to be a viable laptop replacement for many people. If I can get screaming performance from an $700 iPad, nearly unlimited cloud storage, cheap apps, and light weight portability, maybe I just have to go iPad.

Have you seen Apple's marketing lately? They advertise the iPad Pro as a laptop replacement. But some people still need the added power of macOS, which doesn't run on an iPad.

 

[TallManNY]

Eventually they will. Not necessarily in 2017.



Have you seen Apple's marketing lately? They advertise the iPad Pro as a laptop replacement. But some people still need the added power of macOS, which doesn't run on an iPad.

Yep, seen the rumor. And I'm wondering how much I would like to replace my 27 inch iMac which dominates my home desk, with a 12" iPad Pro that I can slide away in a book shelf when I'm done with it. I don't think I can give up having a Mac in the house though.

 

[Appleaker]

The MacBook has been selling reasonably well. It certainly isn't priced as a volume seller, and the decline in overall Mac sales is more likely the result of the aging MacBook Pro and MacBook Air lineups.

It's certainly possible that if Apple intends to "mainstream" the MacBook they may drop the price a bit and use only the i5 and i7 chips. However, if we see any type of update to the MacBook Air (and there is currently a rumor of an update to incorporate USB-C, which may be either Kaby Lake or Skylake), then the "mainstreaming" is likely another year out.

I think the MacBook has been selling well due to it's design and appeal. If it was a thinner MacBook Air with 1 port (in terms of design), I don't think it would sell as well. The color options are a major part of that appeal for some.
It also fits very well with it's target audience and therefore a lot of people may get it over an iPad or another MacBook where they don't need much power.

I have a feeling those rumors are referring to larger MacBooks however it's possible that they update it with USB-C. I don't expect a processor upgrade, but actually it could end up being like the iPod touch - still around and refreshed when it needs to be but you know one day it is going to fade away from the Apple Store.

While Mac sales is partially due to lack of upgrade, I can't help but feel that advertising has something to do with it. There hasn't been a Mac Ad in years and there has never been one for the new MacBook - something I think would have definitely boosted initial sales as it's design has a hypnotizing effect for a lot of people.

You could argue that the Mac doesn't need advertising, but the reality is a lot of customers won't know when they release a new Mac while they will know when they launch a new iPhone. Yet Apple spends loads of money advertising it.

 

[Appleaker]

I find the poll incredibly surprising, but I am still firmly sticking with i5 and i7 only MacBooks in 2017.

 

[KPOM]

I find the poll incredibly surprising, but I am still firmly sticking with i5 and i7 only MacBooks in 2017.

Remember the Core m5/m7 Kaby Lake equivalents are branded "Core i5/i7." I think Apple will use the Core m5 and the 5W Core i5/i7 chips.

 

[Appleaker]

Remember the Core m5/m7 Kaby Lake equivalents are branded "Core i5/i7." I think Apple will use the Core m5 and the 5W Core i5/i7 chips.

This whole post is regarding the rebrand, we are only referring to the 5W chips. This is explained in the starting post in this thread from August.