Why does Apple act like Intel is always holding them back?

[dspdoc]

Intel Publishes Letter to Customers Apologizing for CPU Shipment Delays

www.anandtech.com

Dell admits Intel chip delay could impact Windows refresh | Computer Weekly

In the earnings call for Dell’s Q3 2019 results, the company admitted that up to one-third of Windows PC refresh orders may not be fulfilled until 2020.

www.computerweekly.com

Intel significantly delays it’s entire server roadmap

It looks like Intel is not just delaying a single server project, their entire roadmap has just slid significantly.

semiaccurate.com

Source: Intel 14nm CPU Shortage Tied To 10nm Delay | CRN

Intel said in a presentation that the delay of Intel’s 10-nanometer CPUs to next year is a factor in the current 14-nanometer shortage, according to a source.

www.crn.com

Intel Stuck With Ageing 14nm For Another Year

According to the latest investor earnings calls, the new Intel 10nm process may be a lot further away than expected.

www.eteknix.com

Intel delays chip making changes

Intel delays changes to its factories that would have made its chips faster and more powerful, following technical problems.

www.bbc.com

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?

Thanks for all the links. I never once denied or insinuated that Intel wasn’t lagging behind. I simply stated that they do release new silicon each year. Albeit obviously not up to the spec that those in the tech world would like to see. No need to continue with the snark. I get it.

 

[maflynn]

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?

I stand by my sentiment that Apple is moving to their own silicon for control and cost reasons, BUT you are correct, by and large Intel has done this to themselves, other computer makers are moving to Ryzen, due to superior product. I think if Intel wasn't messing up, unable to get off 14nm and being able to provide actually improvements we'd not be here now talking about Apple's embrace of ARM

 

[chabig]

I think if Intel wasn't messing up, unable to get off 14nm and being able to provide actually improvements we'd not be here now talking about Apple's embrace of ARM

I think Apple would make the move anyway, because Intel’s products don’t fit the forward vision of where Apple wants to go.

 

[maflynn]

I think Apple would make the move anyway, because Intel’s products don’t fit the forward vision of where Apple wants to go.

Perhaps, but one thing is clear, intel's missteps certainly made that discussion a lot easier.

 

[Falhófnir]

8th gen was major gain because AMD forced them to increase core count. Other than that, it's literally 3-5% boost YoY, sometimes not even that. They literally boost clocks by 100-200MHz.

And the knock on from that was that Intel had been saying their roadmap was for cooler 10nm chips, but ended up delivering hotter running 14nm ones and Apple got burned (NPI) with the 2018 MacBook Pro in particular.

 

[NT1440]

I stand by my sentiment that Apple is moving to their own silicon for control and cost reasons, BUT you are correct, by and large Intel has done this to themselves, other computer makers are moving to Ryzen, due to superior product. I think if Intel wasn't messing up, unable to get off 14nm and being able to provide actually improvements we'd not be here now talking about Apple's embrace of ARM

I think the last generation MBP chassis was built for a chip that Intel never delivered.

That said, Apple clearly laid the groundwork to move to their own silicon years ago. I think moving to a 64 bit iphone processor was the first consumer deliverable on the roadmap to Apple Silicon in regards to this current transition. Apple has been painstakingly deliberate here with the changes they’ve made for developers for the last 4+ years in order to get to today.

 

[dspdoc]

I stand by my sentiment that Apple is moving to their own silicon for control and cost reasons, BUT you are correct, by and large Intel has done this to themselves, other computer makers are moving to Ryzen, due to superior product. I think if Intel wasn't messing up, unable to get off 14nm and being able to provide actually improvements we'd not be here now talking about Apple's embrace of ARM

And once again I completely agree. But wow are there some majorly defensive Apple protectors on here! I get the passion, but one would think you insulted their mother!! I don’t quite get that level of Apple worship. It’s a tech company. I think Apple makes (some) phenomenal products. I also think that they have done (some) very questionable ethical things. My post was not created to rile people up. But as always on MR you have those that cannot stand it if they feel like their beloved Apple is at ALL being questioned. Thank you for keeping it real, maflynn.

 

[NT1440]

Thanks for all the links. I never once denied or insinuated that Intel wasn’t lagging behind. I simply stated that they do release new silicon each year. Albeit obviously not up to the spec that those in the tech world would like to see. No need to continue with the snark. I get it.

What’s the point of adopting every year if there are no noticeable gains for their core users?

I appreciate Apples phenomenal engineering. Don’t mistake that for being a cult member, they’re one of the biggest tax cheats on the planet.

 

[dspdoc]

What’s the point of adopting every year if there are no noticeable gains for their core users?

That question was already very politely answered and I thanked the person as such.

 

[chabig]

Perhaps, but one thing is clear, intel's missteps certainly made that discussion a lot easier.

Yes, certainly! It will be interesting, ten years from now to see how Apple’s products compare to “industry” products. With Apple in control of all critical components, there is nothing keeping them from going in their own direction. Success or failure—it will all depend on their execution.

 

[dspdoc]

What’s the point of adopting every year if there are no noticeable gains for their core users?

I appreciate Apples phenomenal engineering. Don’t mistake that for being a cult member, they’re one of the biggest tax cheats on the planet.

Thank you for the honesty.

 

[Bobby Smallwood]

Apple was going to ditch X86 either way, it's been written on the wall for a long time just like Google will ditch intel and so will Microsoft.

 

[dspdoc]

Apple was going to ditch X86 either way, it's been written on the wall for a long time just like Google will ditch intel and so will Microsoft.

I am beginning to kind of feel sorry for Intel. LOL

 

[maflynn]

it will all depend on their execution.

I know it was a dog and pony show to highlight its strengths, and only until we get ARM based Macs into our hands will we uncover any weaknesses, yet with that said, I was incredibly impressed by what I saw. I can see myself with an ARM based Mac at this point. It won't be my daily driver, but its something that I think could work for me and my family.

 

[xxray]

Intel Publishes Letter to Customers Apologizing for CPU Shipment Delays

www.anandtech.com

Dell admits Intel chip delay could impact Windows refresh | Computer Weekly

In the earnings call for Dell’s Q3 2019 results, the company admitted that up to one-third of Windows PC refresh orders may not be fulfilled until 2020.

www.computerweekly.com

Intel significantly delays it’s entire server roadmap

It looks like Intel is not just delaying a single server project, their entire roadmap has just slid significantly.

semiaccurate.com

Source: Intel 14nm CPU Shortage Tied To 10nm Delay | CRN

Intel said in a presentation that the delay of Intel’s 10-nanometer CPUs to next year is a factor in the current 14-nanometer shortage, according to a source.

www.crn.com

Intel Stuck With Ageing 14nm For Another Year

According to the latest investor earnings calls, the new Intel 10nm process may be a lot further away than expected.

www.eteknix.com

Intel delays chip making changes

Intel delays changes to its factories that would have made its chips faster and more powerful, following technical problems.

www.bbc.com

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.

This. I first remember hearing about Intel’s plateau in 2015. Here’s a 2016 article about it. It’s a discussion about how Intel was missing the usual Tick-tock CPU size shrinkage cycle, and becoming tick-tock-tock because they were using 14nm for another year instead of moving to 10nm.

Well, guess what. It’s 2020, 5 years later, and the latest MBPs are still running 14nm Intel processors. Tick-tock-tock-tock-tock-tock-tock. That is why Intel is blamed for holding Apple back.

 

[dspdoc]

This. I first remember hearing about Intel’s plateau in 2015. Here’s a 2016 article about it. It’s a discussion about how Intel was missing the usual Tick-tock CPU size shrinkage cycle, and becoming tick-tock-tock because they were using 14nm for another year instead of moving to 10nm.

Well, guess what. It’s 2020, 5 years later, and the latest MBPs are still running 14nm Intel processors. Tick-tock-tock-tock-tock-tock-tock. That is why Intel is blamed for holding Apple back.

Makes sense. I just hope this Apple Silicon transition doesn’t wreck a bunch of 3rd party devs and that the transition is much smoother than the PPC to Intel transition was!

 

[Erehy Dobon]

Based on the subject line of the inquiry and the tone the OP chose to take in his original post, it's no surprise of the replies that were given. Perhaps that was his intent.

Intel's stumblings are very well known. You don't need to be a technologist either. Intel is not some piddly backwater garage hobby shop. Intel is a Fortune 100 company and is around #13 in terms of market capitalization in the S&P 500.

The business media (not just the tech bloggers) has been covering Intel's poor performance for years. The stock price shows. It has underperformed pretty much every single relevant market index: S&P 500, Nasdaq Composite, Nasdaq-100, the SOX semiconductor sector index, you name it for years. As an investment, it has performed miserably compared to, oh, let's say Nvidia over the past five years.

It's not just computer vendors who are annoyed by Intel's failures. Do you have a retirement fund? Well, you should be slightly ticked off by Intel.

The comparison to the 90s era IBM is ominous. Intel has stayed in this "PC-server CPU or nothing" dreamworld when the world has passed them by. At some point, all of those blade servers with Intel CPUs in the world's data centers (Google, Amazon EC2, Microsoft Azure, etc.) will be replaced by more efficient hardware: ARM CPUs, machine learning/AI on GPUs (Nvidia, AMD).

The era of big server iron is riding off into the sunset.

And it's not just Intel's failure in staying on the desktop/notebook CPU product roadmap.

Intel is basically a non-entity in the mobile space. Atom is a failure. They sold their wireless chip unit for pennies to Apple after they failed to do anything substantial with it.

The PC market is contracting anyhow. Intel's failure to make itself a dominant player in mobile will be the main factor in its future just like Microsoft.

Any commenter here can dig up 10-20 articles about Intel's failings in about 3 minutes of searching. None of this is news. People have known (and complained) about this for years.

 

[ksec]

1. Intel hasn't made any significant improvement since 2014, forget about the "generation" they said, they have literally redefine the word "generation".

2. Intel is still charging a heavy premium for their chips, what used to be a generation ahead of the industry, they are now a generation "behind" their industry.

3. Why should Apple continue to paid a premium for something that is not industry leading. And likely Intel is refusing to further lower its price for Apple.

4. Why should Apple continue with Intel when they could do it themselves at a lot lower cost.

5. Remember Intel 10nm was suppose to be out in 2017. Arguably at the current yield Intel 10nm is still barely out.

6. Intel lied. They lied and lied again until most of the industry were fed up and their CEO got replaced. People expect transparency with partnership. And you can look at Apple's Macbook Design to partly blame Intel, and Mac Pro took a lot longer to release as they wanted 10nm Server CPU which as of today is still not out.

 

[dspdoc]

1. Intel hasn't made any significant improvement since 2014, forget about the "generation" they said, they have literally redefine the word "generation".

2. Intel is still charging a heavy premium for their chips, what used to be a generation ahead of the industry, they are now a generation "behind" their industry.

3. Why should Apple continue to paid a premium for something that is not industry leading. And likely Intel is refusing to further lower its price for Apple.

4. Why should Apple continue with Intel when they could do it themselves at a lot lower cost.

5. Remember Intel 10nm was suppose to be out in 2017. Arguably at the current yield Intel 10nm is still barely out.

6. Intel lied. They lied and lied again until most of the industry were fed up and their CEO got replaced. People expect transparency with partnership. And you can look at Apple's Macbook Design to partly blame Intel, and Mac Pro took a lot longer to release as they wanted 10nm Server CPU which as of today is still not out.

All excellent points! Thanks

I appreciate the responses without the defensive posturing. It is very helpful to read things without a clear agenda. There must be a ton of Apple stockholders here. LOL

 

[maflynn]

[MOD NOTE]
A number of posts were removed due to bickering, please stay on topic and be civil

 

[leman]

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.

Dont fall for Intel marketing. They have been re-releasing the same CPU every year while trying to squeeze more out of it each time. Their 10th gen CPU suitable for larger Mac laptops is the continuation of the same CPU they released in 2016. There is a reason why these things get hotter every year with barely any performance increase.

They do have a new CPU architecture, limited to quad core atm, that Apple uses in the 13”. But these CPUs care out two years behind schedule and they bring very little performance improvements.

Hope this answers your question.

 

[Zdigital2015]

I am beginning to kind of feel sorry for Intel. LOL

Don’t, they get what they deserve after years of buying/threatening/cajoling/interfering with OEMs over choosing alternatives like AMD. Intel hasn’t been delivering what customers really need since 2015. They would still be content delivering dual- and quad-Core desktop CPUs right now if AMD hadn’t kicked them in the pants. They’ve been milking profit for a long time while still telling us 10nm is right around the corner.

I believe the plan (Steve’s) was always for Apple to end up making their own CPUs, but PowerPC rand out of juice and by 2005, MIPS, SPARC and PA-RISC were on their way out and AMD was a mess. So that left Intel which NeXTSTEP had been been a compile target for a while. It was a fortunate turn for Apple, but the plan was always their own CPUs.

 

[dspdoc]

Dont fall for Intel marketing. They have been re-releasing the same CPU every year while trying to squeeze more out of it each time. Their 10th gen CPU suitable for larger Mac laptops is the continuation of the same CPU they released in 2016. There is a reason why these things get hotter every year with barely any performance increase.

They do have a new CPU architecture, limited to quad core atm, that Apple uses in the 13”. But these CPUs care out two years behind schedule and they bring very little performance improvements.

Hope this answers your question.

Thank you. Yes, very informative!

 

[||\||]

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.

I don't know that a new model needs to be released every year, but artificial scarcity is definitely an essential element in Apple's marketing scheme.

 

[Anarchy99]

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?

for CPU tasks in general, my top spec'd out 2015 rmbp was about 15%-20% faster than my top spec'd out 2015 rmbp
the only reason i upgraded was for replacement SSD speeds (nvme speeds vs the 2012's msata ) as well as eGPU performance improvements going from TB1 to TB2.

it was about a similar 20% or so increase until the 2019's with a i9 but even they had severe throttling issues not to mention the myriad of keyboard and IO complaints ive had since 2016.

the 2019 16" is the 1st where they have made enough corrections that I may consider it for my next mac laptop prior to that i was worried apple forced me back to Hackintoshes to do any work.

this isnt the 1st time, the 2012 mac mini was quadcore and outperforms the previous mac mini(2014) because its only dual core.
apple thankfully corrected that.

then theres the garbage fire that is the trash can, it was old underpowered xeons when it was released in 2013 and then basically forgotten for 6-7 years.

even if you ignore these examples there's still the performance per $ advantage that apple would get if on every machine they could they went ryzen or threadripper.

which yes was very unlikely even before the recent apple silicon announcement but for Pro's its been gross that Apple has been catering to the weaker brand for CPU's while using "gaming focused" GPUs from AMD when outside of the Apple Ecosystem NVIDIA is what business use (largely because of CUDA and now Tensor cores) if not just for Traditional performance being superior to AMD.