PDA

View Full Version : Which CPU in the 2011 Air?




will
Apr 21, 2011, 06:05 AM
2010 Air CPU
The 2010 model Air uses Core2 CPUs, which Intel is phasing out. The fastest CPUs available in the current Air models are:

11" Air: Core2 Duo SU9600 1.6GHz, 10W TDP (full spec (http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=37264&processor=SU9600&spec-codes=SLGEX,SLGFN))
13" Air: Core2 Duo SL9600 2.13GHz, 17W TDP (full spec (http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=37262&processor=SL9600&spec-codes=SLGEQ))

2011 Air CPU Considerations
If we assume Apple plans to refresh the Air this summer, then the only real choice would appear to be Sandy Bridge CPUs (I'm not aware of any suitable AMD CPUs, but am happy to be corrected on this).

Sandy Bridge CPUs include a GPU, so this could allow Apple to use higher power CPUs in the new Air. This would allow a significant increase in CPU performance with only a small loss of GPU performance.

On the other hand, this heat source would be more concentrated than the Core2 + Nvidia 320 of the current model: which might make cooling a challenge. A lower power CPU would also allow Apple to increase battery life over the current Air.

It's worth noting that the Samsung Series 9 sticks to the 17W TDP Core i5-2537M. It handily beats the 2010 Air in CPU benchmarks, but trails badly in graphics. (Engadget Review (http://www.engadget.com/2011/03/28/samsung-series-9-900x-laptop-review/))

Possible 2011 Air CPU models
In terms of actual CPU models I believe the choice boils down to:

13" Air (high power): Core i7-2649M 2.3GHz, 25W TDP (full spec (http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=54611&processor=i7-2649M&spec-codes=SR04N))
13" Air (low power): Core i7-2657M 1.6GHz, 17W TDP (full spec (http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=54615&processor=i7-2657M&spec-codes=SR03S))

17W is as low as it goes for Sandy Bridge (as of April 2011). So for the 11" the choice is a 17W CPU or wait the launch of a future CPU.

NB. I'm talking about the fastest CPUs available at a given power rating: the base Air would likely use a slower model.

Conclusion
Whichever way Apple decides there's going to be some sort of compromise.

Personally I suspect they'll opt for the lower-power CPUs and play up the video acceleration capabilities of Sandy Bridge (already used by FaceTime). This would mean the next-generation Air would be significantly slower in games: but the Air isn't really about gaming. By going with the lower-power CPU we could have more CPU performance, a longer battery life and cooling should be easy. The loss of graphics performance (outside video) would be a price worth paying to maintain the ergonomics and battery life.



Hellhammer
Apr 21, 2011, 06:12 AM
Apple must use 25W in 13", otherwise there is absolutely no point in updating. Ivy Bridge will most likely have the same TDPs, thus if Apple wants to keep MBA alive, they must be able to fit 17W in 11" and 25W in 13". In terms of TDP, it's possible.

ZipZap
Apr 21, 2011, 06:44 AM
Or maybe skip this update cycle and update in 2012 with Ivy...

I dont need a faster CPU but I sure would like better GPU performance.

I'd also like user expandable memory, an extra SSD slot and more highspeed port options.

Probably cant do this in the MBA 11...so drop the 11 and build a more svelt 13"...

jlblodgett
Apr 21, 2011, 07:18 AM
Or maybe skip this update cycle and update in 2012 with Ivy...

I dont need a faster CPU but I sure would like better GPU performance.

I'd also like user expandable memory, an extra SSD slot and more highspeed port options.

Probably cant do this in the MBA 11...so drop the 11 and build a more svelt 13"...


The machine you're describing is not a MacBook Air.

KohPhiPhi
Apr 21, 2011, 07:25 AM
Or maybe skip this update cycle and update in 2012 with Ivy...

I dont need a faster CPU but I sure would like better GPU performance.

Same here. At the moment, I don't need the SB's extra processing muscle for what I do, so no point in upgrading on the next cycle. I will let this update pass until Ivy is out (as long as they dont gimp it with a HD3000!).

GekkePrutser
Apr 21, 2011, 07:29 AM
The higher TDP's aren't a big deal because Sandy Bridge's chipset uses less power than the 320M that is currently used. I don't see this becoming a problem. It's just moving some power from the chipset to the CPU, makes sense because a lot of chipset features are in the CPU with Sandy Bridge, namely the GPU and the memory controller.

I just hope they do go for Sandy Bridge in the 11" and don't opt for some old Arrendale like Samsung is doing with their 9. The 11" series 9 has an Arrendale CPU and the 13" is SB.

fedup flyer
Apr 23, 2011, 08:51 AM
I hope the new MBA will run OS 10.6 otherwise a no-go for me.
Yes, I need Rosetta.

cherry su
Apr 23, 2011, 08:59 AM
Remember that the Sandy Bridge figures account for the northbridge and GPU. The internet assumes that the 320M has a TDP of ~12W, so the Sandy Bridge solution is perfectly fine (even a bit cooler) to use in the new MacBook Airs.

striker33
Apr 23, 2011, 01:00 PM
Id much rather have the SB due to less power consumption, as on a device like this battery life > all.

HD3000 graphics are pretty much the same under OSX as the 320M in terms of performance, and gaming on a machine like this is utterly pointless unless its under the source engine in OSX. Saying that, gaming should not be considered at all when looking at MBAs. If you want an ultra portable gaming notebook then alienware is your only option.

Theres a reason Apple offer a "pro" notebook.

Twe Foju
Apr 23, 2011, 01:23 PM
Saying that, gaming should not be considered at all when looking at MBAs. If you want an ultra portable gaming

Why not? because you actually can

the thing is, this is actually a simple solution

people that who want to play games on the Air, just stop comparing the next line, just buy the current MBA which is already a great machine

and people that doesn't do heavy gaming ( playing like PvsZ, any Social games ) then just wait for the new SB MBA

igmolinav
Apr 24, 2011, 01:53 AM
Hi,

I just hope they do go for Sandy Bridge in the 11" and don't opt for some old Arrendale like Samsung is doing with their 9. The 11" series 9 has an Arrendale CPU and the 13" is SB.

Me too. I also hope for Sandy Bridge in the 11" MBA. It is my main reason behind the purchase of an 11" MBA. I also wonder how much storage capacity will one get. Currently it is a maximum of 256 GB for the 11" model.

Thank you, kind regards,

igmolinav : ) !!!

mrsir2009
Apr 24, 2011, 03:19 AM
I don't see whats wrong with Core2Duo. Its capable for what the MBA is supposed to be used for ;)

maclaptop
Apr 24, 2011, 04:08 AM
the machine you're describing is not a macbook air.

+1

KnightWRX
Apr 24, 2011, 04:16 AM
Id much rather have the SB due to less power consumption, as on a device like this battery life > all.

Battery life with a 320M is already very good. It's plenty for me.

HD3000 graphics are pretty much the same under OSX as the 320M in terms of performance

No, they are not. Even for the desktop Sandy Bridge, the GPU is underpowered compared to the 320M. The benchmarks you alude to that proclaimed it "on par" ran a CPU bound scenario in which the Sandy Bridge processor propped up the GPU to 320M level considering the 320M only had a Core 2 Duo backing it up. Other benchmarks showed the superiority of the 320M even in this scenario.

In a MBA application, the GPU is going to be underclocked compared to the one used in those application. So forget the "pretty much the same" performance.

and gaming on a machine like this is utterly pointless unless its under the source engine in OSX. Saying that, gaming should not be considered at all when looking at MBAs.

Why thank you for defining my needs for me. Now maybe you want to stick to your own needs. A lot of us enjoy the fact that the 2010 MBA makes a decent gaming machine with the nVidia 320M, while still having good battery life and ultra-portability. It's a fine all-around computer.

If you want an ultra portable gaming notebook then alienware is your only option.

Theres a reason Apple offer a "pro" notebook.

Hum, both the alienware and "pro" notebook from Apple are heavy. The reason I got the MBA is the weight and the extra screen resolution. I had a perfectly functioning unibody MacBook, it just got to be a bother dragging around with my gym stuff in a backpack on the motorcycle, riding at over 100 km/h on the highway.

mike.coulter
Apr 24, 2011, 04:18 AM
I don't see whats wrong with Core2Duo. Its capable for what the MBA is supposed to be used for ;)

Finally someone with the same view as me!

I still rather love core 2 duo, gets the job done.

TheMacBookPro
Apr 24, 2011, 04:28 AM
Id much rather have the SB due to less power consumption, as on a device like this battery life > all.

HD3000 graphics are pretty much the same under OSX as the 320M in terms of performance, and gaming on a machine like this is utterly pointless unless its under the source engine in OSX. Saying that, gaming should not be considered at all when looking at MBAs. If you want an ultra portable gaming notebook then alienware is your only option.

Theres a reason Apple offer a "pro" notebook.

So Apple should leave out the 320M just because you think one should not game on a MBA? Thanks for defining what I should do on my laptop.

I game on my 11" Air. Why should I not consider gaming when looking at the MBAs? The only reason I chose this over, say, the Samsung Series 9 is because of its far superior graphics chip.

The 13" Pro is useless when it comes to gaming so don't tell me to go look at that particular Pro. I have an i7 13" Pro and the Air handily beats it when it comes to gaming.

By the way- Alienware is not my only option for ultraportable gaming. VAIO Z has a comparable chip to the M11x (GT330M v 335M) yet weighs just 3.0 lbs with a full speed Intel i-series processor. I much prefer my Z over my M11x and certainly over my M17x. Add the Air to that list now.

Cerano
Apr 24, 2011, 06:25 AM
The higher TDP's aren't a big deal because Sandy Bridge's chipset uses less power than the 320M that is currently used. I don't see this becoming a problem. It's just moving some power from the chipset to the CPU, makes sense because a lot of chipset features are in the CPU with Sandy Bridge, namely the GPU and the memory controller.

I just hope they do go for Sandy Bridge in the 11" and don't opt for some old Arrendale like Samsung is doing with their 9. The 11" series 9 has an Arrendale CPU and the 13" is SB.

Arrandale CULVs are typically slower than our higher clocked C2D CULVs. Our SU9600 is very minutely slowly than a I5-430UM and is faster than an I5-520UM.

mrsir2009
Apr 24, 2011, 03:23 PM
Finally someone with the same view as me!

I still rather love core 2 duo, gets the job done.

My 13" MBP is Core2Duo and it can handle everything fine. It just gets extremely hot, and an ix processor would make that heat much much worse :eek:

igmolinav
Apr 25, 2011, 12:20 AM
Hi,

My 13" MBP is Core2Duo and it can handle everything fine. It just gets extremely hot, and an ix processor would make that heat much much worse

Really ?? Aren't the ix processrs supposed to be better ?? But they are more powerful, aren't they ??

Thank you, kind regards,

igmolinav : ) !!!

fyrefly
Apr 25, 2011, 12:30 AM
My 13" MBP is Core2Duo and it can handle everything fine. It just gets extremely hot, and an ix processor would make that heat much much worse :eek:

Depends on what you're using it for. Are you using your MBP on a pillow?

I have a 2009-era 13" MBP with a C2D and it barely heats up ever.

The iX processors aren't "hotter", necessarily. It's all a matter of TDP. The max amount of power a processor will suck = how hot it'll get.

The reason the 2011 MBPs get hotter is 'cause they all jumped 10W TDP-wise. the 13" MBP went from 25--> 35W and the 15"/17" MBP went from 35W to 45W.

The SB LV Processors are 17W - same as the SL9400/9600 that are in the MBA now. With less IGP TDP to worry about, a SB MBA should actually run the same, if not cooler than the C2D MBAs.

Hellhammer
Apr 25, 2011, 01:43 AM
The SB LV Processors are 17W - same as the SL9400/9600 that are in the MBA now. With less IGP TDP to worry about, a SB MBA should actually run the same, if not cooler than the C2D MBAs.

17W SBs are ULV, not LV. They are meant to compete with the 10W CPUs found in 11" MBA. LV SBs are 25W, though they still fit within the TDP of 13" since there is no need for graphics anymore (and PCH takes only 4W).

fyrefly
Apr 25, 2011, 01:47 PM
17W SBs are ULV, not LV. They are meant to compete with the 10W CPUs found in 11" MBA. LV SBs are 25W, though they still fit within the TDP of 13" since there is no need for graphics anymore (and PCH takes only 4W).

Gotcha.

But I'd be wary of the 25W processors in the 13" MBA. I guess that'd let them come closer to the 320m in graphics in the 13" models (500Mhz+Turbo IGP), and have the 11" models with the lower-clocked ULV graphics (350Mhz+Turbo IGP).

I just hope they don't heat up too much and require excessive throttling like the MBA's of yore.

nebulos
May 3, 2011, 02:59 PM
I don't see whats wrong with Core2Duo. Its capable for what the MBA is supposed to be used for ;)

nothing is 'wrong' with the C2D. its plenty CPU for many.

but who cares what the Air is 'supposed' to be for? Putting in a better CPU makes the machine viable for others, whose personal needs are different, like ME!

gamers may, understandably, be unhappy with this move. (Of course, they can stick with the 320M machines, whose price will drop with the refresh.)

but how is picking out GPU performance over CPU not completely arbitrary/personal? saying that Apple 'should' stick with C2D + NVidia is just as correct as saying they 'should' go with Sandy Brigde CPU + IGP, is it not?

... in any case,

******************************

11 inch:

the CPU candidate here seems to be the i5-2537M, yes?

Conveniently, as mentioned above, this lives in the Samsung Series 9 and has been benchmarked quite a bit; For example, 32-bit geekbench ~ 3900. That seems like a HUGE improvement over the current C2D's scores of ~ 2000 (1.4GHz) and 2300 (1.6GHz).

For my needs, for example, this would promote the 11" to a buy-able computer.


13 inch:

It seems like we're expecting the i7-2649M here?

Anyone have an idea what this CPU performs like? Any guess on the geekbench score? I don't seen any benchmarks out there.

******************************

... considering the standard TDP analysis, i'm not sure where the heat concerns are coming from. is this just a misunderstanding, or is there an actual logic to it?

hystery
May 3, 2011, 03:38 PM
I'm concerning over MBA to be noisy machine when it gets Sandy in it, 'cause MBP were. I had bought i7 2.7 MBP 13", when doing clean installing of OSX It started to make huge noise. Just for OSX instllation, which I'd never experienced with my C2D MPB 13". That I sold it after 2 days after arrival.
I'm yet to decide to buy MBA 11" because I know it'll likely be updated in June, but if it's going to be noisy one maybe I should get one now.

TrollToddington
May 3, 2011, 03:46 PM
******************************


11 inch:

the CPU candidate here seems to be the i5-2537M, yes?

Conveniently, as mentioned above, this lives in the Samsung Series 9 and has been benchmarked quite a bit; For example, 32-bit geekbench ~ 3900. That seems like a HUGE improvement over the current C2D's scores of ~ 2000 (1.4GHz) and 2300 (1.6GHz).

For my needs, for example, this would promote the 11" to a buy-able computer.
Here here, I'm also heading for a base 11" SB MBA + 4GB RAM, however, we can expect a 1.5x greater score from the 13" which means the next MBA (Sandy Bridge) may outscore my 2010 i3 iMac. If it hadn't been for it's convenience I'd have considered selling the iMac and going SB MBA + external monitor.

nebulos
May 3, 2011, 06:28 PM
Here here, I'm also heading for a base 11" SB MBA + 4GB RAM, however, we can expect a 1.5x greater score from the 13" which means the next MBA (Sandy Bridge) may outscore my 2010 i3 iMac. If it hadn't been for it's convenience I'd have considered selling the iMac and going SB MBA + external monitor.

yeah, i guess 1.5X would make sense.

i was already a little suspect of the i5-2537M's geekbench score, but now supposing that the 13" would score around 6000 = 1.5(4000), faster than your iMac, as well as any of the 2010 MBPs, these numbers seem too good to be true.

thoughts?

2IS
May 3, 2011, 09:07 PM
I don't see whats wrong with Core2Duo. Its capable for what the MBA is supposed to be used for ;)

Cell phones were once "supposed" to be used for nothing more than phone calls. This is technology we're dealing with. What something is "supposed" to be used for today may not be the same as tomorrow. Why would anyone be against the MBA being able to handle more than it can now?

nebulos
May 4, 2011, 01:04 AM
... so,

2011 13" Sandy Bridge MBA faster than fastest 2010 MBP?

could that possibly be right? (see above)

gpat
May 4, 2011, 01:45 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Bridge#Mobile_processors

Take a look at that table. Apple will likely use the 17W ones in 11" and 25W in 13". But they could also go 17W in the whole lineup for massive battery life.

The 2537m is just the tip of the iceberg. With a 17W TDP, we can expect it mounted on the 11". 13"s will likely have the 25W ones, and that means 2649M will be the one on the 13" (15"?) Ultimate Air.

nebulos
May 4, 2011, 01:58 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Bridge#Mobile_processors

Take a look at that table. Apple will likely use the 17W ones in 11" and 25W in 13". But they could also go 17W in the whole lineup for massive battery life.

The 2537m is just the tip of the iceberg. With a 17W TDP, we can expect it mounted on the 11". 13"s will likely have the 25W ones, and that means 2649M will be the one on the 13" (15"?) Ultimate Air.

thanks, but this is essentially the gist of the original post. :o

gpat
May 4, 2011, 02:00 AM
LOL, didn't notice that.

nebulos
May 4, 2011, 02:10 AM
2011 13" Sandy Bridge MBA faster than fastest 2010 MBP?

could that possibly be right? (see above)


i guess, i had been thinking about the 11" this whole time, and hadn't really researched the 13" option. but indeed, looking at clock speeds, base and turbo, HT, etc., the i7-2649M is not unlike the i7-620M in the high end 2010 MBPs.

i guess i just assumed LV CPUs would necessarily be slower.

am i overlooking something here?

can you imagine an Air with this powerful a CPU??? at first i was happy because the update meant, in my mind, 'finally good enough' CPUs. (yes, relative to my needs.) now i'm actually impressed and excited!

i did kinda have a thing for the 11". but i also had the feeling i'd really want the 13" in the end. this would only be another reason.

i'm kinda surprised this thread is not getting more attention.

nebulos
May 4, 2011, 02:42 AM
So, putting it all together, since Apple usually offers a base and high-end config, perhaps:


11" Base CPU = 1.4GHz (2.3GHz) i5-2537M 17W

11" High CPU = 1.6GHz (2.7GHz) i7-2657M 17W

13" Base CPU = 2.1GHz (3.0GHz) i7-2629M 25W

13" High CPU = 2.3GHz (3.2GHz) i7-2649M 25W


... all dual-core with hyper-threading.

in each case, going from base to high-end represents an Intel list price difference of about $30. that's approximately equal to the Intel list price difference represented by the SU9400 to SU9600 or SL9400 to SL9600 upgrades in the current 11" and 13" models, respectively. (of course, Apple will no doubt continue to charge $100 for these upgrades!)

as has been mentioned, allotting 10W TDP for the 320M (conservative), the total CPU + GPU TDPs for the 2010's are already higher than those proposed above.

what do you think?

nebulos
May 4, 2011, 02:46 AM
LOL, didn't notice that.

it happens.

the table came in handy. ;)

nebulos
May 4, 2011, 10:59 AM
...

Possible 2011 Air CPU models
In terms of actual CPU models I believe the choice boils down to:

13" Air (high power): Core i7-2649M 2.3GHz, 25W TDP (full spec (http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=54611&processor=i7-2649M&spec-codes=SR04N))
13" Air (low power): Core i7-2657M 1.6GHz, 17W TDP (full spec (http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=54615&processor=i7-2657M&spec-codes=SR03S))

...

Conclusion
Whichever way Apple decides there's going to be some sort of compromise.

Personally I suspect they'll opt for the lower-power CPUs and play up the video acceleration capabilities of Sandy Bridge (already used by FaceTime). This would mean the next-generation Air would be significantly slower in games: but the Air isn't really about gaming. By going with the lower-power CPU we could have more CPU performance, a longer battery life and cooling should be easy. The loss of graphics performance (outside video) would be a price worth paying to maintain the ergonomics and battery life.

by the way, i think exactly because of the weaker IGP, Apple would want to give the 13" the better (2.3GHz) CPU, to help make up on the graphics end.

of course we won't know until they come out, but, while the new Airs' gaming capabilities may take a blow, it seems like these new CPUs will be SO MUCH faster! for many this will be no compromise at all, but a godsend.

so many on here view Sandy Bridge as the apocalypse. isn't anyone else excited??? :(:o:p:):):)

... then again, putting the better CPU in the 13" MBA makes the 13" MBP pointless for many and begins to confuse product lines. i hope Apple doesn't do something terrible like intentionally cripple the Air. :confused::confused::confused:

retrorichie
May 4, 2011, 11:02 AM
so many on here view Sandy Bridge as the apocalypse. isn't anyone else excited??? :(:o:p:):):)

I am excited. A 13" sandy bridge MBA is going to be my next purchase. I'll even spend through the nose for a 512 GB SSD if they make one available. Come on Apple, you know you want my damn money.

strwrsfrk
May 4, 2011, 11:36 AM
So Apple should leave out the 320M just because you think one should not game on a MBA? Thanks for defining what I should do on my laptop.

I game on my 11" Air. Why should I not consider gaming when looking at the MBAs? The only reason I chose this over, say, the Samsung Series 9 is because of its far superior graphics chip.

The 13" Pro is useless when it comes to gaming so don't tell me to go look at that particular Pro. I have an i7 13" Pro and the Air handily beats it when it comes to gaming.

By the way- Alienware is not my only option for ultraportable gaming. VAIO Z has a comparable chip to the M11x (GT330M v 335M) yet weighs just 3.0 lbs with a full speed Intel i-series processor. I much prefer my Z over my M11x and certainly over my M17x. Add the Air to that list now.

The condescension of many people on this thread aside, there seems to be a lot of confusion about what people CAN (and are willing to) do on the MBA and what Apple has designed and marketed the MBA TO do. Take one look at the MacBook Air page to see what I mean: http://www.apple.com/macbookair/

The major selling points on this page focus on the machine's thinness, battery, FaceTime, and flash storage. The display is mentioned as well (and it's a gorgeous display, to be sure), but you see no mention of graphics performance. Compare that to the MacBook Pro site (http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/) which features "Game-changing graphics" front and center.

Would I like to squeeze a decent discrete solution into an 11-inch MBA? Of course. Will Apple opt to increase TDP while costing of battery life to maintain decent framerates in FPS's? It doesn't seem likely. The IGP on the SB line is good enough to drive the displays, output 1080p content, and accelerate HD facetime, all while allowing Apple to ditch several cm^2 of prime internal real estate and lowering TDP by a Watt or two (assuming 8W for 320M, SB w/ IGP solution is at least 1W lower).

My hope for the updated 11" Air is a backlit keyboard (which I find indispensable when traveling), a Thunderbolt port (which seems like a definite), a Sandy Bridge cpu, increased SSD sizes (I'd pay for the 256GB in the 11"), and intelligent use of those cm^2 (bigger battery or SD slot, I would hope). If you want the Air to game, it seems likely that the current model with the 320M will suit those needs better than the refreshed models.

For the business-oriented road-warrior/blogger audience - which seems to be among the primary targets of Apple MBA advertising - these changes would provide the best bang-for-the-buck.

(And yes, if you go to the "Performance" page of the MacBook Air site, you see greater emphasis on graphics. The 320M is some nice silicon. But my point stands; this information is relegated to a secondary page. It just isn't the focus. The 320M is nice, but they're treating it like the icing on the cake.)

nebulos
May 4, 2011, 11:53 AM
The condescension of many people on this thread aside, there seems to be a lot of confusion about what people CAN (and are willing to) do on the MBA and what Apple has designed and marketed the MBA TO do. Take one look at the MacBook Air page to see what I mean: http://www.apple.com/macbookair/


my gripe with the 'SB-indignant gamers' is that they think everybody should care more about GPU than CPU.

i care more about CPU than GPU.

the point is, we all have different needs and mine are not, for some mysterious reason, the correct, universal ones.

i could care less what the Air is designed and marketed for. you would also tell me the Air was not designed for processing power. no, its not currently, but Sandy Bridge may well completely change that.

wanting more from technology is what drives innovation. there's nothing wrong with that, it's the name of the game. it's the reason the Air exists at all, (though here we wanted 'less').

and i think you're wrong about the Air users, at least on MR. it sometimes seems like they're ALL gamers, ready to sacrifice almost anything to the 'fps' gods!

(yes, i'm exaggerating!)

iRun26.2
May 4, 2011, 11:54 AM
... then again, putting the better CPU in the 13" MBA makes the 13" MBP pointless for many and begins to confuse product lines. i hope Apple doesn't do something terrible like intentionally cripple the Air. :confused::confused::confused:

If anything, it would appear more that Apple intentionally crippled the 13" MBP! It's display and IGP are not stellar.

nebulos
May 4, 2011, 11:57 AM
If anything, it would appear more that Apple intentionally crippled the 13" MBP! It's display and IGP are not stellar.

i know, which makes me fear they'd do it 'again'.

the ONLY reason i'm on the MBA forum now, waiting desperately for the new Airs, is because the 13 MBP was stuck with 1280x800.

iRun26.2
May 4, 2011, 11:57 AM
I am excited. A 13" sandy bridge MBA is going to be my next purchase. I'll even spend through the nose for a 512 GB SSD if they make one available. Come on Apple, you know you want my damn money.

Exactly!

Come on Apple, I want a 256G SSD for the new 11.6" MBA. My money is ready to be spent (and I know you want it)! :)

strwrsfrk
May 4, 2011, 01:29 PM
my gripe with the 'SB-indignant gamers' is that they think everybody should care more about GPU than CPU.

i care more about CPU than GPU.

the point is, we all have different needs and mine are not, for some mysterious reason, the correct, universal ones.

i could care less what the Air is designed and marketed for. you would also tell me the Air was not designed for processing power. no, its not currently, but Sandy Bridge may well completely change that.

wanting more from technology is what drives innovation. there's nothing wrong with that, it's the name of the game. it's the reason the Air exists at all, (though here we wanted 'less').

and i think you're wrong about the Air users, at least on MR. it sometimes seems like they're ALL gamers, ready to sacrifice almost anything to the 'fps' gods!


From what I've seen of the MR crowd, they are primarily power-users, or those who consider themselves as such. These are people for whom pushing their machines to the limit is the norm. People who are generally in the upper 5% of tech-savvy consumers. In other words, my kind of people.

So yes, I agree with your statement that the MR crowd seems to include many gamers and other GPU-centric individuals.

The problem is, those folks are indeed a smaller percentage of the whole market. You rarely see non-techie consumers on these pages, and if you do, they're generally asking for advice.

Threads such as this fall outside the realm of "imagine your perfect unicorn-type computer." In a mythical world, we could stick that GT540M discrete in an 11" machine rocking 32GB RAM, full 1080p resolution, and a 5GHz hexa-core CPU. But having unrealistic expectations does not drive innovation (okay, maybe once in a while it does).

Generally speaking, the innovation we've seen over the last several decades in the computer world have been driven by optimization. x86 is how old now? Compare our i7's of today to the Pentiums of yesteryear. Ostensibly, these are extremely similar architectures (great-grandfather:great grand-son, as it were); in fact, modern x86 CPUs can natively run a lot of Pentium-era code. What we have is the product of hundreds/thousands/millions of small, innovative changes that have resulted in an unrecognizable product to an early 90's-era Pentium user.

Why does it matter how Apple markets a product? Because it is likely those are the factors they will consider when designing updates. I have no problem with utilizing hardware for other than its "intended purpose"; I just feel like users should not be indignant when changes and updates follow a predictable, practical, and understandable path. The reality of the situation is that if Apple moves in the direction it seems to be indicating, GPU updates will likely not be a priority when optimizations to battery life, heat reduction, and maybe even feature-sets are available.

nebulos
May 4, 2011, 02:00 PM
... not sure i understand your post.

but you seem to agree that Sandy Bridge is the next 'logical' step for the Air.

GOOD!

standrew
May 4, 2011, 05:55 PM
Intel says they will roll out the low voltage cpu for MBAs at the end of this year

retrorichie
May 4, 2011, 06:10 PM
Intel says they will roll out the low voltage cpu for MBAs at the end of this year

Actually they are due out Q3. Which likely means July. And Apple has been known to get Intel parts a week or two ahead of mainstream release.

amarcus
May 4, 2011, 06:56 PM
Intel says they will roll out the low voltage cpu for MBAs at the end of this year

Huh, what do you call the 2657M at 17W including GPU then?

nebulos
May 4, 2011, 09:08 PM
Intel says they will roll out the low voltage cpu for MBAs at the end of this year

yeah, what does this mean?

Look here: Sandy Bridge Mobile CPUs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Bridge#Mobile_processors)

are all these CPUs not out yet?

the i5-2537M is obviously out already, as its used in the Samsung S9.