Intel Promising Faster Integrated Graphics in Next Laptops, But Fast Enough? [Archive]

MacRumors

Jul 7, 2009, 12:48 PM

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/07/07/intel-promising-faster-integrated-graphics-in-next-laptops-but-fast-enough/)

Fudzilla reports (http://www.fudzilla.com/content/view/14526/1/) that the graphics performance of the integrated graphics in Intel's next-generation mobile processors (Arrandale) will exceed the performance of the current Intel mobile platform (Montevina).

As always, Intel codenames can be hard to follow. The Arrandale processors represent the mobile versions (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/02/11/core-i7-nehalem-based-macbook-pros-possible-in-q4-2009/) of Intel's Nehalem processors that were recently introduced into the Mac Pros. Intel then packages these mobile processors into "platforms" which combine a mobile chipset, mobile processor, and wireless network. The platform for Arrandale is called Calpella (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrino#Calpella_platform_.282009.29). Notably, Arrandale is the first mobile processor from Intel to come with integrated graphics processor built-in. As Arrandale represents the next generation mobile processor from Intel, Apple is expected to adopt it in its MacBooks, MacBook Pros, and iMacs in late 2009/early 2010.

According to Fudzilla (http://www.fudzilla.com/content/view/14526/1/), Intel has been "very quiet" about the performance of Arrandale's graphics core, but is telling partners that it "should end up faster" than the existing platforms. Exactly how fast that is remains up for debate. While they may be faster than Intel's previous offerings, Apple has since moved on to NVIDIA-based chipsets which offer much faster graphics performance. The news of Intel's plans, however, have taken on more importance, as it's unclear if NVIDIA will be able to offer its own chipset designs to support the Arrandale processors due to an ongoing licensing disagreement (http://arstechnica.com/hardware/news/2009/02/intel-sues-nvidia-over-chipset-license-agreement.ars).

Apple, of course, is free to add-on discrete graphics cards to its designs, though this is typically reserved for its high-end models due to the additional cost. Meanwhile, Intel is prepping (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/08/04/intel-details-upcoming-gpu-project-larrabee-due-in-2009/) a separate project (Larrabee) that promises to boost graphics performance dramatically and is slated for launch in 2009. Apple is said to be planning on utilizing Larrabee in the future, but in exactly what combination of hardware remains unknown.

MacRumors readers "waiting for Arrandale" have been organizing in this thread (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=668803).

Article Link: Intel Promising Faster Integrated Graphics in Next Laptops, But Fast Enough? (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/07/07/intel-promising-faster-integrated-graphics-in-next-laptops-but-fast-enough/)

Andrew K.

Jul 7, 2009, 12:52 PM

They just upgraded them, can we just chill for a moment? Yeah I know tech moves fast, but before you know we are gonna see upgrades every month :eek:

u49aa2

Jul 7, 2009, 12:55 PM

I can't wait to see the Arrandalle in the next Mac line.

BRLawyer

Jul 7, 2009, 12:57 PM

As always, Intel codenames can be hard to follow.

Truer words couldn't have been said. I don't know what is more stupid: Intel's codename policy itself or the morons that follow it to the letter, always announcing to the world that the next advances will be "spectacular" in comparison with the previous "generation" of overhyped chips...NOT.

jav6454

Jul 7, 2009, 01:00 PM

Too much hype over an Intel graphics release. *sigh* when will Intel learn it can't go against nVidia or ATI? Just stick to making processors and motherboards and those killer SSDs and you will be fine.

syklee26

Jul 7, 2009, 01:01 PM

that's like 300lbs fat boy losing 150lbs and expect him to beat Usain Bolt.

Veinticinco

Jul 7, 2009, 01:07 PM

Anyone else feel a slight chill down their spine? :eek:

This news from Intel is like an asthmatic snail announcing it's quitting the smokes.

emulator

Jul 7, 2009, 01:09 PM

page 3 at best!

BRLawyer

Jul 7, 2009, 01:15 PM

page 3 at best!

So, how many STUPID Intel codenames are mentioned in the article? I lost count, sorry.

apfhex

Jul 7, 2009, 01:16 PM

talkingfuture

Jul 7, 2009, 01:17 PM

I suppose its good for Apple that they will have a choice of what to use. I think it may be a while before we see anything though after the recent bumps.

Wikinerd

Jul 7, 2009, 01:20 PM

The news of Intel's plans, however, have taken on more importance, as it's unclear if NVIDIA will be able to offer its own chipset designs to support the Arrandale processors due to an ongoing licensing disagreement (http://arstechnica.com/hardware/news/2009/02/intel-sues-nvidia-over-chipset-license-agreement.ars).

That might attract a bit of flak about anticompetitive practices...

Esp. since the consumer is usually the one hurt... (Yes, yes, I'm suffering from Intel's Integrated chipset...)

gkarris

Jul 7, 2009, 01:21 PM

A Nahelem Capella Arondale whata whata??? :eek:

:confused:

designgeek

Jul 7, 2009, 01:25 PM

that's like 300lbs fat boy losing 150lbs and expect him to beat Usain Bolt.

totally. "but will it be fast enough?" probably not.

deconstruct60

Jul 7, 2009, 01:27 PM

As always, Intel codenames can be hard to follow. The Arrandale processors represent the mobile versions (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/02/11/core-i7-nehalem-based-macbook-pros-possible-in-q4-2009/) of Intel's Nehalem processors that were recently introduced into the Mac Pros.

While Arrandale are mobile they are not the only mobile Nehalem era processors. Before Intel's recent announcement about i3, i5 , i7 branding
( http://news.cnet.com/8301-13924_3-10266536-64.html ) and the release of the Xeon class Nahalems it was casual to refer to Nehalem era processors as 'i7' because that was the only one out at that time (as hot running desktop oriented offering). Arrandale is not going to be i7 in the current context/branding. More likely i3 (maybe i5 but doubtful. ).

There is an i7 branded mobile processor but that is codenamed Clarksfield. (quad core). This should arrive before Arrandale since they've already been demoed (http://techreport.com/discussions.x/17012). Just like the quad core Peryn didn't show up in Macs (beside the Mac Pro), not very likely the quad core i7 will either.

As Arrandale represents the next generation mobile processor from Intel, Apple is expected to adopt it in its MacBooks, MacBook Pros, and iMacs in late 2009/early 2010.

The next generation that has similar power/thermal aspects for these form factors. The chip labeled this fall as "i7 mobile" will most likely be too hot (and doesn't have integrated graphics).

pika2000

Jul 7, 2009, 01:27 PM

ntel has been "very quiet" about the performance of Arrandale's graphics core, but is telling partners that it "should end up faster" than the existing platforms.
LOL. Yeah, anything will be faster than the GMA950. :rolleyes:

Westside guy

Jul 7, 2009, 01:32 PM

All I can say is - in the short time I've been using it, I've been impressed with the 9400M chipset's performance. Intel has some significant ground to make up.

windywoo

Jul 7, 2009, 01:32 PM

LOL. Yeah, anything will be faster than the GMA950. :rolleyes:

Yeah when they say existing solutions do they mean their own or somebody else's? Its not much of a stretch to beat their own, but there is a significant gap between their own graphics and ATI/nVidia. I doubt moving the graphics on to chip would close that gap.

deconstruct60

Jul 7, 2009, 01:36 PM

That might attract a bit of flak about anticompetitive practices...

Esp. since the consumer is usually the one hurt... (Yes, yes, I'm suffering from Intel's Integrated chipset...)

Not really. It is primarily a dispute over what did or did not already pay for. Intel is willing the license for more money. Nvidia says they already bought it when they licensed southbridge stuff of previous generation and the associated North-Southbridge interface called DMI.

It seems as though Intel is being a bit swarmy and wants folks to license QPI + DMI as some separate package deal.

Nvidia will be boxed in badly though if they don't have QPI.

So is Nividia repaying for DMI as second time or can get a discount for that and get QPI at a more reasonable price? Or does Intel gets to double dip or just price QPI so unreasonably so that nobody will buy it?

Intel wins anyway if eventually caves because if can throw FUD on Nvidia's efforts (and stop design wins for Nvidia) for several months that is all the head start they need.

But yes.... it is wasted money on lawyers that ultimately consumers will have to eventually pick up the bill on.

firegun9

Jul 7, 2009, 01:40 PM

Intel, stop deterring the development of integrated GPU.
Let it go.

I doubt they'll have integrated GPUs outperforming Nvidia 9400m until mid 2010. We'll probably be forced to accept a poor GPU with the new CPU.

pdeli

Jul 7, 2009, 01:42 PM

NinjaHERO

Jul 7, 2009, 01:46 PM

I have no idea what any of that means....but yeah I like more speed. Keep it coming.

Kat King123

Jul 7, 2009, 02:03 PM

meh im a nvidia fan boy anyways:D

mcnaugha

Jul 7, 2009, 02:06 PM

While Arrandale are mobile they are not the only mobile Nehalem era processors. Before Intel's recent announcement about i3, i5 , i7 branding
( http://news.cnet.com/8301-13924_3-10266536-64.html ) and the release of the Xeon class Nahalems it was casual to refer to Nehalem era processors as 'i7' because that was the only one out at that time (as hot running desktop oriented offering). Arrandale is not going to be i7 in the current context/branding. More likely i3 (maybe i5 but doubtful. ).

There is an i7 branded mobile processor but that is codenamed Clarksfield. (quad core). This should arrive before Arrandale since they've already been demoed (http://techreport.com/discussions.x/17012). Just like the quad core Peryn didn't show up in Macs (beside the Mac Pro), not very likely the quad core i7 will either.

The next generation that has similar power/thermal aspects for these form factors. The chip labeled this fall as "i7 mobile" will most likely be too hot (and doesn't have integrated graphics).

Thank God at least one poster has more of a clue than the author of this article. Why oh why are Mac sites so crap with understanding the Intel product roadmaps and codenames??? Sweeping statements made that are completely WRONG. Arrandale is nearly NOTHING like the Mac Pro Xeon processors. Sheesh. Anyone with even the slightest clue knew that Clarksfield (45nm) Quad Core is the Mobile variant of the processors found in the Mac Pro. Arrandale (32nm) DUAL core is a whole other leap beyond Clarksfield based on a dramatic process shrink and the integration of a GPU. You are unlikely to see a Xeon with an integrated GPU EVER. Clarksfield is aimed at the high-end Mobile market and Arrandale is mainstream/value market.

I for one will be extremely disappointed in Apple if it doesn't use Clarksfield in MacBook Pro and iMac. Arrandale is a MacBook-level processor IMHO.

Hattig

Jul 7, 2009, 02:08 PM

Well Larrabee initially is going to be a bulky hot beast, so it won't be suitable for laptops.

Maybe they could create a variant 1/4 of the size, running at half the speed. But that's going to be a fraction of the performance of a Radeon 4770.

xIGmanIx

Jul 7, 2009, 02:16 PM

Truer words couldn't have been said. I don't know what is more stupid: Intel's codename policy itself or the morons that follow it to the letter, always announcing to the world that the next advances will be "spectacular" in comparison with the previous "generation" of overhyped chips...NOT.

As opposed to the more rationale Apple fans who follow Apple's well published road map.

Edit: I welcome any news that isn't iPhone related :eek:

thedarkhorse

Jul 7, 2009, 02:17 PM

it doesn't matter if it's faster than their own current integrated graphics, it's gotta beat out nvidia/ati or else it's gonna be quite the downgrade if apple moves back.

deconstruct60

Jul 7, 2009, 02:20 PM

Having an integrated graphic chip built-in the processor for mobile and/or light graphic usage and the discrete/dedicated on-board graphic chip for tethered/heavy(ier) graphics processing power...

a little bit like today's MBP 15" and 17" with a the NVIDIA GeForce 9400M and its integrated memory use, yet separate graphics chip and the NVIDIA GeForce 9600M GT graphics processor with 256/512MB of GDDR3 memory...

to me it would make sense. less space, perhaps less power than having two separate GPUs and the setup would finally fit a 13" MBP.

What do you think?

Cheers all.

1. The graphics processor isn't really built into the chip. It is two separate chip, dies, placed inside of one package. In the sense you are putting two dies inside of one package, yeah that saves space by itself. However, that isn't the only functionality being incorporated into the Arrandale package.

2. The 9400M already does this. Only it is the 'chips' to handle the other I/O, memory, and the graphics all go into one package. So the 15" and 17" need the 9400M not only to do graphics but to do USB, talked to the disk, etc.
[ Arrandale slides the memory and graphics to a different package. but doesn't pull out everything the 9400M does. ]

3. If Arrandale is paired with with a discrete chip haven't saved huge space.

upper end 15" and 17" now.

Core2 Duo package + 9400M package + 9600M + video RAM.

later
Arrrandale package + southbridge I/O package + discrete video + video RAM.

perhaps some difference in 9400M and southbridge package size. However to some extent just done a balloon squeeze. Some pinout complexity goes to the CPU package and some leaves the I/O package. The stuff these two packages as a set are connected to on the outside didn't really change much.

Likewise for the low end 15" and 13". Just take off the last two elements of the above. Still left with the same number of packages and in total the same number of pin out connections. ( actually maybe more depending on how the Analog/Digital output is done from the Arrandale IGP. )

SirOmega

Jul 7, 2009, 02:35 PM

I for one will be extremely disappointed in Apple if it doesn't use Clarksfield in MacBook Pro and iMac. Arrandale is a MacBook-level processor IMHO.

iMac maybe, Fudzilla is also reporting that Clarksfield is 45W. An iMac could be engineered to handle that power level, but I'd burn my legs with that in a 13" or 15" MBP.

I'm far more interested in the Ion2 for both C2D chips and nehalem-based chips. The Ion2 has 2x the graphics performance of the 9400M. So you'd get graphics close to what the 9600M GT offers now but in a cheaper single package.

deconstruct60

Jul 7, 2009, 02:59 PM

I for one will be extremely disappointed in Apple if it doesn't use Clarksfield in MacBook Pro and iMac. Arrandale is a MacBook-level processor IMHO.

As said unlikely. Unless Apple gives up on thickness/volume , battery volume, and a few other constraints/features of the current line, then likely will have major thermal problems in a mode where the discrete graphics are going full blast along with the CPU inside the container. I for one don't want a computer that craps out over an extended period of time when push it hard.

If you look carefully at that demo laptop that had Clarksfield it may look "somewhat thin" but that that thing is huge relative to the MBPs 15". There is a built in physical numeric keypad. That likley means wider. Wouldn't be surprised if it died after 3-4 hours being unplugged too.

It is possible to build some quality laptop with Clarksfield. I just just think Apple puts a number of non-CPU oriented constraints on the laptop design that will preclude that happening.

iMacs there is a bit more wiggle room, but again Apple's dogmatic "keep the design constraints streamlined for themselves" is going to be a counter acting force. Apple seems to be institutionalizing that. Getting tweaked over folks acting like what they act like ... just setting yourself up for mismatched expectations.

Just like Intel will give you a roadmap of what is up for the next 12 months, Apple will not. Not even for products that might have something like a 12 month sales cycle. One day you wake up and "surprise" ! That is how they do business.

With an Arrandale processor the next iMac would be faster than the current iMac. Apple will sell that aspect.

iMacmatician

Jul 7, 2009, 02:59 PM

iMac maybe, Fudzilla is also reporting that Clarksfield is 45W. An iMac could be engineered to handle that power level, but I'd burn my legs with that in a 13" or 15" MBP.45 W Clarksfield ≈ 35 W Penryn.

With an Arrandale processor the next iMac would be faster than the current iMac. Apple will sell that aspect.Clarksfield is more possible with the iMac than the MacBook Pro but I still don't think we'll see it in the iMac. And I think they'll emphasize the CPU and de-emphasize the GPU with Arrandale.

Warbrain

Jul 7, 2009, 03:00 PM

I'm interested but I'm not going to get too overly excited until I see them.

notsofatjames

Jul 7, 2009, 03:03 PM

gkarris

Jul 7, 2009, 03:06 PM

LOL. Yeah, anything will be faster than the GMA950. :rolleyes:

Intel, stop deterring the development of integrated GPU.
Let it go.

I doubt they'll have integrated GPUs outperforming Nvidia 9400m until mid 2010. We'll probably be forced to accept a poor GPU with the new CPU.

People are still happily buying NetBooks with not only a whimpy CPU (Atom) but with the GMA950 as well... :eek:

deconstruct60

Jul 7, 2009, 03:07 PM

I'm far more interested in the Ion2 for both C2D chips and nehalem-based chips. The Ion2 has 2x the graphics performance of the 9400M. .

Ion2, like the 9400M, incorporates a memory controller. Have to look past graphics and at the whole picture. The mismatch with the placement of the memory controller with the Nehalem-based chips is a problem.

Ion2 is aimed at the hot Mobile Internet Device market. So far Apple's answer for that is "iPod". That means ARM which, again, means Ion2 isn't a player.

If Apple tries to stretch out the Mac mini forever like the last cycle ... maybe the straggling C2D it will probably have would get matched to Ion2. ;-)

iMacmatician

Jul 7, 2009, 03:08 PM

Ion2, like the 9400M, incorporates a memory controller. Have to look past graphics and at the whole picture. The mismatch with the placement with the memory controller with the Nehalem-based chips is a problem.

Ion2 is aimed at the hot Mobile Internet Device market. So far Apple's answer for that is "iPod". That means ARM which, again, means Ion2 isn't a player.

Apple tries to stretch out the Mac mini forever like the last cycle ... maybe the straggling C2D it will probably have would get matched to Ion2. ;-)What about the Apple tv?

deconstruct60

Jul 7, 2009, 03:18 PM

People are still happily buying NetBooks with not only a whimpy CPU (Atom) but with the GMA950 as well... :eek:

Intel is moving the cannonical pairing for the Atom to the GMA500 ( which is powervr based ). Not sure people are "happy" with the GMA950 as much as tolerate it on netbooks. There wouldn't be the loud buzz about the Atom+Ion pairing if folks were truely happy with the GMA950 solution.

The 950 is old, which means less expensive at this point. If folks are happy it also is for the money left over still in their pocket.

Beerfloat

Jul 7, 2009, 03:58 PM

Thank God at least one poster has more of a clue than the author of this article. Why oh why are Mac sites so crap with understanding the Intel product roadmaps and codenames??? Sweeping statements made that are completely WRONG. Arrandale is nearly NOTHING like the Mac Pro Xeon processors. Sheesh.

Shh relax sit down for a bit, or your heart attack might have a heart attack itself soon. We didn't know you cared, alright? We apologise profusely.

deconstruct60

Jul 7, 2009, 04:05 PM

What about the Apple tv?

You mean the sub $400 computer that Apple sells, but can't "really" sell because all sub $400 computers are crap and Apple can't possibly make one? LOL :-)

Yeah Atom and Ion2/Ion might make sense. Intel isn't going to make that ancient Pentium forever (some older chips are going to start to get dumped with the upcoming new branding effort) . Neither is Nvidia going to make that ancient GeForce either. More likely Ion/9400M since it will become "old" and hence cost less. Plus Apple would have tons of experience with it at that point (can reuse all the optimized code already built).

Assuming that the low end Atom's price drops to that of the ancient Pentium M 1.0 GHz they are using. Also assuming can get inexpensive component out with the 9400M graphics abilities. In short, if the component costs are approximately the same, they'll do it.

Also don't think they'd do Ion2 because more folks probably would hack them as "even less expensive" Mac mini's.

However, if Intel adds even basic hardware support for decoding HD class video they also could be a player for this device.

DELLsFan

Jul 7, 2009, 04:09 PM

I can't wait to see the Arrandalle in the next Mac line.

I can. There is nothing about Intel Graphics that even remotely excites me. They have long been the bottleneck in any serious discussion of computer graphics ... and I think - always will be.

BJB Productions

Jul 7, 2009, 04:13 PM

They just upgraded them, can we just chill for a moment? Yeah I know tech moves fast, but before you know we are gonna see upgrades every month :eek:

Haha, took the words right out of my mouth! :)

fun173

Jul 7, 2009, 04:27 PM

Intel, just stop please stick to processors i don't want your graphics!!!!!!!

wywern209

Jul 7, 2009, 04:27 PM

i can see apple placing the clarksfield in the 15 in and 17 in macbook pros because due to the smaller size of the manufacturing process , a 45W clarksfield might not run as hot as a 45W penryn. but arrandale does seem likely for the macbooks because of lower hear consumption.

wywern209

Jul 7, 2009, 04:28 PM

Intel, just stop please stick to processors i don't want your graphics!!!!!!!

heck yes. please just let nvidia and ati do its thing and intel u do urs .SSD and processors.

fun173

Jul 7, 2009, 04:38 PM

You mean the sub $400 computer that Apple sells, but can't "really" sell because all sub $400 computers are crap and Apple can't possibly make one? LOL :-)

Yeah Atom and Ion2/Ion might make sense. Intel isn't going to make that ancient Pentium forever (some older chips are going to start to get dumped with the upcoming new branding effort) . Neither is Nvidia going to make that ancient GeForce either. More likely Ion/9400M since it will become "old" and hence cost less. Plus Apple would have tons of experience with it at that point (can reuse all the optimized code already built).

Assuming that the low end Atom's price drops to that of the ancient Pentium M 1.0 GHz they are using. Also assuming can get inexpensive component out with the 9400M graphics abilities. In short, if the component costs are approximately the same, they'll do it.

Also don't think they'd do Ion2 because more folks probably would hack them as "even less expensive" Mac mini's.

However, if Intel adds even basic hardware support for decoding HD class video they also could be a player for this device.

whats wrong with a 1 Ghz pentiun m? lol and the geforce go 7300? lol

Edit: and 256 MB of 400 MHz ram

SirOmega

Jul 7, 2009, 04:48 PM

Ion2, like the 9400M, incorporates a memory controller. Have to look past graphics and at the whole picture. The mismatch with the placement of the memory controller with the Nehalem-based chips is a problem.

Ion2 is aimed at the hot Mobile Internet Device market. So far Apple's answer for that is "iPod". That means ARM which, again, means Ion2 isn't a player.

If Apple tries to stretch out the Mac mini forever like the last cycle ... maybe the straggling C2D it will probably have would get matched to Ion2. ;-)

Yea, so Nvidia just turns off the memory controller. Big whoop. Maybe they spin a second chip w/o the IMC and go from there. The point was graphics performance - getting 40SPs (or whatever Nvidia calls them) is what counts.

SirOmega

Jul 7, 2009, 04:50 PM

45 W Clarksfield ≈ 35 W Penryn.

Says who?

Those W ratings are Intel's suggestion as to how much power you should expect the chip to dissipate. I'd use those as a good target as to what kind of enclosures you can put them in.

deconstruct60

Jul 7, 2009, 04:59 PM

... , a 45W clarksfield might not run as hot as a 45W penryn. but arrandale does seem likely for the macbooks because of lower hear consumption.

Errr... if both chips packages have a TDP of 45W then that the design envelope you have to work with. Thermal Design Point is chip geometry agnostic.

You can do a cheesy design where counted on users not going to max power much and cut the power management corners. I don't see paying a price premium for such a device though. For instance, could count on most users not having 4 core problems. Many users wouldn't have problem because never really ran something that consumed 4 cores for any substantive period of time anytime. However, customers who buy and use the machine to its abilities would crap out if designed using the "it really isn't 45W" as constraint.

I bet a whole truckload of Clarksfield laptops sold by some manufacturers this Fall crap out 2-3 years from now (most of them after the warrantee expires).

Arrandale has a 45nm graphics chip in there with a 32nm CPU cores. Penryn and the graphics die ... same tech. Going to have similar TDP.

Intel doesn't just shrink with Arrandale but they also threw a bunch more "stuff" in there. Memory controller, etc. . If don't add anything (more cache , more math circuits , more formerly off die functionality, etc. ) then a shrink typically gets you less power consumption. That isn't what is being done.

iAlexG

Jul 7, 2009, 05:01 PM

I dual set up of NVidia cards would be great in the 13" Pro but i'm under the impression that there is not enough room on the logic board? Anyway, Apple should stay with NVidia and upgrade next year 512mb in the Pro's as standard?

iMacmatician

Jul 7, 2009, 05:23 PM

Says who? This (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=8025532&postcount=127) post (if I'm reading it right) and this (http://74.125.115.132/translate_c?hl=en&sl=zh-TW&u=http://global.hkepc.com/568/page/5&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dhkepc%2Bnehalem%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Dactive&rurl=translate.google.com&usg=ALkJrhgop0nPcfIBo8BbLHJfGpOdXERH_w#view).

http://global.hkepc.com/database/images/2008010318162686619217610.jpg

deconstruct60

Jul 7, 2009, 05:23 PM

Yea, so Nvidia just turns off the memory controller. Big whoop. Maybe they spin a second chip w/o the IMC and go from there. The point was graphics performance - getting 40SPs (or whatever Nvidia calls them) is what counts.

You are not very likely to get improved integrated graphics performance that is worth a whole lot if move the graphics processors farther away from memory.
Especially if you are stuck with the DMI bus (which are all the lower end Nehalems offer.) QPI perhaps, but Nvidia doesn't have access to that.

It is doable but going to take a performance hit.

If try to add a localized IMC just for the video ram. ....... what you have is a basically a discrete graphics processor. Again putting one of those on the other side of DMI bus ... you have got bottlenecking issues (but reduced to getting the data into localized video RAM). Perhaps "good enough" if your computers "outbound" I/O traffic isn't very high the vast majority of the time. However, won't be able to walk and chew gum at the same time ( stream data to your SSD disk and do intensive 3D).

Could Nvidia do it? It is possible, just not probable. Will it outshine what Intel is offering ??? Probably not.

One, when your key "go to market" strategy is counting on Intel to screw up, long term that is doomed. Sure historically it has been crappy but has been getting better with each iteration. Intel is progressing and devoting more silicon at each step (and incrementally learning to do software better).

Second Clarksfields got a PCI-e 8x or 16x that can be used to hook to a discrete offering. If user has got quad core problems they probably also have discrete graphics problems. So just skip the integrated graphics all together (just don't offer the "save battery" mode with slower graphics). Sure there are some designs don't fit into, but those can often be Arrandale wins. All Intel has to do is make the niche relatively small enough not to support Nvidia building a specialized chipset for a relatively narrow niche. Not convinced Nvidia wants to be a niche southbridge chipset vendor.

In the case of the Arrandale, it is dubious to put two integrated graphics solutions onto the same board. Plus, it also affords the PCI-e 8/16x option.

Andrew K.

Jul 7, 2009, 05:25 PM

Haha, took the words right out of my mouth! :)

We got alot in common! I have the same 15" MBP config! LOL

slu

Jul 7, 2009, 05:59 PM

badNameErr

Jul 7, 2009, 06:10 PM

I can't wait to see the Arrandalle in the next Mac line.

+1

Bring on the 32nm goodness!

JohnnyLemonhead

Jul 7, 2009, 06:47 PM

Noooooo! I love my (discrete) 256MB nVidia 9400M! Don't go back to integrated Intel GPUs!

twoodcc

Jul 7, 2009, 06:48 PM

it seems that they just switched away from intel chipsets? i think it might be too early to switch back, but you never know

Bregalad

Jul 7, 2009, 06:53 PM

LOL. Yeah, anything will be faster than the GMA950. :rolleyes:

Yes, but even Intel has moved way beyond the GMA950. The MacBook moved to the 3100 and would have gone to the 4500 last year if Apple hadn't already planned to move to nVidia. The G55 will be another step up, but still no match for what their competitors offer.

If Intel succeeds in blocking nVidia from offering compatible chipsets Apple will probably cripple their entry level machines with the G55 and use discrete graphics in all the other machines. After all there is a class of people for whom simply drawing 2D images and rendering smooth low res video is all they need. Such people wouldn't notice the difference between a G55 and an nVidia 285GTX.

munkees

Jul 7, 2009, 06:57 PM

my guess on the iMac there will be higher end models offering other video choices.

We shall have to wait and see what this IGP from intel is like, but I not holding my breath.

xVeinx

Jul 7, 2009, 07:03 PM

Shiner

Jul 7, 2009, 07:08 PM

Noooooo! I love my (discrete) 256MB nVidia 9400M! Don't go back to integrated Intel GPUs!

Discrete graphic card is a whole different beast. Lets watch the terms we are using. The 9400M is still integrated and it is still a piece of crap.

JohnnyLemonhead

Jul 7, 2009, 07:16 PM

Discrete graphic card is a whole different beast. Lets watch the terms we are using. The 9400M is still integrated and it is still a piece of crap.

Wrong. It is technically discrete but it shares ram with the system so many people write it off as integrated. The Intel version was truly integrated with the CPU. The 9400M is not. It's discrete.

I watched all of that before I typed it, as I typed it, and after I typed it. It has been watched.

AidenShaw

Jul 7, 2009, 07:22 PM

Wrong. It is technically discrete but it shares ram with the system so many people write it off as integrated. The Intel version was truly integrated with the CPU. The 9400M is not. It's discrete.

The Intel GMA GPUs are not integrated with the CPU.

They're integrated with the Northbridge, like the 9400M.

"Discrete" means a separate GPU chip, not GPU integrated into the Northbridge.

Bregalad

Jul 7, 2009, 07:23 PM

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 2_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/525.18.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.1.1 Mobile/5H11 Safari/525.20)

It will never be fast enough for the complainers on this forum that have been complaining about the graphics cards on all Macs since I joined this forum. These same people who never use their machine for anything other than email, web, and watching video.

Until Snow Leopard ships you can lump me in that category, but I've always had a solid reason (in my mind) for complaining. Desktop PCs generally ship with integrated graphics like Macs do, but they have always offered a slot (PCI, AGP, PCIe) for those who wanted more. A mere $50 has always bought iMac-like graphics and $200 will put a serious GPU into even the cheapest PC. Apple sticks you with crap and then wants exorbitant money for a mediocre build-to-order upgrade.

Those issues were previously only important to gamers and 3D pros, but now that the world has CUDA, OpenCL, etc. the importance of the graphics engine has taken two steps up the ladder. The stream processing power of your GPU may one day be more important than the speed of the main CPU. The amount of RAM available to the GPU is also going to be much more important than in the past since CUDA requires dedicated RAM that cannot then be used for textures or any other graphics routine. Apple's habit of shipping machines with only half the VRAM found on bargain priced PCIe cards is going to create an artificial bottleneck for OpenCL.

For a premium priced computer brand there is rarely anything premium about a Mac except its OS and enclosure.

Mackan

Jul 7, 2009, 07:37 PM

Isn't the TDP higher with these new processors? Wonder how that plays out in Apple's thin notebooks.

Bregalad

Jul 7, 2009, 07:47 PM

The Intel GMA GPUs are not integrated with the CPU.

They're integrated with the Northbridge, like the 9400M.

"Discrete" means a separate GPU chip, not GPU integrated into the Northbridge.

Nehalem moves the Northbridge into the same package as the CPU. This eliminates the opportunity for other companies to make Northbridge chips in competition with Intel. Any manufacturer using an Arrandale chip will be forced to use the integrated Northbridge as a memory controller. From what I've read it will be inefficient to use an external GPU so most Arrandale based machines will be stuck with Intel graphics too. Any manufacturer wanting a better GPU will be forced to buy a more expensive Intel processor that provides QPI connections. Intel wins, everyone else (including you and I) lose.

xVeinx

Jul 7, 2009, 07:57 PM

Those issues were previously only important to gamers and 3D pros, but now that the world has CUDA, OpenCL, etc. the importance of the graphics engine has taken two steps up the ladder. The stream processing power of your GPU may one day be more important than the speed of the main CPU. The amount of RAM available to the GPU is also going to be much more important than in the past since CUDA requires dedicated RAM that cannot then be used for textures or any other graphics routine. Apple's habit of shipping machines with only half the VRAM found on bargain priced PCIe cards is going to create an artificial bottleneck for OpenCL.

CUDA and OpenCL allow for speeding up certain types of computations. At least based on the current GPU architecture, the GPU/Stream processors will never be more important than your CPU, as the GPU is far too limited. On the other hand, they are useful for calculations that can be well threaded, don't require any recursion, etc. CUDA and OpenCL are useful in the sciences, financial industry, or for video/rendering software. They have a lot of power there. Hence, Adobe has been making use of it. Adobe's implementation is the only real significant consumer app though.

The crux of the issue is that serious GPU accelerated applications will drive the GPU much harder than typical graphics even, causing the GPU to run much hotter than in normal situations. As well, discrete GPUs of any type aren't worth much for CUDA any more than the typical integrated are in the Apple notebooks. Your not going to be running the CUDA ported NAMD software to run molecular dynamics sims on your 17in Macbook pro any more than you would your macbook. That may be an extreme example of course, but the point is that short of little boosts here and there, I don't anticipate any useful GPU-accelerated applications that won't require a mac pro to use.

mjteix

Jul 7, 2009, 08:41 PM

The arrandale processors have the memory controller along with the graphics core at 45 nm, with the dual core processor at 32nm all on the same package (MCM-like design). There is no need for nvidia to provide a memory controller. As Deconstruct has pointed out, there aren't any pci-e lanes available on the arrandale package, and the DMI interface only (theoretically) has enough bandwidth for the io/PCH. This effectively locks out nvidia (and ATI) entirely for the low-end processors unless Apple gets Intel to design a special processor for them again.

The higher end notebooks will have the processors with pci-e lanes available for discrete processors, so nvidia can still provide the discrete units if Apple so wishes.

The thermal specs on the newer processors looks to be about the same as the previous generation if the leaked info around the web is any indication. Current i7 processors give off about as much heat as the previous generation with HT disabled, and the 32nm seem to be similar as well due to added transistors. All that to say, if the mobile quads were too much heat for Apple before, they will be now as well.

Even if you know a lot about some things, you can be mistaken.

Every Arrandale cpu will have 16x PCIe connections on the cpu in order to allow the use of dedicated graphics chips. So Arrandale doesn't lock out any gpu maker to offer solutions for PCs or Apple.

On that subject, ATI and nvidia are moving to a 40nm process for gpus and ATI already has embedded dedicated graphics chips (GPU + VRAM on the same package, reducing the "real estate" needed to integrate dedicated gpus to small motherboards, like the E4690).

Since Arrandale IOH (southbridge) will/can be much smaller (probably down to 16mmx16mm) than the 9400M chipset (35mmx35mm), I think that Apple can manage to put Arrandale + IOH + dedicated GPU + VRAM on most Macs (except perhaps the MBA, and yet...).

Nehalem moves the Northbridge into the same package as the CPU. This eliminates the opportunity for other companies to make Northbridge chips in competition with Intel. Any manufacturer using an Arrandale chip will be forced to use the integrated Northbridge as a memory controller. From what I've read it will be inefficient to use an external GPU so most Arrandale based machines will be stuck with Intel graphics too. Any manufacturer wanting a better GPU will be forced to buy a more expensive Intel processor that provides QPI connections. Intel wins, everyone else (including you and I) lose.

Not true. BS. Cheap shot. One of the key features (http://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/2009/0212/intel_14.jpg) of Arrandale is: "Integrated, discreet / switchable graphics support".

http://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/img/pcw/docs/296/395/kaigai5_s.gif bigger version (http://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/img/pcw/docs/296/395/html/kaigai5.jpg.html)

commander.data

Jul 7, 2009, 10:05 PM

Macrumours is great for getting tid-bits of pertinent news, but the short length of articles makes it very clear that most users don't have enough information to draw accurate conclusions.

On naming, Clarksfield is a 45nm quad core mobile Nehalem based chip launching in Q3 2009. It has an integrated dual channel memory controller and an integrated PCIe x16 controller. Arrandale is a 32nm dual core mobile Nehalem based chip launching in Q4 2009. It has an integrated dual channel memory controller, an integrated PCIe x16 controller, and the controversial IGP. Essentially both Clarksfield and Arrandale integrate a CPU + northbridge.

This leads directly to TDP discussions. Current regular Intel Penryn mobile chips are available in 25W, 35W TDPs and 45W for Extreme Editions. This is just for the CPU. The northbridge part of the chipset is usually a bit above 10W TDP, more-so for northbridges with IGPs like the 9400M. Clarksfield will come in 55W Extreme Edition, 45W TDP standard edition while Arrandale will be in 45W and 35W TDP varieties. Since they both are CPU+Northbridge, overall power consumption is unchanged. Apple laptops can use up to 45W Clarksfield or Arrandale and iMacs can use 55W Clarksfields.

Now since Clarksfield and Arrandale integrate the northbridge, notably the PCIe x16 controller for discrete graphics cards, they do not have a high-speed QPI link like Bloomfield Core i7 on desktop. Clarksfield and Arrandale only have a low-speed DMI link to connect to a southbridge for things like SATA, USB, and Ethernet controllers. The limitation that most comes to mind for third-party IGPs like from nVidia is not Arrandale already having an IGP or Nehalem chipset licensing, but the fact that the DMI link does not have the bandwidth to support an IGP integrated into the southbridge trying to access shared system memory which is now on the CPU. An off chip IGP will be bandwidth starved.

Alternatives are for an IGP equipped (nVidia) southbridge to include it's own memory controller and include a small pool of dedicated graphics memory, 64-bit with 64MB or 128MB of DDR2, like AMD's Sideport or previous nVidia TurboCache designs. The problem with this approach is that you are adding cost, duplicating functionality, and using more motherboard area which all go against the point of using an IGP, especially for Apple.

Another way is to link an IGP equipped southbridge through both the DMI links and the PCIe x16 links that would otherwise go to a discrete GPU. This would of course prevent the usage of a discrete GPU which is problematic for the higher-end MacBook Pro and PC desktop chipsets that nVidia would be targetting. nVidia could then implement some type of switch, but that would again add cost, hardware and software complexity, and increase motherboard area.

It seems likely that if nVidia were to try to make an IGP for Arrandale or Clarksfield, it'll either be bandwidth linked through only DMI or will be some sort of less elegant compromise. This means it isn't unreasonable for Apple to seriously consider going back to Intel IGPs.

In terms of Arrandale's IGP, wild speculation on my part would put it's performance on par with the 9400M, perhaps a bit better. While the GMA X3100 was made on a 90nm process, the GMA X4500 was made on a 65nm process. Intel could have used the shrink to double stream processor count, but instead it only increased from 8 to 10 meaning they were already conservative by not using all the potential available to them. Arrandale's IGP will be further shrunk to 45nm, so Intel certainly has the ability to give it at least 16 stream processors or up to 32 stream processors without significantly increasing die area if they are really serious about performance. Thermals should controllable since the 45nm process has been remarkably successful and mature compared to the problematic 90nm process. If Intel were to promise 9400M level performance and OpenCL support in their IGP, I can see Apple deciding to cut their losses over nVidia's IGP uncertainty and just use what is already in Arrandale anyways. Apple could of course try to smooth any hurt nVidia feelings by continuing to use nVidia discrete GPUs, perhaps expanding it into the high-end 13.3" MacBook Pro if possible.

ezekielrage_99

Jul 7, 2009, 10:06 PM

The only decent graphics card Intel made was the i740...

xVeinx

Jul 7, 2009, 10:18 PM

Even if you know a lot about some things, you can be mistaken.

And I am indeed mistaken . I wasn't paying enough attention to some old diagrams I had seen awhile back, my apologies for the misinformation.

iMacmatician

Jul 7, 2009, 10:21 PM

This leads directly to TDP discussions. Current regular Intel Penryn mobile chips are available in 25W, 35W TDPs and 45W for Extreme Editions. This is just for the CPU. The northbridge part of the chipset is usually a bit above 10W TDP, more-so for northbridges with IGPs like the 9400M. Clarksfield will come in 55W Extreme Edition, 45W TDP standard edition while Arrandale will be in 45W and 35W TDP varieties. Since they both are CPU+Northbridge, overall power consumption is unchanged. Apple laptops can use up to 45W Clarksfield or Arrandale and iMacs can use 55W Clarksfields.Thanks for the good info. Hope that clears TDPs up. Although according to this (http://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/img/pcw/docs/296/395/html/kaigai1.jpg.html), there doesn't seem to be any 45 W Arrandales.

AidenShaw

Jul 7, 2009, 11:00 PM

Nehalem moves the Northbridge into the same package as the CPU.

The memory controller moves into the CPU package - the rest of the Northbridge does not.

Any manufacturer using an Arrandale chip will be forced to use the integrated Northbridge as a memory controller. From what I've read it will be inefficient to use an external GPU so most Arrandale based machines will be stuck with Intel graphics too. Any manufacturer wanting a better GPU will be forced to buy a more expensive Intel processor that provides QPI connections.

Arrandale is the "value" package - low price, medium performance, high integration. Yes, if you want higher performance, you don't want Intel's "value" line. It's been that way for years.

Intel wins, everyone else (including you and I) lose.

People who want value (reasonable performance, reasonable price) win. People who want better performance (higher performance, higher price) win too - but they don't buy Arrandale.

The killer issue for Apple people is the fear that Apple's perverse obsession with thin computers will mean that Apple will pick the lower performance Arrandale for its TDP for the MacBookPro - and emasculate the entire lineup for "thin".

People who don't like that need to tell Phil "screw the 'thin' crap, give us some quad core systems that can do some real work - and we don't care if they're 3.5 cm thick and weigh 4 kilos!".

commander.data

Jul 7, 2009, 11:24 PM

Thanks for the good info. Hope that clears TDPs up. Although according to this (http://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/img/pcw/docs/296/395/html/kaigai1.jpg.html), there doesn't seem to be any 45 W Arrandales.
Yes, you are probably right that there won't be 45W Arrandales. Although that does leave the interesting alternative, that Apple could use this thermal room to ask Intel to make special Arrandales for them with overclocked GPUs to take full advantage of the 45W TDP, while other OEMs just use the stock 35W TDP Arrandales. It'll let Apple still claim to have a better IGP than other manufacturers without going to the trouble incorporating an off-chip IGP.

The memory controller moves into the CPU package - the rest of the Northbridge does not.
It depends on which Nehalem implementation. Nehalem after-all is a micro-architecture and is not a processor. Bloomfield as seen in desktops and uniprocessor servers just integrate the memory controller and uses high-speed QPI links to the northbridge which is basically now just the PCIe controller and DMI links to the southbridge. But these are high-end chips. Mainstream desktop derivatives and all mobile derivatives integrate the memory controller, the PCIe controller, the slow speed DMI link to the southbridge, and can include an IGP. That basically constitutes the whole northbridge. Intel intends the average user to never see a northbridge again. Only high-end desktop chips and servers will still have a northbridge for now.

And I agree that Apple is stuck on some thin mantra. There is a point where enough is enough, and 1" was it. I don't see what advantage bending over backwards in limiting yourself just to claim "under an inch" thickness gets you other than being able to say said line.

madmax_2069

Jul 7, 2009, 11:33 PM

The only decent graphics card Intel made was the i740...

Well if you look at it that was the only 3D accelerated graphics card intel made (in PCI and AGP flavors, The PCI version out paced the AGP version BTW) and still could only somewhat compare to the older Nvidia RIVA 128 (this was in the days of VooDoo2 and Nvidia RIVA TNT which was in 1998).

intels only dedicated solution was only out for 18 months before they pulled it off the store shelf's cause no one bought it cause it sucked.

i still have the magazine when it was benchmarked (the mag was called boot).

deconstruct60

Jul 8, 2009, 12:25 AM

Thanks for the good info. Hope that clears TDPs up. Although according to this (http://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/img/pcw/docs/296/395/html/kaigai1.jpg.html), there doesn't seem to be any 45 W Arrandales.

Picking a cooler/lower one under 45 W isn't a problem. That is an upper cap have to work under. Since Apple's form factors tend to have a range of processors enclosed, you design for the one with the highest TDP and the rest just run quieter/cooler.

The other huge Clarksfield factor that folks are overlooking is the price. According to that chart the top of the price range Apple paid for before was the 3.06 Peryn in the $500 bucket (iMacs). Can perhaps use bottom bucket Clarksfield but stuck in that bound. Besides power the "Extreme" options that Intel sells are whacked value wise and would tend to push iMacs into the Mac Pro price bracket.

Unless hook up the PCIe lines, Clarksfield squeezes out everyones IGP solution (Intel as well as 3rd parties ) unless want to take the hit. If stay at the "extreme"/"turbo"/etc. end of the scale for mobile graphics as well, still have somewhat more minor power issues; slightly generous power trade swaps aren't going to wipe that out.

deconstruct60

Jul 8, 2009, 12:46 AM

Yes, you are probably right that there won't be 45W Arrandales. Although that does leave the interesting alternative, that Apple could use this thermal room to ask Intel to make special Arrandales for them with overclocked GPUs to take full advantage of the 45W TDP,

Is this a stacked or horizontally placed dies in the MCM? If it is stacked you now have a higher heat source on top/under of your 32nm chip die. If horizontal placed have even larger skew of the heat to one side of the package.

Given they are trying to minimize board space some chance this is stacked.

If in the same ballpark as the 9400M wouldn't need this. It isn't like Apple's stuff doesn't run abnormally cool now.

And I agree that Apple is stuck on some thin mantra. There is a point where enough is enough, and 1" was it. I don't see what advantage bending over backwards in limiting yourself just to claim "under an inch" thickness gets you other than being able to say said line.

Anorexic Apple.

bigwig

Jul 8, 2009, 12:52 AM

I'm confused. I thought Intel's new in-package IGP was Larrabee, but several posters are speaking as if it's a shrink of the x4500. Which is it?

deconstruct60

Jul 8, 2009, 01:08 AM

macintoshtoffy

Jul 8, 2009, 01:14 AM

That might attract a bit of flak about anticompetitive practices...

Esp. since the consumer is usually the one hurt... (Yes, yes, I'm suffering from Intel's Integrated chipset...)

Yeah, same here - god damnit, I want my chipset to fail after 6 months and experience the joy of getting it replaced 4 times within a space of 18 months! damn I hate reliability - curse you Intel for your reliable hardware!

deconstruct60

Jul 8, 2009, 01:15 AM

I'm confused. I thought Intel's new in-package IGP was Larrabee, but several posters are speaking as if it's a shrink of the x4500. Which is it?

It is not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larrabee_(GPU)

In short Larrabee isn't out yet. It is a somewhat radical break from what Intel is offering now (or in the past).

No way it is a IGP solution. There were a bunch of posts which, over last week or so, tried to fuse Larrabee with Mobile, but that was spurious. Perhaps a misread of

http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20090408corp_a.htm

which starts off talking about mobility and ends with a mention of Larrabee.

Or perhaps confusing there being x86-ish cores in Larrabee with being an "integrated" graphics solution. Those aren't cores can run normal apps on.

Most likely there confusing lots of folks saying "I wish Larrabee was the basis for Intel's IGX solution" with the reality of what Intel is actually doing. There are lots of folks who wish for lots of things that Apple and Intel aren't really doing here.

MattInOz

Jul 8, 2009, 01:49 AM

Alternatives are for an IGP equipped (nVidia) southbridge to include it's own memory controller and include a small pool of dedicated graphics memory, 64-bit with 64MB or 128MB of DDR2, like AMD's Sideport or previous nVidia TurboCache designs. The problem with this approach is that you are adding cost, duplicating functionality, and using more motherboard area which all go against the point of using an IGP, especially for Apple.

Another way is to link an IGP equipped southbridge through both the DMI links and the PCIe x16 links that would otherwise go to a discrete GPU. This would of course prevent the usage of a discrete GPU which is problematic for the higher-end MacBook Pro and PC desktop chipsets that nVidia would be targetting. nVidia could then implement some type of switch, but that would again add cost, hardware and software complexity, and increase motherboard area.

If they did that then at what point does it stop being a IGP and turns a discrete GPU with integrated graphic memory controller(or Graphic Northbridge)?

nVidia already have a northbridge module that includes all the southbridge function as well. So they could still offer OEM's a two chip set. But this time they can drive it by the GPU.

philamac

Jul 8, 2009, 02:48 AM

Isn't it easy to promise faster IGPs in the next generation? Every generation should be faster than the previous right?

Intel's IGP offerings have been poor in the past, I'm not optimistic.

xIGmanIx

Jul 8, 2009, 03:50 AM

So, how many STUPID Intel codenames are mentioned in the article? I lost count, sorry.

suprised there wasn't mention of Blu Ray being a still born technology and proclaiming Microsoft finished

thoshino

Jul 8, 2009, 07:25 AM

that's like 300lbs fat boy losing 150lbs and expect him to beat Usain Bolt.

Or perhaps rather like taking a 1500 m runner, and saying people should bet that he can beat Bolt over 100 m since he's used to running much longer. Adding a note that their 1500 m runner is much faster than the marathon runner they tried to beat Bolt with last time around.

commander.data

Jul 8, 2009, 07:27 AM

Is this a stacked or horizontally placed dies in the MCM? If it is stacked you now have a higher heat source on top/under of your 32nm chip die. If horizontal placed have even larger skew of the heat to one side of the package.

Given they are trying to minimize board space some chance this is stacked.

If in the same ballpark as the 9400M wouldn't need this. It isn't like Apple's stuff doesn't run abnormally cool now.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=3513&p=5

Pictures of Arrandale's design by Intel showing it has 2 horizontally placed dies on a single package. Overall package area is about the same since the central factor there is mainly economically providing sufficient room for all the pins. I'm sure Intel figured out how to structurally reinforce the package to take into account uneven thermal stress and expansion. The GM45 northbridge had a 12W TDP, assuming Arrandale's northbridge die is the same, then that leaves 23W for Arrandale's processing core at an overall 35W TDP.

Wikinerd

Jul 8, 2009, 10:57 AM

People who don't like that need to tell Phil "screw the 'thin' crap, give us some quad core systems that can do some real work - and we don't care if they're 3.5 cm thick and weigh 4 kilos!".

Jobs is back now btw.

Firefly2002

Jul 8, 2009, 01:16 PM

"graphics performance of the integrated graphics in Intel's next-generation mobile processors will exceed the performance of the current Intel mobile platform"

Next-gen hardware to be faster than current-gen? Who'da thunk it! :D Just wish Intel would Learn To Stop Worrying and Love Nvidia.

Well it's something relatively new for nVidia... *cough* P III---> Willamette Pentium 4 (then Prescott). Lol not to mention PC800 RDRAM. If they'd been honest then they'd have said "well.... our next-gen Netburst-based CPU, the Pentium 4, will be about 30% slower clock for clock than the previous-generation, and about 50% slower than a G3, and 2-3x slower than a G4 in SIMD operations. Also, we're rolling out ultra-high latency (40ns), high-power consumption (800 MHz) and narrow-bus (16-bit) RDRAM.... so really you should probably skip this whole deal."

=p

=)

Anyway, I really wish Intel wouldn't do this. It's a total waste of transistors, and money, and it drives up the price, raises transistor count and thus heat output, and allows for less of a speed increase. Ffs.

BRLawyer

Jul 8, 2009, 01:46 PM

suprised there wasn't mention of Blu Ray being a still born technology and proclaiming Microsoft finished

Sorry, I forgot:

Blu-Ray is a stillborn technology. And MS IS DEAD.

Happy now? :D

SirOmega

Jul 8, 2009, 02:56 PM

You are not very likely to get improved integrated graphics performance that is worth a whole lot if move the graphics processors farther away from memory.
Especially if you are stuck with the DMI bus (which are all the lower end Nehalems offer.) QPI perhaps, but Nvidia doesn't have access to that.

You take the PCI-E x16 connection from the CPU and hook that to the chip along with the DMI connection. So you have two connections from the CPU to the Nvidia chip.

AidenShaw

Jul 8, 2009, 04:14 PM

Jobs is back now btw.

You're assuming that things at Apple are back to the old way. I'm not.

I'd bet that Phil is very much in the loop on things, especially if Jobs slowly eases back to the captain's chair full-time.

Saneless

Jul 8, 2009, 04:19 PM

This is exactly the same BS they said for the X3100 965 back in 2007. The Monte Cristo, Mama Rosa or Santa Fe or whatever crap name they gave it..

The hardware from Intel has always been "ok" but their drivers blow chunks. Always have. On paper their chips are competitive but they can't code any power out of them to save their lives.

mdntcallr

Jul 8, 2009, 04:22 PM

i hate integrated intel graphics. gimme ATI or NVIDIA quality.

well. except the quality that was hit by manufacturing problems. when they work. they are great.

Bregalad

Jul 8, 2009, 05:54 PM

I stand corrected on some technical points and agree that the biggest problem we face is consumer and Apple obsession with "thin".

My G5 died last night and I've been placed into a horrible position of needing a new Mac, but being seriously disinterested in the models Apple currently sells. In the immediate short term I'm probably going to pick up a refurb mini and throw my 3.5" HDs into an external case. I've been disappointed with the minis we have at work so my expectations are low, but at least I'll be able to run Snow Leopard.

diamond.g

Jul 8, 2009, 06:13 PM

You take the PCI-E x16 connection from the CPU and hook that to the chip along with the DMI connection. So you have two connections from the CPU to the Nvidia chip.

What PCI-E connection? Nehalem brings IMC not the whole NB. The IGP wouldn't need any PCI-E lanes...

applecultvictim

Jul 8, 2009, 06:57 PM

Intel has been "very quiet" about the performance of Arrandale's graphics core, but is telling partners that it "should end up faster" than the existing platforms.

Straight from the Horse's .... anus....

What I find doubly ironic and moronic is both the "should" and the "end up " bits. Wtf is it should ? I better turn out better you bet, in that sense it damn well should. But from a designers/manufacturers standpoint what the f. is should? You don't know if it will or not a couple of months before production?

Are you s....ing us?

And what the heck is effing "end up faster". End up as in starting crap and ending up a bit faster?

That's a load of smelly b...s.

Apple should have gone amd, so what it would have been 10% or so worse off in the high end than intel, but it would have fitted their profile much better amd+apple and in pretty much 90% of cpu's in macs would have been CHEAPER (because amd is very very competitive in prices) and EQUAL to intel with BETTER graphics...ati and intel gfx...night and day....

Amd and ati, maybe we'd have gotten the cheaps half a year later than intel's although with apple's huge leverage and backing amd would have probably delivered even faster than intel...

Anyway...eff it...it should have but didn't happen...it would have been too beautiful, both innovative companies, we 'd have had windows compatibility too (not that anyone cares really...) amd would have blossomed, we wouldn't have to suck up nvidia's slock to get recalls for hundreds of thousands of faulty macs, we'd have had ati which under apple's toutelage would have trampled nvidia, easily...and above all we 'd have had our own cpus so to speak...

And now we get the should have would have might have start up end up crap from intel....

Oh, and their HORRIBLE INTEL GFX saddled on their cpus.

Brilliant.

Come on Steve, buy Ati+AMD, you already got pa semi, and eff everyone and not give a toss about anyone and be completely self contained.:apple:

winterspan

Jul 9, 2009, 01:57 AM

This is an important topic given the current ambiguity about Nvidia's chipset licensing. It looks like this platform will be stuck with Intel's Integrated graphics. So for more performance, Apple will have to use a (40nm probably) discrete GPU from AMD or Nvidia.

Also, it is important to remember that this new dual-core mobile Nehalem chip ("Arrandale") that has a integrated GPU has NOTHING to do with Larabee. They are simply putting an X4500HD GPU variant in the CPU package. The performance will probably be similar to the performance of Intel's higher clocked desktop graphics.

Additionally, this is not as interesting as it first seems. The GPU core is NOT directly integrated into the CPU die like future hybrid systems will be. It sits on a different silicon die altogether, and is placed into a multi-chip module with the processor. This is similar to how current Core 2 Quad chips work, where they are really two dual-core dies placed in the same module.

while this whole setup probably won't be very exciting from a graphics point of view, future chips from both Intel and AMD should integrate high performance graphics cores directly into the CPU die, and on Intel's side, they will probably have a larabee core integrated into a future CPU.

Erasmus

Jul 10, 2009, 08:53 AM

It seems to me that the most likely scenario is that Apple will tie the intel integrated graphics included with the Arrandale platform with a discrete GPU, with close to, or even possibly about the performance level of a 9600 (but newer, on the 40nm process, so uses much less power) in the macbooks, and low end macbook pros, assuming the MB/MBP lineup remains the same. Of course, this will only happen if the intel offering has lower performance than the present 9400. If somehow it's better, this won't happen.

Naturally, the higher end macbook pros will get a significantly better graphics processor. I'm not sure about quad core, because quad core means Clark----, which means no integrated graphics, doesn't it? And seeing as the newest MBPs have both integrated and discrete, it seems unlikely to me that Apple would drop this feature. Unless Apple can get Intel to make them a Clark---- with the on-chip graphics, and tie it with something with a bit (meaning a lot) more beef.

I think the chances of Apple having a notebook with three graphics chips, as some people seemed to be suggesting (intel integrated + nvidia integrated + nvidia discrete) is a bit ridiculous, and has a zero chance of happening.

Yeah, and from what I read, Larrabee is gonna be huge. As in physical size, and power consumption. I don't see mobile versions for a while, certainly not integrated. Although I hope I'm wrong.

And to the AMD fan, their processors suck. Their graphics is OK, possibly better than nvidia, I don't really care, I'm impartial between them. But their CPUs blow chunks. Intel have the clear lead, have had for some time, and will continue to do so for some time in the future. You know it's true, so stop trolling. HAHAHA... Apple buying AMD... HAHAHA...

P.S. Clark----: Can never remember if it's "dale" or "field", and couldn't be bothered to look it up.

applecultvictim

Jul 10, 2009, 10:25 AM

And to the AMD fan, their processors suck. Their graphics is OK, possibly better than nvidia, I don't really care, I'm impartial between them. But their CPUs blow chunks. Intel have the clear lead, have had for some time, and will continue to do so for some time in the future. You know it's true, so stop trolling. HAHAHA... Apple buying AMD... HAHAHA...

P.S. Clark----: Can never remember if it's "dale" or "field", and couldn't be bothered to look it up.

Just before a couple of years a go amd blew intel away in EVERY SINGLE CPU, they didn't just outperform them, they blew them away. Heck the integrated memory and the doing away with the fsb is something AMD did years ago and is passing as some sort of technological super breakthrough by intel.

Right now, read the specs man for pete's sake, amd is only lacking in terms of the very, very high end cpus which apple don't even use, since in the mac pro they user server chips where amd again is an equal to intel. Just go over to tom's hardware site and read the damn specs. Just don't embarrass yourself here with what you are saying. That said mobile wise amd is a tad behind but I d rather take six months of waiting to get some great ati graphics than be saddled with a CRAP chip integrated by intel only to suck up tdps and resources and space an me having to user another one.

And all that considering for year after year after year amd has had to face tons of money flooding the mainstream media that propagandize to ignorami such as yourself, and tons of money for monopoly practises against amd, which was vindicated in court for intel tactics such as, we give you such and such price provided you don't buy squat from amd. And facing an opponent that is 10 or so times as large. But with apple's backing, man they will be beautiful things happening.

iMacmatician

Jul 10, 2009, 10:40 AM

P.S. Clark----: Can never remember if it's "dale" or "field", and couldn't be bothered to look it up.Clarksfield: Quad-core mobile Nehalem
Clarkdale: Dual-core desktop Westmere

Right now Intel uses "-field" for midrange and high-end (Bloomfield, Lynnfield, Clarksfield) and "-dale" for low-end (Clarkdale, Arrandale). Hope that helps.

xIGmanIx

Jul 10, 2009, 01:54 PM

Sorry, I forgot:

Blu-Ray is a stillborn technology. And MS IS DEAD.

Happy now? :D

and the universe has righted itself

oomega1

Jul 10, 2009, 06:01 PM

Talk about not knowing anything. Yeah AMD did take the lead, only after they screwed over Intel. Go read more articles, I'm not going to go into details with that. Intel was always ahead in terms of technology. Payback's a b**** when you can't get the gov to help you.

Just before a couple of years a go amd blew intel away in EVERY SINGLE CPU, they didn't just outperform them, they blew them away. Heck the integrated memory and the doing away with the fsb is something AMD did years ago and is passing as some sort of technological super breakthrough by intel.

Right now, read the specs man for pete's sake, amd is only lacking in terms of the very, very high end cpus which apple don't even use, since in the mac pro they user server chips where amd again is an equal to intel. Just go over to tom's hardware site and read the damn specs. Just don't embarrass yourself here with what you are saying. That said mobile wise amd is a tad behind but I d rather take six months of waiting to get some great ati graphics than be saddled with a CRAP chip integrated by intel only to suck up tdps and resources and space an me having to user another one.

And all that considering for year after year after year amd has had to face tons of money flooding the mainstream media that propagandize to ignorami such as yourself, and tons of money for monopoly practises against amd, which was vindicated in court for intel tactics such as, we give you such and such price provided you don't buy squat from amd. And facing an opponent that is 10 or so times as large. But with apple's backing, man they will be beautiful things happening.

diamond.g

Jul 10, 2009, 06:10 PM

applecultvictim

Jul 10, 2009, 08:29 PM

Wait, so Netburst microarch was ahead of K8 microarch?

In his skewed reality anything seems possible alas.

Erasmus

Jul 10, 2009, 10:09 PM

Just before a couple of years a go amd blew intel away in EVERY SINGLE CPU, they didn't just outperform them, they blew them away. Heck the integrated memory and the doing away with the fsb is something AMD did years ago and is passing as some sort of technological super breakthrough by intel.

Newsflash: "A Few Years" (ie. 3-4, or pre-Core) is an extremely long time in the computer industry. Especially seeing as people generally keep their computers only for about 3 years.

...AMD is only lacking in terms of the very, very high end CPUs... <snip> That said mobile wise amd is a tad behind...

So AMD is behind in both the extreme high end CPUs, which Apple uses in the Mac Pro, and is also behind in the mobile sector, which Apple uses for everything else. Ignoring the fact that you contradicted yourself by saying AMD lags "only" in server CPUs, and then saying it also lags in mobile.

but I d rather take six months of waiting to get some great ati graphics than be saddled with a CRAP chip integrated by intel only to suck up tdps and resources and space an me having to user another one.

You are perhaps unaware that Apple can in fact pair an Intel CPU with an AMD GPU? As they have done with the X1600?

And all that considering for year after year after year amd has had to face tons of money flooding the mainstream media that propagandize to ignorami such as yourself, and tons of money for monopoly practises against amd, which was vindicated in court for intel tactics such as, we give you such and such price provided you don't buy squat from amd. And facing an opponent that is 10 or so times as large. But with apple's backing, man they will be beautiful things happening.

Wow, I thought I was a pretty fanatical Apple fanboy, but I've got nothing on how much you obviously love AMD. I've got to admit, when you first posted, I was wondering if you were just having a laugh. Thanks for clearing that up.

EDIT: Damnit, why can't I get my quotes working? How can I apply an adequate serving of toast when I can't quote properly? Why aren't the "quote"s in capitals? They were when I typed them, and they are when I press edit...

EDIT 2: Thank you again, iMacmatician.

Erasmus

Jul 10, 2009, 11:00 PM

Anyway, back on topic, what do people think about the Macbooks getting some level of discrete graphics if the Intel integrated package isn't up to scratch?

Also, what options are there for having both low and high performance graphics cards with the Clarkfield platform? Can someone summarise how the loss of a "discrete" northbridge means for the present 9400+9600 type MBPs? I mean, is the present dual configuration impossible, impractical, difficult, or feasible on a Clarkfield platform? It seems to me that at the moment the consensus is impractical.

Anyway, if the main problem with Clarkfield is that it is too difficult for nvidia GPUs to get to main memory, is there any reason why Apple can't say throw in a high performance GPU with say 512MB of VRAM, plus another low performance GPU, which shares (at least some of) this memory, instead of main memory? On the other hand, I am assuming that AMD has licenses to QPI and all that, so Apple could just switch to AMD graphics, couldn't they? Would that make things easier? I mean, it seems that they are going to have to dump the nvidia chipset anyway...

iMacmatician: I guess that makes sense, seeing as dales are "low", but although fields tend to be flat, and therefore higher than dales, it doesn't really fit with "high performance". Clearly high performance should be "Clarkhill", mainstream "Clarkfield" and low power variants "Clarkdale". Or even better, really Intel needs to scrap those annoying names altogether, and go back to a numbering scheme. Give platforms a "p" prefix, graphics a "g" prefix, etc. and start calling high end "p17", mainstream "p15" and budget "p13", then they can call ultra low power "p11". Then when they bring in the die-shrink, they can call them "p18", "p16" etc, and then when Sandy Bridge comes in, go to "p27", "p25", etc. and start the process again. At least then it actually makes sense, and it is easy to tell what is better than what.

iMacmatician

Jul 10, 2009, 11:49 PM

EDIT: Damnit, why can't I get my quotes working? How can I apply an adequate serving of toast when I can't quote properly? Why aren't the "quote"s in capitals? They were when I typed them, and they are when I press edit...You used [\quote] instead of [/quote].

Eidorian

Jul 11, 2009, 12:02 AM

Intel is pushing many more components on the CPU in order to maintain control. No more third party chipsets or IGPs. You're seeing this as well with nVidia vs. Intel on licensing as well.

On the value models with their onboard IGPs you're going to see very few vendors providing alternative video options since it's going to be a race to the bottom for prices. Soldering more components onto the motherboard is going to drive up costs. Hopefully we'll learn more about Arrandale's IGP but I don't have much hope after the GM965 and G45. Barely a difference beyond a die shrink and the addition of hardware h.264 and VC-1 decoding.

ION2 is aiming for the Core 2, Atom, and VIA Nano markets but you're not going to see it beyond that.

Val-kyrie

Jul 11, 2009, 09:06 PM

Apple, of course, is free to add-on discrete graphics cards to its designs, though this is typically reserved for its high-end models due to the additional cost.

Not to be polemical, but isn't the "additional cost" of discrete graphics cards fairly nominal for low-end versions? I realize the penny-pinchers at Apple look at numbers en masse, but for the cost of their computers, Apple could easily swallow $20-40 for a low end solution.

Val-kyrie

Jul 11, 2009, 09:11 PM

iMacmatician

Jul 12, 2009, 04:26 PM

Not to be polemical, but isn't the "additional cost" of discrete graphics cards fairly nominal for low-end versions? I realize the penny-pinchers at Apple look at numbers en masse, but for the cost of their computers, Apple could easily swallow $20-40 for a low end solution.True, but the question is if they would…

Brien

Jul 12, 2009, 05:06 PM

Apple HAS rebranded most of it's notebook line to the MBP badge, so I would think they would put discrete GPUs in them if NVIDIA and Intel don't start playing nice.

The MBA and whatever replaces the plastic MacBook would probably get whatever Intel has, though.

applecultvictim

Jul 12, 2009, 05:19 PM

blah blah this, blah blah that.

I am an educator though and I ll try to make it crystal clear once more in an effort to educate you. Thank me later:

Fact of the matter is still amd is pretty comparable to intel and only fall behind in the very high end and lag a bit in their mobile chips, and all that when they 've been getting the boycott of the century by intel and with a 1/20 or so of intel's resources. And that tiny fraction that they are behind isn't even noticeable for 99% of users as the bottleneck is elsewhere.

Yet with these 1/20 a few years ago they DID manage to outdo intel for a LONG period of time, and they COULD do it again with the right backing, ie. apple. That's not science fiction, it's reality, apple was lagging way behind and managed to pull themselves together. What is more AMD have BETTER, MUCH BETTER gfx than INTEL that from now on will be forcing everyone to user THEIR gfx. So appl will be killing two birds in one stone in that they will be owning the better gfx platform (one half of the cpu from now on) and a company that will quite possibly with some much needed capital will be able to go h2h with intel in a roadmap of a year or so and outdo them even.

That will mean also much tighter integration for apple, much better prices for us and much better control of the end product, plus they wouldn't need to be saddled with inferior intel graphics, and they could again make a propriety cpu like the powerpc with the added benefit of being fULLY compatible with intel pcs, and not having to change or optimize the software much differently. Plus they could add goodies down to the chip level that could only feature in apple and nowhere else.

It's the most ideal solution, and I am sure a lot of people in apple are actively thinking about it and figuring out the logistics on when and how to make this move. I am not saying they will definitely, but I am absolutely sure people are giving it intense thought.

I hope that at least 5% of what I said has gone through to you, I will be happy, I don't expect it since you don't seem to be the fastest gun in the far west, but like I said I am an educator and I like to point things out and educate.

In all good will I am telling you. EDUCATE yourself.:):apple:

gunraidan

Jul 12, 2009, 10:03 PM

Come on Steve, buy Ati+AMD, you already got pa semi, and eff everyone and not give a toss about anyone and be completely self contained.:apple:

So essentially you want Apple to go back to making exclusive components?

Drag'nGT

Jul 12, 2009, 10:48 PM

So essentially you want Apple to go back to making exclusive components?

I wouldn't see it as a bad thing. I want to see better cards in the MBP line than integrated Intel chips and slightly older Nvidias with new paint listed as 'new.' Why not an Nvidia GTX 260M like in the current Asus gaming computers? If they can sell for $999 in the Asus couldn't that card be in a $1500 and up MBP? Maybe just a tad lower version in all of them and leave the big one as an option. That way they can let the real Pros get their Pro grade laptop built the way they want instead of limiting them.

Apple's current feature bump and price drop is a step in the right direction but there's still some room for improvement. And I know they are the only ones making any money but let's not let them be made fun of in the process.

winterspan

Jul 13, 2009, 03:14 AM

Just before a couple of years a go amd blew intel away in EVERY SINGLE CPU, they didn't just outperform them, they blew them away. Heck the integrated memory and the doing away with the fsb is something AMD did years ago and is passing as some sort of...

AMD has certainly made great strides with their latest 45nm desktop and server chips, and while they are not as fast at the high-end, they compare quite admirably with the Nehalm quad-cores.

That said, the fact remains that they have been completely and utterly blown out of the water on mainstream and performance mobile chips. Mobile 45nm Core 2 Duo chips have become the de-facto standard for laptops. I mean it really isn't even a competition; even more so for the excellent 10W ULV low power chips.

Similarly, near the end of the year the 32nm Arrandale chips with integrated memory controller and SMT support will be out, and they will just continue Intel's domination.

I think AMD is an excellent, innovative company with great products, and is one who has definitely been screwed over by Intel on many occasions. I don't want to see them pushed out of the market, and I wish a large company flush with cash would buy them to help inject much needed capital.
But you have to face reality. Unless AMD pulls off some miraculous R&D, they will be playing second fiddle for the foreseeable future.

diamond.g

Jul 13, 2009, 08:43 AM

I wouldn't see it as a bad thing. I want to see better cards in the MBP line than integrated Intel chips and slightly older Nvidias with new paint listed as 'new.' Why not an Nvidia GTX 260M like in the current Asus gaming computers? If they can sell for $999 in the Asus couldn't that card be in a $1500 and up MBP? Maybe just a tad lower version in all of them and leave the big one as an option. That way they can let the real Pros get their Pro grade laptop built the way they want instead of limiting them.

Apple's current feature bump and price drop is a step in the right direction but there's still some room for improvement. And I know they are the only ones making any money but let's not let them be made fun of in the process.
Because Apples notebooks can't handle the heat produced. Notice that all the gaming laptops are much larger than anything that comes out of Cupertino...

applecultvictim

Jul 13, 2009, 03:42 PM

So essentially you want Apple to go back to making exclusive components?

Yes I do. I so much want them to do that, and eff intel. Because I real thinkk it will be a shame for such a great co and great minds that essentially pushed intel to make the core and quit their messing about, to go to waste, and it will also be a shame now that apple is almight to not incorporate a part that could give it almost complete freedom and control, and no more the hackintoshes and the psystars and the rest of that crap.

Where have I said anything different? Didnt I say amd lag six months in the mobile part? Of course if intel has had everyone sign contracts to not allow amd cpus mobile in more than 95% of their machines they are not going to t have a lot of footing to evolve are they? But check out what they are bringing in to go against atom, which is a clocked down athlon that blow atom away, and check out the pipeline too. Didn't I say on the desktop that is not the case? Didn't I say apple's cashflow could put them on par in a year or so? Where did I say on par right now? That's the whole point that apple at 60 bil and amd priced at 1.5 bil or so apple could buy it and TRIPLE the value of amd in cash flow and we ll see then if and when they can bring those cpus to the market, if they can lag half a a month for mobile and even compete h2h with intel in dekstop and server, imagine what they can do with that amount of cash, in any case history being our guide they managed it before with way, way, way less resources why would they de facto wont manage it again with apple's backing? If there's someone that excels in r and d that is apple.

And you too, try to address all of my point instead of picking on a couple and looking sideways.

Erasmus

Jul 26, 2009, 08:09 AM

I am an educator though and I ll try to make it crystal clear once more in an effort to educate you.
Uhuh. I'm gonna go through this nice and slow for you. I guess it is pointless to add that the attitude is not appreciated.

Fact of the matter is still amd is pretty comparable to intel and only fall behind in the very high end and lag a bit in their mobile chips.
QED...

...with the right backing, ie. apple.
Apple is a small company. Getting bigger, but still small.

INTEL that from now on will be forcing everyone to user THEIR gfx.
This is not true.

...owning a company that will go h2h with intel...
Well, wouldn't that just waste all of Apple's money. Clearly it would be far better for Apple to continue to use Intel chips until this 'glorious day' that you dream of, and then buy from AMD. Maybe Apple should buy IBM as well?

No doubt none of this will get through the AMD wall though, so I don't know why I bother. I must be just bored.

diamond.g

Jul 26, 2009, 08:35 AM

This is not true.

I thought that was true in the case of integrated graphics. Especially since in the mobile platform they will be in the CPU packaging. It appears Intel still hasn't given Nvidia license to create a chipset for Core iX yet.

Erasmus

Jul 26, 2009, 07:54 PM

I thought that was true in the case of integrated graphics. Especially since in the mobile platform they will be in the CPU packaging. It appears Intel still hasn't given Nvidia license to create a chipset for Core iX yet.

I guess, but I still feel it's a bit of a moot point. Firstly we still don't know how good the Intel graphics is going to be (it could be great) and secondly, as said before, there's no reason why Apple couldn't just go with different levels of discrete graphics across the board if the Intel GPU isn't up to scratch, as they did before moving to Intel. And Intel graphics are only going to improve, with the Larrabee project.

Apple is not going to start shipping a new line of computers that have inferior specifications to the old ones. One way or another, Apple will find a way to increase the Macbook graphics power, and (at least for a few years) that will not be by moving to AMD processors and chipsets.