Apple to Skip Intel Arrandale? Demands Alternative Chip?

[MacRumors]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/12/07/apple-to-skip-intel-arrandale-demands-alternative-chip/)

BrightSideofNews (http://www.brightsideofnews.com/news/2009/12/5/apple-ditches-32nm-arrandale2c-wont-use-intel-graphics.aspx) claims that Apple is refusing to accept Intel's upcoming mobile Arrandale chip which incorporates Intel's integrated graphics chipset:According to sources close to the heart of the matter, Apple allegedly refused to adopt Intel's Arrandale and the Calpella platform in its default form. In order for Apple to implement Calpella design with their next refresh of Mac mini / MacBook / MacBook Pro lines, Intel will have to provide Apple with the 32nm version without the integrated graphics part. Again, we cannot confirm the information about the replacement CPU, we only know that Apple rejected Arrandale.The report has generated some debate in our Waiting for Arrandale (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=668803) thread both due to the untested source of the rumor as well as the technical implications of creating a custom chip just for Apple.

Intel's addition of integrated graphics into the Arrandale processor comes at an interesting time with the legal battle ongoing between Intel and NVIDIA. Apple had switched from Intel to NVIDIA chipsets for their most recent line of notebook computers. The transition from Intel to NVIDIA in that case resulted in significantly improved integrated graphics performance in the latest round of MacBooks and MacBook Pros. Due to a licensing disagreement (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/10/08/nvidia-exiting-chipset-business-pending-resolution-of-licensing-dispute-with-intel/) with Intel, NVIDIA has since exited the chipset market. Intel's new integrated graphics chipset included in Arrandale is said to be a significant improvement over their previous offerings. Apple, of course, would still be able to offer additional "discrete" graphics cards in conjunction with Intel's system.

The benefit of a custom graphics-less Arrandale, however, is less clear, though Intel and Apple have been known (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/06/13/apple-and-intels-collaboration-on-macbook-air-and-beyond/) to collaborate on custom chip designs, as in the CPU found in the original MacBook Air. The past report had suggested that Intel and Apple were continuing to work on more projects that were "equally aggressive".

We're not sure what there is to these claims, though based on timelines (http://buyersguide.macrumors.com/), the MacBook Pro line is due to be refreshed in the first half of 2010.

Article Link: Apple to Skip Intel Arrandale? Demands Alternative Chip? (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/12/07/apple-to-skip-intel-arrandale-demands-alternative-chip/)

[MIDI_EVIL]

Such a tight relationship!

[smileyborg]

Hmmm....I would like to see quad-core MacBook Pros in the very near future...hopefully this issue won't cause any delays.

[ditzy]

I'm guessing that apple doesn't rate intel's graphics much then? I guess that this is a good thing, but I'm also guessing that this is going to push back the dates of the new macbook pros.

[designgeek]

It's about to hit the fan...

[Erasmus]

If this is accurate, it means I was right!

No Intel Graphics, save the power, discrete graphics across the board! Awesome!

Now, just what graphics cards are Apple going to snap in???

[Manic Mouse]

Going back to Intel integrated graphics would probably be a step down from the current 9400m in nearly all Apple computers, something Steve probably wouldn't be happy about.

It's such a shame nvidia pulled out of the chipset business, they're offerings were much more compelling than Intel's.

[adamw]

I really like the Nvidia 9400m. It will be interesting to see if Intel backs down on including the integrated graphics on new CPU chips to please customers like Apple.

[scottness]

This is likely a good thing, but I'm bummed because I was hoping for the new MBPs in January. :(

[bruxelles]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/12/07/apple-to-skip-intel-arrandale-demands-alternative-chip/)
BrightSideofNews (http://www.brightsideofnews.com/news/2009/12/5/apple-ditches-32nm-arrandale2c-wont-use-intel-graphics.aspx) claims that Apple is refusing to accept Intel's upcoming mobile Arrandale chip which incorporates Intel's integrated graphics chipset:The report has generated some debate in our Waiting for Arrandale (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=668803) thread both due to the untested source of the rumor as well as the technical implications of creating a custom chip just for Apple.

Interesting. During the Psystar case, I wondered whether Apple would ever be able to get Intel to make special versions of processors that it could somehow tie Mac OS to, instead of having to sue the clone makers. Perhaps this is the start of Apple moving in that direction?

[Erasmus]

This is likely a good thing, but I'm bummed because I was hoping for the new MBPs in January. :(

Don't worry. Apple can't afford to wait too long. I think it's pretty safe to say the Apple+Intel bond is pretty strong, at the moment (Light Peak, MBA CPU, that early Mac Pro CPU run, etc) so it seems entirely plausible that Apple will get some custom made silicon in January, if they don't already have it.

If Apple wait too long after Arrandale is released, they will lose a monumental number of sales.

[rme]

#$#%# Intel.
They should've just released a 32nm, 35W version of the i7-920XM.
It's doable, wtf didn't they?

[retroneo]

Why bother demanding a unique version?

Apple has included integrated graphics on machine before without using them, (iMac Core Duo with the ATI 1600M also had the unused GMA 950 sitting idle) I'm sure there are many other examples in Apple's line too considering the chipset costs the same and is probably identical except for a fuse that's cut with a laser to disable the integrated graphics.

By including Intel Integrated Graphics on all machines with discrete graphics, they can reduce power consumption at idle time, while still providing maximum performance when needed.

[edesignuk]

Cor blimey governor, Apple don't half have some big hairy ones, don't they?

Still, if they can get away with it, why not eh :rolleyes:

[skinniezinho]

Why bother demanding a unique version?

Apple has included integrated graphics on machine before without using them, (iMac Core Duo with the ATI 1600M also had the unused GMA 950 sitting idle) I'm sure there are many other examples in Apple's line too considering the chipset costs the same and is probably identical except for a fuse that's cut with a laser to disable the integrated graphics.

By including Intel Integrated Graphics on all machines with discrete graphics, they can reduce power consumption at idle time, while still providing maximum performance when needed.

Maybe because of the price..trying to reduce prices of the processors and having just one graphic card making things simple..

[bigandy]

Good to see there's potential to continue avoiding Intel's craptastic offerings.

[beez1717]

I think the reason apple decided to do this is because they have a deal with Nvidia that they don't want to get in the way of, and that by using these chips they may be causing some problems with the deal. I just hope that whatever happens that is best for the consumer.

[mrochester]

I'm looking to buy my first ever Mac in the form of a MacBook Pro, and I'm not prepared to buy one until the latest round of updates has been released. I hope Apple pull their finger out with this one!

[scottness]

#$#%# Intel.
They should've just released a 32nm, 35W version of the i7-920XM.
It's doable, wtf didn't they?

Because they don't respond to #$#%#. :D

[redAPPLE]

well for people waiting to get new stuff (e.g. notebooks) in january or february, this will again be a headache and keep asking themselves, wait for the latest and greatest or get an "old" system, which is available today :o

[Ironduke]

There has to be an issue here.

Probably internal redesign especially on the 13" Macbook & Mini , apple will have to find space for a Custom Dedicated gfx chip that uses the PCIe lane and isnt part of the chipset, this creates many problems for apple including, board design, heatsink redesign, and milling of internal screw sockets etc.

I bet apple was hoping they could simply use the same board but with arandale and Nvidia's latest chipset gfx.

Now costs will be higher and unless apple take the hit, we will have to.:(

[Shintocam]

Going back to Intel integrated graphics would probably be a step down from the current 9400m in nearly all Apple computers, something Steve probably wouldn't be happy about.

It's such a shame nvidia pulled out of the chipset business, they're offerings were much more compelling than Intel's.

Yes but it is also a shame that Apple never actually took advantage of Nvidia's chipsets. On a Windows machine with the Nvidia chipset and a discrete Nvidia you could run a hybrid SLI mode but OSX never supported it.....

[rme]

Because they don't respond to #$#%#. :D

Well, they should!
I hope we don't have to wait till Ivy Bridge before we see a quad-core MBP.

[macduke]

I would like a 13" MBP with discrete graphics please. None of this integrated crap!!

[scottness]

I would like a 13" MBP with discrete graphics please. None of this integrated crap!!

Yep. I think we'd all agree. I want the new MBP, but integrated graphics is a deal-breaker for me.

[Pressure]

I think the reason apple decided to do this is because they have a deal with Nvidia that they don't want to get in the way of, and that by using these chips they may be causing some problems with the deal. I just hope that whatever happens that is best for the consumer.

Therein lies the problem. You see, NVIDIA does not currently hold a license to produce a Nehalem compatible chipset.

So nothing is in the way between NVIDIA and Apple (other than bumpgate).

[joina]

dont care about 13".......need to see good cpu and gpu on 15 or 17 otherwise..i have to buy another SONY then.

[gianly1985]

Custom IGP-less Arrandale + ATI Park/Madison 5xxx discrete GPU = Win

Please Steve. Please.

[rme]

Custom IGP-less Arrandale + ATI Park/Madison 5xxx discrete GPU = Win

Please Steve. Please.

What would they do with the memory controller?
Not likely I think.

[miknos]

Intel can't create a better graphic option than nvidia so it comes out with this crap deal.:mad:

[apolloa]

Why bother demanding a unique version?

Apple has included integrated graphics on machine before without using them, (iMac Core Duo with the ATI 1600M also had the unused GMA 950 sitting idle) I'm sure there are many other examples in Apple's line too considering the chipset costs the same and is probably identical except for a fuse that's cut with a laser to disable the integrated graphics.

By including Intel Integrated Graphics on all machines with discrete graphics, they can reduce power consumption at idle time, while still providing maximum performance when needed.

This is EXACTLY what they will do if this report is true. No way will Intel spend millions developing a custom chip just for one small customer, and I have also read somewhere that the IGP can be disabled anyway for this reason I suspect as the way the new chips are made they have all the memory controllers etc integrated into them, it's not a simple process as many seem to think to just remove the IGP.

I think the reason apple decided to do this is because they have a deal with Nvidia that they don't want to get in the way of, and that by using these chips they may be causing some problems with the deal. I just hope that whatever happens that is best for the consumer.

Ah but did this 'deal' or contract actually state Nvidia would be pulling out of the chipset market due to legal license proceedings with Intel? I doubt it hence I doubt Apple will be worried about any contracts they have as it's in no way their fault.

[Spandexman]

What would be the point of disabling the IGP? I mean, I thought that the point of graphics switching was to use the IGP for normal tasks, and then employ the discrete part for more graphics intensive activities to save battery and lower heat? What possible advantage could there be to anyone to disable the IGP? It wouldn't be cheaper, it wouldn't be more efficient, it wouldn't improve graphics (you'd use the NVIDIA card for heavy lifting in either scenario). Am I missing something?

[t0mat0]

According to sources close to the heart of the matter, Apple allegedly refused to adopt Intel's Arrandale and the Calpella platform in its default form. In order for Apple to implement Calpella design with their next refresh of Mac mini / MacBook / MacBook Pro lines, Intel will have to provide Apple with the 32nm version without the integrated graphics part. Again, we cannot confirm the information about the replacement CPU, we only know that Apple rejected Arrandale.

Apple was always going to refuse to adopt Intel's Calpella platform in its default form, as it's not adopted default forms of previous platforms. Apple refusing Arrandale wholesale is another ball game. The Arrandale could have the graphics turned off anyhow, so if they're demanding something else - wonder what that might be. I'd imagine Apple's been working with Intel on chipsets anyhow (esp. in the light of Light Peak work).
Seeing as though we wouldn't likely hear of a new Intel chip if they had one being lined up for Apple anyhow, it's more of a case of waiting 1-2 months.

Just being able to have both Nvidia run concurrently, and sorting heat issues from that would be a boost to the MBP. There are updated chips Apple could use, if they didn't go Arrandale in February.
Would Apple be that behind if they didn't go Arrandale come February for the MBP?

[daneoni]

Makes sense...it was always going to be iffy having to go back to an Intel integrated GPU. Intel has yet to supersede the 9400m to date with their current offerings and we all know the 9400m has proven to be a massive IGPU for Apple across the board.

Question now is...what's the solution

[Demosthenes X]

Doesn't Intel have a huge chunk of processor market share? In which case, their move to sell only chips with their own integrated graphics could be construed as anti-competitive. The fact that one can still add a discrete graphics chip muddles the issue a bit, but if I were Competition Bureau I'd be taking a look at this...

[Warbrain]

Doesn't Intel have a huge chunk of processor market share? In which case, their move to sell only chips with their own integrated graphics could be construed as anti-competitive. The fact that one can still add a discrete graphics chip muddles the issue a bit, but if I were Competition Bureau I'd be taking a look at this...

You'd think that they already would have considering Intel's marketshare has been large but not large enough to warrant huge attention like Microsoft. The deals they have with AMD to keep a competitor in the market protects them.

[Speedy2]

Custom IGP-less Arrandale + ATI Park/Madison 5xxx discrete GPU = Win

Please Steve. Please.

Something like that is going to happen in the MBP anyway. The big question is, what will they do with the MB, Mac Mini etc

Edit: I should add that they are probably simply looking for a good way to disable the IGP in the CPU, not an actual IGP-less CPU.

[Warbrain]

Hearing this will make me wait. I would like a new MacBook Pro but I can hold-off while this MacBook keeps on kicking. It'll be interesting to see what comes out.

[DipDog3]

Not really sure what we should take away from this?

Anyone?

[Speedy2]

Doesn't Intel have a huge chunk of processor market share? In which case, their move to sell only chips with their own integrated graphics could be construed as anti-competitive. The fact that one can still add a discrete graphics chip muddles the issue a bit, but if I were Competition Bureau I'd be taking a look at this...

They've been selling CPUs + chipsets w/ GPU for ages. If they move the GPU to the CPU, it won't make much of a difference, bundling-wise. The only thing that might be suspicious is the fact that they are not giving Nvidia a license for Nehalem.

[OllyW]

Doesn't Intel have a huge chunk of processor market share? In which case, their move to sell only chips with their own integrated graphics could be construed as anti-competitive. The fact that one can still add a discrete graphics chip muddles the issue a bit, but if I were Competition Bureau I'd be taking a look at this...

There's always AMD as an alternative and also these are not the only laptop chips that Intel offer so I doubt if it can be classed as anti-competitive.

I'm sure we will hear from the European Commission if there is a hint of a problem, with their legal action (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8047546.stm) against Intel still under appeal.

[Mackan]

It's strange that Apple can just 'refuse' to accept Arrandale. What if Intel says 'ok, suit yourself'? Would Apple turn to AMD? No.

[adder7712]

Aren't many mobos included an onboard GPU (usually the GMA and some ATI HD x200 chip)? The GPU can be disabled by a BIOS setting (on Windows that is). In this case, I don't think it is too hard to disable the integrated GPU on the Arrandale chip.

I want to see ATI Mobility and/or NVIDIA Mobile GPUs but the integrated GPU could be used on a low end polycarbonate MacBook.

[Spandexman]

Aren't many mobos included an onboard GPU (usually the GMA and some ATI HD x200 chip)? The GPU can be disabled by a BIOS setting (on Windows that is). In this case, I don't think it is too hard to disable the integrated GPU on the Arrandale chip.

I want to see ATI Mobility and/or NVIDIA Mobile GPUs but the integrated GPU could be used on a low end polycarbonate MacBook.

But why would you want to disable the integrated GPU, that's what I don't get!

[iZac]

"Intel,

your integrated GPUs are crap, pull them out. Not that big of a deal.

- Steve

Sent from my iPhone"

[Warbrain]

But why would you want to disable the integrated GPU, that's what I don't get!

Because they're utter crap and pointless if you have a discrete graphics card.

[adder7712]

But why would you want to disable the integrated GPU, that's what I don't get! So Apple can use better graphics solutions and on a Windows computer, your own and better graphics card. :rolleyes:

Some games would not even start without a discrete graphics card.

@Warbrain
You beat me. :mad:
(j/k lol)

[Warbrain]

So Apple can use better graphics solutions and on a Windows computer, your own and better graphics card. :rolleyes:

Some games would not even start without a discrete graphics card.

@Warbrain
You beat me. :mad:
(j/k lol)

Haha.

And to be honest I don't mind my x3100 on my MacBook. Allows me to play some games in Windows. But would a real graphics card tickle my fancy? Yes indeed.

[vendettabass]

"Intel,

your integrated GPUs are crap, pull them out. Not that big of a deal.

- Steve

Sent from my iPhone"

:D epic

[adder7712]

:D epic Indeed, I wonder if Steve sent something similar. :p

[Hellhammer]

It sucks if Apple keeps going with Core 2 Duos. Good thing is that Arrandale contains two dies, the CPU and the GPU so it's easier to manufacture one without the GPU than if they were on the same die.

[wizard]

I've heard in the past that an Arrandale variant without the IGP was coming. For some markets it just makes sense.
The Arrandale is apparently a multichip module so removal of the GPU should be relatively easy
The big problem with GPU removal is what do you have left with respect to pin I/O. If the IGP interface is PCI Express like a simple solution might be to add a buffer chip/line driver to take the signals outside the chip module.
If you have no intention at all for using the IGP then it becomes a power burden. The last thing you would want in a processor for portables is dead power draw. It would be pretty much dead power draw because last I knew Intel GPUs can even handle OpenCL code.


By the way Apple has a lot of pull here. The last thing Intel needs is Apple on record as saying that Arrandale can't cut the mustard. Beyond that AMD does have very viable chips to compete with Arrandale especially when GPU quality is factored in.

In the end though it should be easy for Intel to deliver something for the general market here. It doesn't have to even be an Apple specific chip. As the subject indicates the rumor mill has already indicated that such a chip is coming.

Dave

[tom619]

sure hope the new mbp comes out next month! looking unlikely now!

[kiranmk2]

It depends on what a bios-disable of the IGP actually means - if it completely switches it off and stops it drawing any power at all then that's probably good enough - then the onus is on nVidia to create a GPU suitable for the 13"/mini (the 9400m has the chipset built into it).

The way Apple is going with OS-X needs a decent GPU to carry out OpenCL instructions - thus using an Intel IGP for "simple" tasks may not cut it.

[commander.data]

Would Apple be that behind if they didn't go Arrandale come February for the MBP?
I think they would. Quad core Clarksfield isn't the most appropriate for most of the MacBook lineup given the 45W TDP and there are only 2 models with that TDP, which isn't enough to fill a whole lineup. And once Arrandale is released, the Nehalem lineup would be complete and fully replaced Core 2 Penryns.

I also don't understand the need to completely rip out the IGP. There are 2 dies, but the memory controller and PCIe controller appear to be integrated in into the IGP die (it's basically a full northbridge), so taking out the IGP die requires a major redesign. Quad core Nehalems have the memory controller integrated into the actual CPU die, but I believe the MC is in the IGP die in Arrandale for more efficient memory bandwidth for the IGP. The IGP could of course be easily disabled and the TDP used elsewhere. What's more, if the point is to use discrete graphics, even low-end ones, that's still possible with the IGP intact, and Intel supports dynamic GPU switching between IGP and nVidia and ATI graphics cards. And it's not like their is a nVidia alternative IGP for Arrandale. It is a very peculiar request.

[stylewriter]

Intel does have a non-hobbled laptop version of the i7 called Clarksfield... it just gobbles power. I think it would be much more likely that Apple would ask for low power versions of Clarksfield than a redesign of Arrandale.

Clarksfield

4 core
no IGP
45W to 55W <- PROBLEM

Arrandale.

2 core <- PROBLEM
crappy IGP <- PROBLEM
18W to 35W


The CPU part of Arrandale isn't much faster than the Core2. All Intel would need to make Clarksfield acceptable is clock it lower and certify it at those lower speed. Even at much lower clock speeds it would wipe the floor with Arrandale.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarksfield_(microprocessor)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrandale_(microprocessor)

[adder7712]

Clarksfield eh?

But we could see it in the high end 17 inch and possibly the high end 15 inch.

[717]

"The report has generated some debate in our Waiting for Arrandale thread both due to the untested source of the rumor as well as the technical implications of creating a custom chip just for Apple."

Shouldn't 'untested' be 'unattested'?

[gianly1985]

Best case scenario

http://img.skitch.com/20091207-eaeuba99j28hcpkc6npepj1a7a.jpg

Worst case scenario

http://img.skitch.com/20091207-1t64jsk52hhfarmdw5xt56i1w4.jpg

[commander.data]

Intel does have a non-hobbled laptop version of the i7 called Clarksfield... it just gobbles power. I think it would be much more likely that Apple would ask for low power versions of Clarksfield than a redesign of Arrandale.

Clarksfield

4 core
no IGP
45W to 55W <- PROBLEM

Arrandale.

2 core <- PROBLEM
crappy IGP <- PROBLEM
18W to 35W


The CPU part of Arrandale isn't much faster than the Core2. All Intel would need to make Clarksfield acceptable is clock it lower and certify it at those lower speed. Even at much lower clock speeds it would wipe the floor with Arrandale.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarksfield_(microprocessor)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrandale_(microprocessor)
A lower clock speed Clarksfield would likely be a performance decrease from current dual core Core 2 Duos when running dual threaded applications which is the most common operating scenario. The current slowest Clarksfield already runs at a slow 1.6GHz and can only Turbo up to 2.67GHz when running dual cores which would be slower than current 2.8GHz and 3.06GHz high-end dual cores. Needing even lower clock speeds to fit the 35W TDP, will be even worse.

Personally, I think this fuss about Intel IGPs is a good way for Apple to get Intel to write OpenCL drivers for their Arrandale IGPs. I doubt Apple is too concerned about raw IGP performance, but Apple would certainly be concerned about selling a new Mac without OpenCL support. A reasonable compromise, instead of ripping out the IGP would be for Intel to write OpenCL drivers not only for their GPU but also for the CPU. Currently, AMD includes both CPU and GPU OpenCL drivers with their graphics cards, while nVidia only includes GPU OpenCL drivers since they don't make CPUs. If Intel were to provide both CPU and IGP drivers for OpenCL, the installed OpenCL compatible base would suddenly increase several fold. Moreover, if Apple can convince Intel to release OpenCL drivers as a priority over DirectCompute drivers, that'll also give OpenCL a decisive early advantage.

[xlii]

This is likely a good thing, but I'm bummed because I was hoping for the new MBPs in January. :(

I don't see how anyone can see this as a good thing. If true, you can forget a new laptop refresh of any significance for at least 9 more months. You just don't spin a new chipset out of thin air. These things take a lot of time to design, simulate, fix the bugs in the simulation, loop till it all looks good. Spin the ASICs, motherboard, test it in the lap, respin that ASIC that had bugs, test in lap ----> build in manufacturing, send to Apple, Apple repackages and sends to their manufacturing partners in China.

[RichardI]

Jeeze, what a tangled web we weave.......
Motorola would have consulted Apple first and nothing would have been created without Apple's input.
Intel will come to regret Apple's patronage. But, who can blame Apple I guess?

Rich :cool:

[nick9191]

It's strange that Apple can just 'refuse' to accept Arrandale. What if Intel says 'ok, suit yourself'? Would Apple turn to AMD? No.
Steve: Take off the GPU.
Intel: No.
Steve: Take off the GPU and I wont kneecap you.
Intel: Yes sir.

[cmaier]

Removing the gpu from the mcm is easy. Big deal.

[KnottyBoi]

I willing to wait, Apple shouldn't bring crappy Intel graphics to market. If they do they are starting to look like the "other" compute companies out there....

[TheScavenger]

#$#%# Intel.
They should've just released a 32nm, 35W version of the i7-920XM.
It's doable, wtf didn't they?

I don't think thats possible.

[adder7712]

Best case scenario

http://img.skitch.com/20091207-eaeuba99j28hcpkc6npepj1a7a.jpg

Worst case scenario

http://img.skitch.com/20091207-1t64jsk52hhfarmdw5xt56i1w4.jpg Gimme HD 5xxx MacBook Pros!

But they need to update the GPUs on the iMac too. :confused:

[MacSince1990]

Hmmm....I would like to see quad-core MacBook Pros in the very near future...hopefully this issue won't cause any delays.

You won't... and if anything this would make it more plausible without a worthless integrated graphics chip adding heat/wattage.

Good move on Apple's part for once, I was really hoping this would happen.

[AppleMacFinder]

Why :apple: don't want to have this crappy GPU inside the Arrandale?
Because it will reduce the prices!!! ;) And we don't need it. Just NVidia. :rolleyes:

R e m e m b e r . . .

A T I & A M D & I n t e l G P U & W i n d o w s s u c k s !
I n t e l C P U & N V i d i a & M a c & :apple: r u l e s !

[rme]

I don't think thats possible.

Care to elaborate?

[Eidorian]

I don't have much faith in BrightSideofNews but it will be interesting to see what Apple does since we've been discussing it for ages.

[rme]

Why :apple: don't want to have this crappy GPU inside the Arrandale?
Because it will reduce the prices!!! ;) And we don't need it. Just NVidia. :rolleyes:

Apple could claim disability benefits ;)

[cababah]

I would like a 13" MBP with discrete graphics please. None of this integrated crap!!

Intel would be wise to conform to Apple's request. The MBPs sell like hotcakes. I can definitely see a future 13" MBP having two options (much like the 15") with an integrated and one with a discrete graphics card.

[MacSince1990]

Intel does have a non-hobbled laptop version of the i7 called Clarksfield... it just gobbles power. I think it would be much more likely that Apple would ask for low power versions of Clarksfield than a redesign of Arrandale.

Clarksfield

4 core
no IGP
45W to 55W <- PROBLEM

Arrandale.

2 core <- PROBLEM
crappy IGP <- PROBLEM
18W to 35W


The CPU part of Arrandale isn't much faster than the Core2. All Intel would need to make Clarksfield acceptable is clock it lower and certify it at those lower speed. Even at much lower clock speeds it would wipe the floor with Arrandale.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarksfield_(microprocessor)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrandale_(microprocessor)

2 cores is plenty for 90% of users. 95%. 4-core performance isn't even taken advantage of in most apps.

[benedetti]

Apple & PA Semi have managed to build their own chip already :eek::eek::eek:

[yfyfyf]

Gimme HD 5xxx MacBook Pros!

But they need to update the GPUs on the iMac too. :confused:

+1, nVidia just don't cut the cheese in the GPU market no more. its just a sinking ship since they p'ssed off intel but can't produce for AMD, on the other-hand their GPUs are getting heavy bombardment from ATI...

However the i7+IGP will be most welcomed on the low-end macbook!! (provided they support OpenCL)

[TheScavenger]

Care to elaborate?

Because the 820qm is 45w and I don't see a higher clocked 920qm having a lower TDP even with a 32nm process. Just my 2 cents. I hope I'm wrong though :D

[Xibalba]

It's about to hit the fan...

it probably already has and we just can't see in the room until they open the blinds to the public.


as much as i love apple products, sometimes i wonder whether if the necessity to have so much control over chipsets and such is even necessary for success and/or adding to our cost in the end with "special order" hardware components.

[MacSince1990]

Why :apple: don't want to have this crappy GPU inside the Arrandale?
Because it will reduce the prices!!! ;) And we don't need it. Just NVidia. :rolleyes:

R e m e m b e r . . .

A T I & A M D & I n t e l G P U & W i n d o w s s u c k s !
I n t e l C P U & N V i d i a & M a c & :apple: r u l e s !

Actually ATI is very much on top of the market right now, once again (first time since the Radeon 9700 Pro). nVidia cards have always had serious quality issues, and that's not even mentioning the recent 8x00 series fiasco. ATI has always had better quality video. Now they have better performance again.

Anyway, ISO G6 (Power6) and ATI 5650s in the new MBPs =P

[TheScavenger]

Actually ATI is very much on top of the market right now, once again (first time since the Radeon 9700 Pro). nVidia cards have always had serious quality issues, and that's not even mentioning the recent 8x00 series fiasco. ATI has always had better quality video. Now they have better performance again.

Anyway, ISO G6 (Power6) and ATI 5650s in the new MBPs =P

Put any 5-series card in the MBPs and I'll be happy.

[diamond.g]

Intel would be wise to conform to Apple's request. The MBPs sell like hotcakes. I can definitely see a future 13" MBP having two options (much like the 15") with an integrated and one with a discrete graphics card.

This doesn't make sense. Intel pretty much owns the CPU market. AMD doesn't have the fab capability nor the performance to keep up. Where is Apple going to go? Intel could just say take it or leave it. It isn't like Apple is going to start using AMD chips overnight...

[MacSince1990]

Put any 5-series card in the MBPs and I'll be happy.

Yeah... well maybe not a 5400 =P Their only option for a MBP is a 56xx (5650), as they've used a midrange card in their laptops for the last 10 years... PowerBook G3s and onwards.

Plus a 58xx would melt the damn thing lol

[jamesryanbell]

Where is a list of every name for a given technology, along with what it means?

Arrandale, Clarksfield, etc?

Where's a master list?

[Shintocam]

Actually ATI is very much on top of the market right now, once again (first time since the Radeon 9700 Pro). nVidia cards have always had serious quality issues, and that's not even mentioning the recent 8x00 series fiasco. ATI has always had better quality video. Now they have better performance again.

Anyway, ISO G6 (Power6) and ATI 5650s in the new MBPs =P

I'll mention the 8x00 fiasco. I've had my logic board replaced once because of problems with the damn 8600 chip and my "new logic board" has about 2 months on it a looks like it's going too - all sorts of graphics problems, freezes etc....

<never mind I'm an idiot>Oh and my Xbox360 just died because of - you guessed it, the Nvidia GPU</never mind I'm an idiot>.

I'm avoiding Nvidia wherever I can right now.

[diamond.g]

Where is a list of every name for a given technology, along with what it means?

Arrandale, Clarksfield, etc?

Where's a master list?

Wikipedia would be a good start.

[MacSince1990]

This doesn't make sense. Intel pretty much owns the CPU market. AMD doesn't have the fab capability nor the performance to keep up. Where is Apple going to go? Intel could just say take it or leave it. It isn't like Apple is going to start using AMD chips overnight...

Plus the fact that Apple would have to retool its OS to run natively on AMD processors much less take advantage of its specialized capabilities, lol.. and plus AMD CPUs, are, at the moment, slower. And lets not even get started on a Xeon vs. Opteron... =x

[cmaier]

Apple & PA Semi have managed to build its own chip already :eek::eek::eek:

Um, no.

[diamond.g]

I'll mention the X=8x00 fiasco. I've had my logic board replaced once because of problems with the damn 8600 chip and my "new logic board" has about 2 months on it a looks like it's going too - all sorts of graphics problems, freezes etc....

Oh and my Xbox360 just died because of - you guessed it, the Nvidia GPU.

I'm avoiding Nvidia wherever I can right now.

Um, the PS3 uses Nvdia GPU, the 360 uses an ATI GPU.

[MacSince1990]

I'll mention the 8x00 fiasco. I've had my logic board replaced once because of problems with the damn 8600 chip and my "new logic board" has about 2 months on it a looks like it's going too - all sorts of graphics problems, freezes etc....

Oh and my Xbox360 just died because of - you guessed it, the Nvidia GPU.

I'm avoiding Nvidia wherever I can right now.

Heh... that sucks. I've always used ATI since the ATI Rage Pro :D

edit: diamond g has a point though :)

[rme]

Because the 820qm is 45w and I don't see a higher clocked 920qm having a lower TDP even with a 32nm process. Just my 2 cents. I hope I'm wrong though :D

I'm not an expert, but I do think they might be able to get the 2 Ghz 920XM down from 55W on 45nm to 35W on 32nm.
The die would be almost half the size than it is now.

[*LTD*]

Apple's throwing around its weight. I kinda like when that happens. ;)

[Shintocam]

Um, the PS3 uses Nvdia GPU, the 360 uses an ATI GPU.

Yup - my mistake....

[cmaier]

I'm not an expert, but I do think they might be able to get the 2 Ghz 920XM down from 55W on 45nm to 35W on 32nm.
The die would be almost half the size than it is now.

I am an expert and i don't think so. At best wire cap would be cut in "almost half," but gate cap is reduced by much less. Since voltage won't change, the power reduction would be much smaller than you think.

[jtlz2]

What about the "successor to Larrabee" Intel GPUGU "cloud" chip?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8392392.stm

[Little Endian]

As long as there is a general overall performance increase in the next MBP revision we will be better off than we are now... A very small percentage of people really need a laptop that is faster than a 3Ghz Core 2 Duo and Nvidia 9600M that is currently available. Whether we see Apple use Arrandale in its current form or an improved variant we will be better off, at least that is what I assume and hope for.

[surferfromuk]

Let's not forget that Apple is 90% of the $1000 plus laptop market.

Put brutally simply - That means there is a very high probability that 90% of the high end chips sold in the first year of a new cycle are going to Apple.

You bet they have some say in the end product and that Apple and Intel have a fantastic mutually profitable collaborative relationship.

[rme]

I am an expert and i don't think so. At best wire cap would be cut in "almost half," but gate cap is reduced by much less. Since voltage won't change, the power reduction would be much smaller than you think.

I figured they'd be able to lower the voltage too. ;)
Thanks for the info.

[St.Jimmy!]

I'm currently on to a MBP 15" and I read macrumors every day. Today's updates weren' very good news.

I'll have to wait to see what apple does with all this.

Has someone thought about considering the HP Envy? I just find two things where the MBP beats it (for me), which are battery life and OSX. All the rest is >= to MBP. Plus, price is considerably lower. I really don't know what to do. I still prefer MBP though, but we'll have to se what they come up with in the next 2 months...

[robeddie]

Now wait, this article says NVIDIA is 'exiting the chip business'. Don't they mean the 'integrated graphics chip business'?.

I though NVIDIA was still very much in the discreet graphics chip business.

Can someone clarify?

[yfyfyf]

As long as there is a general overall performance increase in the next MBP revision we will be better off than we are now... A very small percentage of people really need a laptop that is faster than a 3Ghz Core 2 Duo and Nvidia 9600M that is currently available. Whether we see Apple use Arrandale in its current form or an improved variant we will be better off, at least that is what I assume and hope for.

well folks like me who do audio stuff and some of my mates who does Finalcut stuff are the only people I know that employs an Apple computer. I 100% agree with you that only a dead small margin of folks needs anything more than 2 cores in their machines, but for us semi-pros + geeks, we always need to stay future-proof and ahead...

as for the rest of the population, I don't see why the average joe will need to pay the additional premium for a mac at all, seeing W7 is fantastic on my desktop...

[arkmannj]

Maybe this is crazy talk, but could Apple just keep the integrated graphics, then still add two discrete Graphics sets ?

Then you have a high powered GPU, a mid range one, and a low range one that the system can pick or mix-n-match from depending on graphics processing/performance needs, power consumption needs, etc...

Idle time it could goto the integrated graphics, need full power turn on all three, or any other combination in between.

It would probably be to hot to have all of them running at the same time on portables though, and maybe take up to much space...hmmmm


While we're at it, could I get a better dedicated Audio processor ?

[mdriftmeyer]

2 cores is plenty for 90% of users. 95%. 4-core performance isn't even taken advantage of in most apps.

640KB is all the memory you'll ever need.

[Little Endian]

Apple & PA Semi have managed to build its own chip already :eek::eek::eek:

indeed... there is always a possibility that Apple could go back to Power PC, although an improbable scenario the option is still there. Apple has an insatiable desire of getting exactly what it wants from vendors to build what they have in mind. That is perhaps Apples greatest advantage over MS as OSX can run natively on various CPU platforms. No need to be reliant only on Intel or AMD, PA Semi, Freescale, and to a lesser degree IBM are all still possible partners in future portable machines. think iphone, itablet, and future laptop possibilities... Intel does not have an absolute monopoly over low power high performance CPU options.

[Eidorian]

640KB is all the memory you'll ever need.It's getting a tad bit old hearing it. It's 2009 and quad core has been mainstream since the Q6600 hit $266. :rolleyes:

[thejadedmonkey]

Plus the fact that Apple would have to retool its OS to run natively on AMD processors much less take advantage of its specialized capabilities, lol.. and plus AMD CPUs, are, at the moment, slower. And lets not even get started on a Xeon vs. Opteron... =x
Considering tinkerer's have gotten OS X running on an AMD CPU with ATI graphics, I doubt that it would be all that difficult for engineers with the source code to do it.
indeed... there is always a possibility that Apple could go back to Power PC, although an improbable scenario the option is still there. Apple has an insatiable desire of getting exactly what it wants from vendors to build what they have in mind. That is perhaps Apples greatest advantage over MS as OSX can run natively on various CPU platforms. No need to be reliant only on Intel or AMD, PA Semi, Freescale, and to a lesser degree IBM are all still possible partners in future portable machines. think iphone, itablet, and future laptop possibilities... Intel does not have an absolute monopoly over low power high performance CPU options.
Windows had a PPC variant back in the day, and like Apple, I'd be shocked if MS didn't have a partially stable build of Windows 7 for other CPU types.

[cmaier]

indeed... there is always a possibility that Apple could go back to Power PC, although an improbable scenario the option is still there. Apple has an insatiable desire of getting exactly what it wants from vendors to build what they have in mind. That is perhaps Apples greatest advantage over MS as OSX can run natively on various CPU platforms. No need to be reliant only on Intel or AMD, PA Semi, Freescale, and to a lesser degree IBM are all still possible partners in future portable machines. think iphone, itablet, and future laptop possibilities... Intel does not have an absolute monopoly over low power high performance CPU options.

"improbable" is an understatement.

[jamesryanbell]

Wikipedia would be a good start.

I didn't see a master list. Just individual names.

[MacSince1990]

640KB is all the memory you'll ever need.

LOLGOOD1.

#1 Gates never said that.

#2 I'm saying 2 cores is enough for 95% of users at the moment, and in the foreseeable 2-year or so future.

#3 What I said was true.

Considering tinkerer's have gotten OS X running on an AMD CPU with ATI graphics, I doubt that it would be all that difficult for engineers with the source code to do it.

Mhm. And OS X has been running on Intel builds since Cheetah. But the transition was still an ordeal. And like I said, they would have to optimize for AMD. Plus the performance is lagging quite a bit behind intel at the moment.

...Also, Apple's been using ATI graphics since the Power Mac G3. So that part's not exactly a stretch..

[belltree]

This gives the last option on this poll (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=820491) a sliver of hope ;)

[Little Endian]

well folks like me who do audio stuff and some of my mates who does Finalcut stuff are the only people I know that employs an Apple computer. I 100% agree with you that only a dead small margin of folks needs anything more than 2 cores in their machines, but for us semi-pros + geeks, we always need to stay future-proof and ahead...

as for the rest of the population, I don't see why the average joe will need to pay the additional premium for a mac at all, seeing W7 is fantastic on my desktop...

Agreed, as I am a gearhead as well, but if you think rationally there is no revolutionary performance increase ahead of us if Apple goes with Intel's current Arrandale and GPU offerings. Even with the best Arrandale offerings we would see a 15-30% increase in CPU performance over the best Core 2 Duo options. A 15-30% boost in performance is great but hardly revolutionary.

Now if we are talking Quad core options and the fastest discrete GPUs available then we could see 50-100% peformance increase though the higher range increase would involve mainly Graphics intensive scenarios. I don't see this happening in the immediate future (next 6 months) or so as while the technology is here to make that happen the TDP and cost effectiveness is not quite here yet. Apple does not want to make a laptop with sub 3 hour battery life that doubles as a hotplate and costs in the $2500-$3000 range. After all we are still in a recession... and Apple still cares about style and functionality.

[powers74]

... and to a lesser degree IBM ...

HA! Over Steve's cold, dead body!

[Yixian]

Yeah... well maybe not a 5400 =P Their only option for a MBP is a 56xx (5650), as they've used a midrange card in their laptops for the last 10 years... PowerBook G3s and onwards.

Plus a 58xx would melt the damn thing lol

There are 57XXs too, a 5770 for example would be excellent.

[Ledgem]

Has someone thought about considering the HP Envy? I just find two things where the MBP beats it (for me), which are battery life and OSX. All the rest is >= to MBP. Plus, price is considerably lower. I really don't know what to do. I still prefer MBP though, but we'll have to se what they come up with in the next 2 months...
I'm also using a 15" Macbook Pro (the version right before they went unibody).

The Envy's style seems to be a copy of the latest Macbook (aluminum) and Macbook Pros. But that's just the outside - the hardware inside is extremely high-performance. People say that the battery life isn't great, but it's rated for ~3 hours - that's pretty phenomenal, given what's inside. You also have the choice to get a higher-capacity battery, which would probably stick out of the case but would give you ~8-9 hours of battery life.

If I were in the market for a desktop replacement laptop today I'd almost certainly be going for the Envy. Windows 7 is quite a decent OS, so the pain of changing operating systems yet again wouldn't be too great. The only trouble would be finding replacements for much of the Mac-only software that I've come to rely on.

[Furrybeagle]

Yes but it is also a shame that Apple never actually took advantage of Nvidia's chipsets. On a Windows machine with the Nvidia chipset and a discrete Nvidia you could run a hybrid SLI mode but OSX never supported it.....

I’m going to take a wild guess and say thermal constraints kept this from being a reality.

[hackum]

So how does this piece of news affect the probability of a new MBP line in Jan/Feb 2010?

[Little Endian]

HA! Over Steve's cold, dead body!

"improbable" is an understatement.

Regarding going back to Power PC... perhaps "improbable" is an understatement and sure going to Power PC may involve going over Steve's dead body. Albeit it is good to remember that 5 years ago or so those same statements were made about the probability of Apple transitioning to Intel. :rolleyes: And of course here we are today...:D where things could go tomorrow could be quite a surprise :eek:

I made my original comment about the Apple and PA Semi relationship. Namely how Apple acquired PA semi (Power PC chip developer) and how they had and are rumored to still have Power based chips under development.


Windows had a PPC variant back in the day, and like Apple, I'd be shocked if MS didn't have a partially stable build of Windows 7 for other CPU types.

While MS has had and may still have versions of Windows for the Power PC platform it is only Apple and OSX that actually have an OS platform that is running relatively seamlessly across multiple architectures, mind you in the real world not just in speculation, rumor, and theory.

[diamond.g]

I didn't see a master list. Just individual names.

Here is the list (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Nehalem_%28microarchitecture%29#Westmere_.28microarchitecture.29). It shows all the known Nehalem chips. This list (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_microprocessors) shows all of Intels (known) microprocessors.

[cmaier]

Believe me or don't, but that team has not been working on ppc since apple acquired them.

Regarding going back to Power PC... perhaps "improbable" is an understatement and sure going to Power PC may involve going over Steve's dead body. Albeit it is good to remember that 5 years ago or so those same statements were made about the probability of Apple transitioning to Intel. :rolleyes: And of course here we are today...:D where things could go tomorrow could be quite a surprise :eek:

I made my original comment about the Apple and PA Semi relationship. Namely how Apple acquired PA semi (Power PC chip developer) and how they had and are rumored to still have Power based chips under development.



While MS has had and may still have versions of Windows for the Power PC platform it is only Apple and OSX that actually have an OS platform that is running relatively seamlessly across multiple architectures, mind you in the real world not just in speculation, rumor, and theory.

[*LTD*]

Apple leaving Intel?

Not anytime in the near future. Apple and Intel will work it out and life will go on, if these rumours are true to begin with.

The move to Intel continues to bear fruit, quarter after quarter.

[whoami]

i'm sure apple has it's ace with PA semi building something that would complement the Intel chips, not replace them! ;)

[Little Endian]

Believe me or don't, but that team has not been working on ppc since apple acquired them.

I never said that I did not believe you... If you have potential insider information I would be interested if you could share what you know. Regardless my only point is not to completely discredit future possible scenarios no matter how unlikely, dead or improbable they may be. You must admit though that Apple utilizing someone other than Intel in part is more probable than MS abandoning Intel or the X86 architecture. Apple is not tied to eternity to Intel we could see AMD in the future or perhaps someone else fill whatever needs Apple has in the future especially in future portable products that demand the lowest power usage. Heck why does apple still not and is not rumored to use an Intel offering in the iphone and potential tablet mac?

[SiliconKnight]

I dont know if this is necessarily true. It seems to me the Arrandale chip does come with onboard GPU but like all boards like this you should be able to offload GPU to a off-board card via PCIX.

Intel wouldn't "Mandate" you use their onboard card that would be shooting themselves in the foot!

-SK

[cmaier]

I never said that I did not believe you... If you have potential insider information I would be interested if you could share what you know. Regardless my only point is not to completely discredit future possible scenarios no matter how unlikely, dead or improbable they may be. You must admit though that Apple utilizing someone other than Intel in part is more probable than MS abandoning Intel or the X86 architecture. Apple is not tied to eternity to Intel we could see AMD in the future or perhaps someone else fill whatever needs Apple has in the future especially in future portable products that demand the lowest power usage. Heck why does apple still not and is not rumored to use an Intel offering in the iphone and potential tablet mac?

As a guy who worked at AMD for ten years, and was one of a handful of designers who worked on the first AMD64 chips, even I wouldn't recommend a switch to AMD.

As for the belief thing, that was just my way of saying I won't say anything else on that topic.

[diamond.g]

As a guy who worked at AMD for ten years, and was one of a handful of designers who worked on the first AMD64 chips, even I wouldn't recommend a switch to AMD.

As for the belief thing, that was just my way of saying I won't say anything else on that topic.

I often wonder if AMD screwed themselves trying to get a real quad core out as opposed to just putting two dual core dies together. It seems that AMD could have spent the time improving IPC as opposed to having to chase leakage issues and whatnot...

[!¡ V ¡!]

Take a year or two to release it intel and :apple:, my SR MBP is still running strong for my requirements. I have no compelling reason to upgrade for a while. :D

[Eruanno]

Hear, hear! Get those Intel graphics far, far away from me. I suffered through the Intel GMA 950 crap, never again I say!

Let's hear it for NVIDIA (or ATI, I'm not picky)!

[Riemann Zeta]

Apple is probably not the only company to want a Nalhalem CPU without the Intel integrated GPU. Since Intel and NVIDIA are in such a pissing contest, Intel has quickly attempted to throw integrated GPUs into everything in order to squeeze NVIDIA out of the market. The problem, of course, is that all integrated GPUs suck.

[AidenShaw]

...I'd be shocked if MS didn't have a partially stable build of Windows 7 for other CPU types.

Microsoft is selling Windows 7 on three different, incompatible CPU architectures.

32-bit x86
64-bit x64
64-bit IA64 (server version only)

It's possible, like you say, that additional builds are done on unreleased architectures. (From an engineering standpoint, building on three, where one is radically different, is a good bit of insurance that no serious architectural assumptions will end up in the code. It might be smart, however, to continue to build the PowerPC version (or IA64 in big-endian mode) so that little-endian assumptions aren't made.)


While MS has had and may still have versions of Windows for the Power PC platform it is only Apple and OSX that actually have an OS platform that is running relatively seamlessly across multiple architectures, mind you in the real world not just in speculation, rumor, and theory.

Look at the previous paragraph.... Also, tell me how many architectures are supported by OSX 10.6....


... but like all boards like this you should be able to offload GPU to a off-board card via PCIX.

Typo: "PCI Express" (or PCIe), not PCI-X. (PCI-X was the older server/workstation variant of PCI.)

[danielwsmithee]

I really think this only going to be applicable to the lower end laptops that currently use the 9400m only. The higher end laptops that already have dedicated graphics will most likely be using Clarksfield. Arrandale is designed primarily to be cheap. An Arrandale - GPU + dedicated graphics sounds like a pretty nice upgrade for the lower end laptops.

[Prom1]

This is likely a good thing, but I'm bummed because I was hoping for the new MBPs in January. :(

x5! I expect a MBP refresh delay til April '10.

Don't worry. Apple can't afford to wait too long. I think it's pretty safe to say the Apple+Intel bond is pretty strong, at the moment (Light Peak, MBA CPU, that early Mac Pro CPU run, etc) so it seems entirely plausible that Apple will get some custom made silicon in January, if they don't already have it.

If Apple wait too long after Arrandale is released, they will lose a monumental number of sales.

Yes they CAN afford to wait, at least until June. Their stock will drop, which is fine (maybe $30/share), and just in time as the unemployment numbers drop significantly, credit card payments begin to rise in spring 2010, and credit card purchases begin to take off yet again in late spring. This is ripe for a stock split (which should be in 2010) and more stocks purchased raising value yet again and more money incidently in Apple's coffers ;) . It's all part of the plan.

PS: I guess really nothing technical from Stopping Apple using NVidia & AMD in combo to Intel chips, is there?

[firegun9]

good job Apple.

I hope more companies could jump out like this.

[Bubba Satori]

Custom IGP-less Arrandale + ATI Park/Madison 5xxx discrete GPU = Win

Please Steve. Please.

+1

No more two year old, $50, junk video cards in premium laptops.

[Eidorian]

LOLGOOD1.

#1 Gates never said that.

#2 I'm saying 2 cores is enough for 95% of users at the moment, and in the foreseeable 2-year or so future.

#3 What I said was true.What do you say when every other manufacturer is on Clarksfield and Arrandale while Apple stays on Core 2?

Really now, $999 gets you a quad core notebook. $600 gets you a quad core desktop. It's bad enough to see the $1,000 markup on the Mac Pro.

Apple's best value is still in the 13.3" MacBook (Pro).

[Rodimus Prime]

I would love apple to say screw intel and go over to AMD.

[str1f3]

I would love apple to say screw intel and go over to AMD.

Not going to happen. Apple always touts performance per watt as being the most important stat and Intel is miles ahead of AMD in this regard.

[*LTD*]

What do you say when every other manufacturer is on Clarksfield and Arrandale while Apple stays on Core 2?

I say as long as it's reasonably fast, recent and reliable I don't really care. I[m not after raw specs and neither is the rest of Apple's market. In fact, Apple has been keeping just the right pace with evolving tech.

[RBR2]

Maybe because of the price..trying to reduce prices of the processors and having just one graphic card making things simple..

Dropping the integrated graphics would likely reduce cost (size of the die) and thermal profile and, of course, save battery life. Until such time as Intel can demonstrate an integrated graphics solution which is plainly superior to any discreet graphics solution within the same thermal profile, it makes sense to avoid being restricted. I doubt that Intel's Gen I solution can do that.

[Riemann Zeta]

I've always wondered why Microsoft still bothers with an Itanium strain of Windows NT. The architecture is radically different than x86, there is essentially zero third-party software for the platform and compared to x86 (or even PPC/SPARC), there are only a handful of Itanium machines on earth. MS must be under contractual agreement with Intel to compile a Windows version for the IA64 architecture for a given number of years. Otherwise, IA64 is a dead architecture that was dead on arrival--the chips are still at a 90nm process and run at 1.6GHz max (with only 2 cores).

[RBR2]

+1

No more two year old, $50, junk video cards in premium laptops.

+1

Apple have been guilty of using old components for far too long. Please do not travel that path again.

[Rocketman]

Since Arrandale has a fixed die size and a maximum transistor count, even with a print shrink, one wonders what Apple wants to do with the 50% of real estate these requests clear up?

More cores no doubt.

Rocketman

[Rodimus Prime]

Not going to happen. Apple always touts performance per watt as being the most important stat and Intel is miles ahead of AMD in this regard.


You mean the same apple who kept screaming how much better PPC was over c86 then the day after MW they were saying how much better x86 was than PPC.

Makes you wonder how much marketing crap is in all that doesnt it.

[gianly1985]

Since Arrandale has a fixed die size and a maximum transistor count, even with a print shrink, one wonders what Apple wants to do with the 50% of real estate these requests clear up?

More cores no doubt.


Too cool to be real....custom 32nm quad cores for Apple one year before the rest of the market...not gonna happen...

[wizard]

2 cores is plenty for 90% of users. 95%. 4-core performance isn't even taken advantage of in most apps.


You really don't know how many cores any one app is capable of using today.
Further Appples new technologies allow an app to sue as many cores as is required and available. This is actualy a huge feature so apps written with GCD in mind can leverage any number of CPU cores.
Conversely many apps will never levear parallel processing in s significant way. That however means nothing with respect to buying hardware.
The important thing with multiple cores isn't the software that can't be accelerated but the software that can be. In many cases the speed ups are very signficant. At times that can mean linear speed ups, but the average is usually lower.
You forget that modern PC's are often running more than one app or process. The OS can allocate CPU time to those apps/processes any time. Four cores just keep a machine more repsonive and doing more chores before it become unacceptably slow.
All apps to some extent use system resources and Libraries. use of those resources can result in multipel threades beign used at the apps request, So even a single threade app can at times see a speed up on multicore hardware. It all depends upon the libraries used.


This doesn't even take into account the pretty obvious moves by Apple to make heavy use of multi thread hardware in the future. Snow Leopard should be writing on the wall for anybody considering hardware purchases. It basically foretells the future.


Dave

[RBR2]

Too cool to be real....custom 32nm quad cores for Apple one year before the rest of the market...not gonna happen...

It would not really be "custom", more like "option delete".

[wizard]

Since Arrandale has a fixed die size and a maximum transistor count, even with a print shrink, one wonders what Apple wants to do with the 50% of real estate these requests clear up?

More cores no doubt.

Rocketman

Nothing gets freed up as they just delete a chip off the MCM. There is not change to the Arrandale die at all. If Apple is lucky all they need to do is to add a buffer chip to bring the interface lines out to the real world. If they are real lucky maybe they don't even need that. It all depends upon how that GPU is interfaced to the CPU, if a fully buffered DMI of PCI-Express port is used they just need to have the pads connected up to real world pins.

Dave

[minik]

I have been keeping track of the MacBook Pro line weeks before Thanksgiving. After seeing the new iMac update, I felt that the lowend MacBook Pro might just receive a speedbump.

On Black Friday, I pulled the trigger and ordered a 2.53/13.3/4GB/SSD. It's the best notebook I have ever used. I do hope Apple picks some higher resolution displays on the up-coming lineup.

[wizard]

Plus the fact that Apple would have to retool its OS to run natively on AMD processors much less take advantage of its specialized capabilities, lol.. and plus AMD CPUs, are, at the moment, slower. And lets not even get started on a Xeon vs. Opteron... =x

It would be nice if the above is completely true but it isn't. The speed of A?MD processors is very interesting especially if you compare a three core AMD chip to a two core Intel with HT support. Outside of that the AMD three core chips have very interesting performance characteristics when put up against Intel i5's. Sometimes AMD wins and really doesn't loose that badly when it does loose.

AMD isn't perfect no more than Intel. However Apple could come up with one hell of a Mini replacement with AMD and ATI hardware stuffed in the box.

AS to software who do you think invented the extensions used to define the x86_64 architecture? Snow Leopard should port to the AMD line up real quick. Most likely Apple has a maintenance requirement that the OS remain always runnable and well performing on AMD hardware. It is the smart thing to do if Intel gets a little to proud of their chips as it allows Apple to build out AMD machines real quick if needed.



Dave

[louden]

x5! I expect a MBP refresh delay til April '10.

Yes they CAN afford to wait, at least until June. Their stock will drop, which is fine (maybe $30/share)...

Fiduciary duty be damned!

Here's what I'm sure about. Apple wants happy customers, and even they aren't so arrogant to think they can continue to sell C2D chips and still own the mid/high end laptop market. They've thought this through long ago. We will be appeased come January. Either with an exceeding expectations (at least on these threads) IGP, or a custom solution.

If not, I'm sure there will be a loud "doh!" coming from Cupertino, and I will be building a Dell/HP/Lenovo Hackintosh Arrandale.

[anthonybsd]

Apple's best value is still in the 13.3" MacBook (Pro).

http://gizmodo.com/5065133/the-truth-about-the-apple-tax

Actually it's the complete opposite. Apple's best value is the 17'' Macbook Pro.

[wizard]

As a guy who worked at AMD for ten years, and was one of a handful of designers who worked on the first AMD64 chips, even I wouldn't recommend a switch to AMD.

As for the belief thing, that was just my way of saying I won't say anything else on that topic.

I realize you are likely limited by agreement in what you can say about AMD but frankly I've never had huge issues with their CPU's Rather the problem I ran into was the quality of the supporting chipsets.

If you can do enlighten us about these AMD issues. Because frankly they might not have many suitable chip combos for Apple hardware but I do see the possibility of building one very nice Mini out of AMD hardware. It would be a machine that performs better than the current and a great deal cheaper to make.

Dave

[Eidorian]

http://gizmodo.com/5065133/the-truth-about-the-apple-tax

Actually it's the complete opposite. Apple's best value is the 17'' Macbook Pro.I knew before I clicked the link it would be an old article. Do you have anything newer?

I realize you are likely limited by agreement in what you can say about AMD but frankly I've never had huge issues with their CPU's Rather the problem I ran into was the quality of the supporting chipsets.

If you can do enlighten us about these AMD issues. Because frankly they might not have many suitable chip combos for Apple hardware but I do see the possibility of building one very nice Mini out of AMD hardware. It would be a machine that performs better than the current and a great deal cheaper to make.

DaveNow that AMD is almost the sole vendor of chipsets for their processors the quality and feature set has improved greatly. The 785G isn't half bad either and it overclocks like a champ. So does my 760G. I have that running at a meager 550 MHz vs. 350 MHz stock.

[flottenheimer]

"Intel Integrated Graphics" sends shivers down my spine.
Dear Apple, please don't go down that road again.

UNLESS... does anyone know what the actual performance is like on the latest or coming versions of IIG (bwaarh, shivers again...)?

[Bubba Satori]

http://gizmodo.com/5065133/the-truth-about-the-apple-tax

Actually it's the complete opposite. Apple's best value is the 17'' Macbook Pro.

Well, that was an interesting read. Thanks for the link.

[lilskaterpunk]

I would like a 13" MBP with discrete graphics please. None of this integrated crap!!

Same here! But I doubt thats going to happen for a while since the MBP 13.3'' were just introduced. I could see HDD upgrades or processor upgrades, very little improvements.
You never know with Apple, they can release anything anytime...

[shanmugam]

it looks like when I read this thread, intel wants to push the Integrated Graphics but the truth is Apple wants Integrated Graphics but a good Integrated Graphics... and apple very adamant not putting a good discrete graphics near $999 machines

we should blame Apple not intel. (I am assuming here you can disable the IGP in arrandale chips )

for us we all want better discrete Graphics card :rolleyes:

what they will do with Dual Core i5 Desktop Clarkdale CPUs?

[D A]

Currently Apple uses 25-35 W CPU and 12 W (9400) or 23 W (9600) GPU. No data is available for ATI 5x00 series cards. ATI 46x0 series is 35 W. Putting a high power GPU would make the cooling quite problematic.

[Maleficent]

There goes my brilliant plan of buying the refreshed MBP while I'm in New York next month.

It'll be interesting to see what happens with this.

[iPhysicist]

I used Coolbook to reduce my V-core to ,875V (lowest possible) and my processing power while on Battery to max 1,5GHz which is enough for everyday computing on the go. I don't want my battery to be leeched by a discrete GPU what is way to much for my needs. I don't need a macbook pro for gaming or heavy Fourier Transformation Sequences. And Steve neither. Only Spec Nerds want to have the best possible. Most just want something that fit their needs. And for me a GPU like the 9400m is ok.

Integrated Graphics are a must in every Macbook Pro and they have to be moderate powerful and power saving. Best what can happen is Intel to take over nVidia to integrate their knowledge into new CPU/GPU generations.

[awesomedeluxe]

Currently Apple uses 25-35 W CPU and 12 W (9400) or 23 W (9600) GPU. No data is available for ATI 5x00 series cards. ATI 46x0 series is 35 W. Putting a high power GPU would make the cooling quite problematic.
Where are you getting that? ATI says 30W for the 4670, but if you've got another source there's certainly motive for them to be fudging that number.

Like you say, there are no hard numbers, but all leaks point to the 5X00 series being around the same TDP as their 4X00 counterparts--slightly higher with the low-end Park series (X300).

Anyway, with the IGP disabled, Arrandale's TDP should shrink to be much closer to 25W. Calpella is an additional 3.5W, but obviously the ION chipset still consumes power even with the 9400 disabled. I don't think either a 4600 or 5600 card would be a major problem.

[JGowan]

He said that she said that they did this and that and the other, but -- that's not what the other people said...

Who the hell is Theo Valich and/or brightsideofnews.com??

We'll see when we see -- who knows WHERE this info came from? Possible out of someone's butt to drive traffic.

[deconstruct60]

i'm sure apple has it's ace with PA semi building something that would complement the Intel chips, not replace them! ;)

Very highly probable that PA Semi is working on something for the iPhone OS line of products. There are no (or exceedingly little and no CPUs ) Intel products in those devices now. So there is nothing to replace.

It is an ARM chip ( which Intel exited that business years ago at this point. )

[jmull]

2 cores is plenty for 90% of users. 95%. 4-core performance isn't even taken advantage of in most apps.

Why do people keep saying that? Do you only use one application?

[AidenShaw]

Why do people keep saying that?

...because they don't have quad core systems.

[lilo777]

What would be the point of disabling the IGP? I mean, I thought that the point of graphics switching was to use the IGP for normal tasks, and then employ the discrete part for more graphics intensive activities to save battery and lower heat? What possible advantage could there be to anyone to disable the IGP? It wouldn't be cheaper, it wouldn't be more efficient, it wouldn't improve graphics (you'd use the NVIDIA card for heavy lifting in either scenario). Am I missing something?

Remember that Apple's motto is "simplicity". Switchable graphics? That's for PC geeks :D

[lilo777]

"Intel Integrated Graphics" sends shivers down my spine.
Dear Apple, please don't go down that road again.


Where do you want Apple to go then? PowerPC?

[twoodcc]

i think there's got to be more to this story. we'll see. i hope this doesn't mean the next macbook pros will be delayed though

[jacksonkeller]

I realize you are likely limited by agreement in what you can say about AMD but frankly I've never had huge issues with their CPU's Rather the problem I ran into was the quality of the supporting chipsets.

If you can do enlighten us about these AMD issues. Because frankly they might not have many suitable chip combos for Apple hardware but I do see the possibility of building one very nice Mini out of AMD hardware. It would be a machine that performs better than the current and a great deal cheaper to make.

Dave

I worked for amd plant that was sold to sony, we made a ton of amd chipset chips. It was an old( in 2000)fab that we used to jokingly call "the jurassic fab".It was an old 5 inch fab, many of the manufacturing machines companies had been out of semiconductor business since Reagan was pres.

[yfyfyf]

I used Coolbook to reduce my V-core to ,875V (lowest possible) and my processing power while on Battery to max 1,5GHz which is enough for everyday computing on the go. I don't want my battery to be leeched by a discrete GPU what is way to much for my needs. I don't need a macbook pro for gaming or heavy Fourier Transformation Sequences. And Steve neither. Only Spec Nerds want to have the best possible. Most just want something that fit their needs. And for me a GPU like the 9400m is ok.

Integrated Graphics are a must in every Macbook Pro and they have to be moderate powerful and power saving. Best what can happen is Intel to take over nVidia to integrate their knowledge into new CPU/GPU generations.

yes mate, but I think to be fair, when I think Macbook Pro, like roughly 8/10 others on this thread, I think of the 15"/17" ones, but not the 13" Juniors....

and you sound to me as though you would be more comfortable with a standard macbook, you'll get more value for money mate!!

[Rocketman]

Nothing gets freed up as they just delete a chip off the MCM. There is not change to the Arrandale die at all. If Apple is lucky all they need to do is to add a buffer chip to bring the interface lines out to the real world. If they are real lucky maybe they don't even need that. It all depends upon how that GPU is interfaced to the CPU, if a fully buffered DMI of PCI-Express port is used they just need to have the pads connected up to real world pins.

Dave

Fair enough. Then a second 32nm Westmere. :)

Rocketman

[deconstruct60]

Let's not forget that Apple is 90% of the $1000 plus laptop market.


Not sure why should remember something that is not true.

Apple has a high percentage of the retail market sales. Not the market as a whole. Few large and medium sized businesses now buy their work laptops retail if they buy in any significant numbers. Dell/HP/Tosihba all will happily shave the middle man retailer cost off the price of the computers for customers who buy direct in volume. All these NPD studies used to spin Apple with high percentages increasingly measure less and less of the over $1000 overall market. It is a shrinking market that is increasingly shifting to non retail transactions.

Nevermind the substantive gaming rigs that are sold in that zone that don't have the "less than a inch" and thermal restrictions that Macs have and can take the other "extreme" processors that Intel has and don't require custom runs.

[MattInOz]

Apple & PA Semi have managed to build their own chip already :eek::eek::eek:

They don't need to build a whole processor just the second module to be packaged in the with CPU module instead of the Intels IGP module.

Ok so the module needs to have a memory controller as part of it but I'm sure Apple can put their hands on the needed IP to make that happen.
So the question is what do they do with all that space, bandwidth, heat that they would have to work with.

Could they get functions of the southbridge in there as well?
Do away with DMI interface and another chip altogether.
Or is there just no where enough pins to interface with all the things that need to interface with such a system on package.

[surferfromuk]

Not sure why should remember something that is not true.

Apple has a high percentage of the retail market sales. Not the market as a whole. Few large and medium sized businesses now buy their work laptops retail if they buy in any significant numbers. Dell/HP/Tosihba all will happily shave the middle man retailer cost off the price of the computers for customers who buy direct in volume. All these NPD studies used to spin Apple with high percentages increasingly measure less and less of the over $1000 overall market. It is a shrinking market that is increasingly shifting to non retail transactions.

Nevermind the substantive gaming rigs that are sold in that zone that don't have the "less than a inch" and thermal restrictions that Macs have and can take the other "extreme" processors that Intel has and don't require custom runs.

Really?

http://www.betanews.com/joewilcox/article/Apple-has-91-of-market-for-1000-PCs-says-NPD/1248313624

[*LTD*]

Not sure why should remember something that is not true.

Apple has a high percentage of the retail market sales. Not the market as a whole. Few large and medium sized businesses now buy their work laptops retail if they buy in any significant numbers. Dell/HP/Tosihba all will happily shave the middle man retailer cost off the price of the computers for customers who buy direct in volume. All these NPD studies used to spin Apple with high percentages increasingly measure less and less of the over $1000 overall market. It is a shrinking market that is increasingly shifting to non retail transactions.

Nevermind the substantive gaming rigs that are sold in that zone that don't have the "less than a inch" and thermal restrictions that Macs have and can take the other "extreme" processors that Intel has and don't require custom runs.

Yes, it's the consumer market.

For what it's worth . . .

http://www.betanews.com/joewilcox/article/Apple-has-91-of-market-for-1000-PCs-says-NPD/1248313624

According to NPD, in June, nine out of 10 dollars spent on computers costing $1,000 or more went to Apple. Mac revenue market share in the "premium" price segment was 91 percent, up from 88 percent in May.

By the way, Apple's command of the premium market is way up from first quarter 2008, when, according to NPD, Mac revenue share was 66 percent. Gee, and it seemed so high when I broke that story.

Microsoft executives had better study Apple's success -- and well -- as they prepare to bring Windows 7 to market. The new operating system released to manufacturing today and launches on Oct. 22. But some people will get Windows 7 sooner. Microsoft might want to reconsider its marketing, too. Apple's premium sales success means that from one perspective, Microsoft's "Laptop Hunters" commercials are a failure.

Market Share 101

Microsoft and OEMs measure success in unit market share, which for combined Windows PC shipments is over 90 percent, according to Gartner and IDC. In the United States, Mac market share was a paltry 8.7 percent in second quarter, according to Gartner. The bulk of PCs sell for less than $1,000.

According to NPD, in June, average selling prices for all PCs sold at US retail was $701, or $690 for desktops and $703 for notebooks. But the ASPs get more interesting when comparing Macs to Windows PCs. For all Windows PCs, ASP was $515 in June. For Macs: $1,400. Desktop Windows PC ASP: $489. Mac desktops: $1,398. Windows notebook ASP was $520, or $569 when removing all those nasty, margin-sucking netbooks. Mac laptops: $1,400.

Mac ASPs have been higher for a long time, because Apple chooses not to compete at lower prices. The real entry price for Apple computers is $999 for the white MacBook and $1,199 for either the low-end iMac or MacBook Pro. By comparison, Windows netbooks sell for as little as $199, unsubsidized, and even some fuller-sized laptops don't cost much more. For example, HP laptops start at $349.99 after rebate.

Apple's starting prices put nearly all Macs in the premium category -- but A (higher pricing) doesn't necessarily lead to B (greater sales). All major Windows OEMs sell PCs in the premium category, too. Apple's charging more isn't necessarily recipe for people paying more for Macs, or their capturing big revenue share.

[AidenShaw]

Really?

http://www.betanews.com/joewilcox/article/Apple-has-91-of-market-for-1000-PCs-says-NPD/1248313624

Do you see "laptop" mentioned for that 90%? Didn't think so....

[arkmannj]

For those of us that don't want integrated graphics, be sure to hit up http://apple.com/feedback

[JAT]

Why do people keep saying that? Do you only use one application?

...because they don't have quad core systems.

Still think you're part of the majority? :rolleyes:

The Pentium Ds in my office are too much for 90% of people just in my office. I really gotta say that their desk is more common than yours.

[deconstruct60]

They don't need to build a whole processor just the second module to be packaged in the with CPU module instead of the Intels IGP module.


What????? Intel is going to put someone else's Intellectual Property into their own production line?

To connect the CPU to the memory controller you are going to need a license to QPI. You know, exactly the IP that Intel is not licensing to anyone (without forking over stupid money). Even if Apple could license it what is the point of paying all that much more money to license in order to get a more inexpensive chip. That's robbing Peter to pay Paul logic.

Far more likely would be a request that Intel kill/switch off the graphic's subsection and Apple just pays less for less function. The CPU package isn't likely going to get any smaller if the graphics functionality is switched off. It is one of two dies in the package. The first die with the CPU is still just as big.

Seems far more likely that Apple wants to pay less for the CPU package for which they are not going to use the GPU of. There is nothing "new" or additive to pack into the package if permanently turn off the graphics.

[deconstruct60]

For those of us that don't want integrated graphics, be sure to hit up http://apple.com/feedback

There is nothing wrong with integrated graphics. Practically the whole current line up has it. Integrated graphics don't have to be poor performing graphics. Granted you aren't going to get upper percentile performance, but "good enough" is doable. Intel just hasn't delivered solutions with the right set of trade-off's to make many folks happy.

To leverage one memory controller for both CPU and GPU usage is a something that isn't going around. It is more efficient solution which will be increasingly hard to displace if not pushing hard on the graphics performance envelope.

[t0mat0]

Still think you're part of the majority? :rolleyes:

The Pentium Ds in my office are too much for 90% of people just in my office. I really gotta say that their desk is more common than yours.

Hmm. Wonder how many Pentium 4 Macs there are runnig Leopard or Snow Leopard
l

[flopticalcube]

If you are running a VM then quad core is preferable if you want everything else to remain fluid. For most mundane tasks, even an Atom is acceptable.

[deconstruct60]

Yes, it's the consumer market.
....
According to NPD, in June, average selling prices for all PCs sold at US retail

No, it is not the consumer market. The text you quoted even says that. Only the spin-meisters around here keep equating the two and/or with the overall market. All you can say about the NPD numbers is that they cover retail. That's it. Retail is not the consumer nor overall market. Sophisticated consumers are not any more slaves to retail storefronts than businesses are.

[mrskitch]

RE: Apple and Arrandale by: Theo Valich on 12/5/2009
After publication of the story, we have received information that sheds new light on the situation.

We'll try to confirm, but it looks like Apple is going to wait for Sandy Bridge, coming later in 2010.

Ed.


--- This was posted in the comment section of the article from the author. If this turns out to be true I'm going to strangle something...

[CQd44]

I wonder why Apple doesn't consider the intel 4500 integrated solution. or does that not even apply to this kind of processor?

[deconstruct60]

Hmm. Wonder how many Pentium 4 Macs there are runnig Leopard or Snow Leopard
l

Hmmm, I wonder how many people go to work and solely looking at the operating system all day?

Major Office applications the OS isn't the primary factor of what they are doing with the computer.

[Rocketman]

Hmm. Wonder how many Pentium 4 Macs there are runnig Leopard or Snow Leopard
l

Probably a few since Apple TV is running Pentium class silicon.

The Snow Leopard advantage is crippleware. The real question is if Snow Leopard in running on 80386? How much memory is in Apple TV or iPhone? Not much.

Remember, nobody really needs more than 640k . . . . . :D

Rocketman

[*LTD*]

No, it is not the consumer market. The text you quoted even says that. Only the spin-meisters around here keep equating the two and/or with the overall market. All you can say about the NPD numbers is that they cover retail. That's it. Retail is not the consumer nor overall market. Sophisticated consumers are not any more slaves to retail storefronts than businesses are.

Apologies. Yes, it only covers retail, and mostly brick-and-mortar stores. Which is a big chunk of the consumer market.

As for "sophisticated consumers", however, there are far fewer than you think.

[adder7712]

What about the "successor to Larrabee" Intel GPUGU "cloud" chip?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8392392.stm Everything nowadays is about cloud computing...

I mentioned this before, if they ever put a HD 5xxx series card, they have to introduce new GPUs for the Mac Pro and the iMac, to keep their superiority but is still welcomed nonetheless.

And about the IGP's performance, it can run Crysis at low settings (it's faster than the X4100(?)) but we still want discrete graphics.

[iMacmatician]

RE: Apple and Arrandale by: Theo Valich on 12/5/2009
After publication of the story, we have received information that sheds new light on the situation.

We'll try to confirm, but it looks like Apple is going to wait for Sandy Bridge, coming later in 2010.

Ed. Late 2010 for Sandy Bridge seems a bit optimistic.

--- This was posted in the comment section of the article from the author. If this turns out to be true I'm going to strangle something...If that means Penryn until Sandy Bridge I can see why. If it's true then I won't be far from doing so too, especially if Clarksfield isn't going to make it to the MacBook Pros.

[Joe The Dragon]

Steve: Take off the GPU.
Intel: No.
Steve: Take off the GPU and I wont kneecap you.
Intel: Yes sir.

no more like
Steve: I hear that AMD has good low end GPU'S.

And then Intel said Yes so fast that there head spined.

[funkboy]

Intel will definitely be offering versions of Arrandale without the integrated graphics chip in the package.

Look at PC laptops today. Most of the cheap ones for people that don't care about graphics have built-in X4500HD (which is what's into Arrandale), and the higher-end performance laptops have a discrete NVidia or ATI graphics chip. This will not change when Arrandale shows up.

Apple would love to use Arrandale for all their higher-end laptops that already have discrete graphics, but it remains to be seen if they have enough leverage to get early access to more powerful Intel integrated platforms. My best guess:

- they refresh the "pro" macbook pros (the ones with discrete graphics) when arrandale comes out

- they do a very basic refresh of the integrated graphics models, just as we now have Core i5/i7 iMacs & Core2 iMacs in the same product lineup

- they badger Intel to give them early access to integrated Larrabee graphics that do not suck so that they can refresh the lower-end macbooks in time for the start of the 2010 back-to-school season.

[Willis]

"Intel,

your integrated GPUs are crap, pull them out. Not that big of a deal.

- Steve

Sent from my iPhone"

Possibly one of the best things I've seen in the last year.

Steve: Take off the GPU.
Intel: No.
Steve: Take off the GPU and I wont kneecap you.
Intel: Yes sir.

2nd Place

Apple & PA Semi have managed to build their own chip already

OT. This can be an interesting point. However, I don't believe PA Semi chips are designed for computers in general, just portable devices that need low power chips. Maybe this would work for the MBA but, I don't know.

As others have said, this is if it's true at all

[lilo777]

"Intel,

your integrated GPUs are crap, pull them out. Not that big of a deal.

- Steve

Sent from my iPhone"

Steve,

Your computers suck anyways, so why do you care? If you want CPUs without integrated GPUs, use PowerPC.

-Paul

BTW, what's iPhone?
Sent from my PC.

[gunraidan]

Why do people keep saying that? Do you only use one application?

I wonder how many of you "Quad Core now for Pro Apps" people are actually you know professionals. Especially since many professional studios aren't up with the latest and greatest tech.

[Erasmus]

- they badger Intel to give them early access to integrated Larrabee graphics that do not suck so that they can refresh the lower-end macbooks in time for the start of the 2010 back-to-school season.

What would the point of this be? Apple would still have to get Intel to make them an IGP-less Arrandale, so they might as well just use a GPU they don't have to beg for. Larrabee was supposed to be discrete, and making an integrated version now just for Apple would be much more troublesome than just cutting out the present IGP.

Actually, I think this bodes well for the choice of next MBP GPUs. To me, this means that Apple has determined that there is no point in having a low power GPU for conserving battery, as well as a high power GPU for performance. This suggests they will use modern GPUs with excellent power saving modes when idling. Like the AMD 5 series :D

EDIT: Apple probably determined that most people don't bother switching their 9600's off, and using only the 9400 either.

[MorphingDragon]

Steve,

Your computers suck anyways, so why do you care? If you want CPUs without integrated GPUs, use PowerPC.

-Paul

BTW, what's iPhone?
Sent from my PC.

WTF, get outa here! Dont you have something better to do than be a niggly little annoying noise?

[yamabushi]

Not sure where all the hate for PowerPC is coming from. It served Apple well enough until the last year or two. It also is still used by many other companies as well as the POWER series.

The POWER series continues to evolve and now includes VMX (Altivec). The G5 is related to the POWER4. Since then IBM has released POWER5, POWER5+, POWER6, and soon POWER7. It is probably feasible to run OSX on POWER6 but would require optimization for full performance benefits. The cost, heat, and power of just one dual core processor running at up to 5.0 GHz would limit it to servers and workstations. Nevertheless, it is an option available to Apple in the highly unlikely event that they decide to release another PowerPC compatible computer.

So, Apple actually has several options besides Intel including shifting focus away from x86 if there is some competitive advantage to be gained by the switch. Apple could move fairly quickly if not without difficulties to AMD, PA Semi ARM or PPC, IBM PPC or POWER. This is good news for consumers as it gives Apple leverage in negotiations with Intel even if they are not seriously considering these other options.

As for Arrandale, I wonder if Intel could replace the GPU with just a large cache? Could it be done quickly and at modest expense? Perhaps something like this has been already tried in their labs?

[*LTD*]

WTF, get outa here! Dont you have something better to do than be a niggly little annoying noise?

Let's not feed the troll. ;)

[MorphingDragon]

Not sure where all the hate for PowerPC is coming from. It served Apple well enough until the last year or two. It also is still used by many other companies as well as the POWER series.

The POWER series continues to evolve and now includes VMX (Altivec). The G5 is related to the POWER4. Since then IBM has released POWER5, POWER5+, POWER6, and soon POWER7. It is probably feasible to run OSX on POWER6 but would require optimization for full performance benefits. The cost, heat, and power of just one dual core processor running at up to 5.0 GHz would limit it to servers and workstations. Nevertheless, it is an option available to Apple in the highly unlikely event that they decide to release another PowerPC compatible computer.

So, Apple actually has several options besides Intel including shifting focus away from x86 if there is some competitive advantage to be gained by the switch. Apple could move fairly quickly if not without difficulties to AMD, PA Semi ARM or PPC, IBM PPC or POWER. This is good news for consumers as it gives Apple leverage in negotiations with Intel even if they are not seriously considering these other options.

As for Arrandale, I wonder if Intel could replace the GPU with just a large cache? Could it be done quickly and at modest expense? Perhaps something like this has been already tried in their labs?

Replace the core with a NorthBridge.

[deconstruct60]

Intel will definitely be offering versions of Arrandale without the integrated graphics chip in the package.


Any references where this has been stated by Intel or leaked in some timeline?


Look at PC laptops today. Most of the cheap ones for people that don't care about graphics have built-in X4500HD (which is what's into Arrandale), and the higher-end performance laptops have a discrete NVidia or ATI graphics chip. This will not change when Arrandale shows up.


Arrandale has a PCI-e connection for an external discrete graphics.
Same set up as higher-end Mac laptop and iMacs have now which is two graphics engines.








- they badger Intel to give them early access to integrated Larrabee graphics that do not suck so that they can refresh the lower-end macbooks in time for the start of the 2010 back-to-school season.

Apparently, even Intel thinks Larrabee is no where near ready for prime time. Latest news/rumor is that they canceled the initial silicon for Larrabee:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13924_3-10409715-64.html

So that isn't something for the start of anything in 2010. Apple is going to bet-the-farm on a graphics vendors who had to toss version 1.0 of the silicon? Don't think so. Maybe after they get something onto the market that proves itself. One reason why Macs are stable is that they often don't have version 1.0 of initial try of a underlying major component.

[lilo777]

WTF, get outa here! Dont you have something better to do than be a niggly little annoying noise?

Just stop bitching and moaning, would you?

[bob5820]

Why :apple: don't want to have this crappy GPU inside the Arrandale?
Because it will reduce the prices!!! ;) And we don't need it. Just NVidia. :rolleyes:


Actually if Intel did release special non integrated GPU Arrandale's solely for Apple they would likely be significantly more expensive due to the relatively small batch sizes involved. One option, though I don't know if its technically feasible would be to cripple the IGP as they did with the FPU in the i486SX.

[Rocketman]

Actually if Intel did release special non integrated GPU Arrandale's solely for Apple they would likely be significantly more expensive due to the relatively small batch sizes involved.
I think you are actually wrong about that. Intel has many niche processors, but Apple tends to have volume for the few processors it adopts.

Rocketman

[AidenShaw]

Apple could move fairly quickly if not without difficulties to AMD, PA Semi ARM or PPC, IBM PPC or POWER. This is good news for consumers as it gives Apple leverage in negotiations with Intel even if they are not seriously considering these other options.

But Intel knows that moving the OS quickly to a new architecture is the smallest part of the problem.

The main problem is moving the ISVs to an incompatible architecture. Remember the "Hey Adobe, where's Photoshop for Intel" days? Can you imagine the uproar if it's "Apple OSX 10.6 is Intel only, Apple OSX 10.7 is PPC only"?

So, the only option for Apple is x64 from AMD.... Not much of an option, is it?

That is, unless Apple plans on abandoning computers and becoming completely a consumer gadget company.

[MorphingDragon]

Just stop bitching and moaning, would you?

Was that some failed attempt at wit?

---

Apple seem to be making a lot of demands lately. Wish somebody could slap them one, windows 7 isnt working.

[rme]

RE: Apple and Arrandale by: Theo Valich on 12/5/2009
After publication of the story, we have received information that sheds new light on the situation.

We'll try to confirm, but it looks like Apple is going to wait for Sandy Bridge, coming later in 2010.

Ed.


--- This was posted in the comment section of the article from the author. If this turns out to be true I'm going to strangle something...

LOL
Of course it's not true ;)

[VoR]

One option, though I don't know if its technically feasible would be to cripple the IGP as they did with the FPU in the i486SX.

Didn't intel demonstate that they have the tech to turn off circuits completely (as demoed with nehalem itself)? Certainly more feasible than shutting off the gpu with a laser for different manufacturers/lines.

[Max(IT)]

Hmmm....I would like to see quad-core MacBook Pros in the very near future...hopefully this issue won't cause any delays.

Actually Arrandale aren't quad but dual-core ....
I think we'll see Macbook Pros with quad-core cpus in H2 2010 ...

Ciao

[surferfromuk]

Do you see "laptop" mentioned for that 90%? Didn't think so....

Eer, yeah, actually it's all over it - did you read a different article?

However, if you want to believe that 60% of Apples sales are sub $500 Acer class laptops with centrino grade chips instead of $2000 macbook Pro's with high end chips then go for it.

[thunng8]

Not sure where all the hate for PowerPC is coming from. It served Apple well enough until the last year or two. It also is still used by many other companies as well as the POWER series.

The POWER series continues to evolve and now includes VMX (Altivec). The G5 is related to the POWER4. Since then IBM has released POWER5, POWER5+, POWER6, and soon POWER7.

A nice presentation on POWER7 here:

http://www.power.org/events/powercon09/taiwan09/IBM_Overview_POWER7.pdf

We can estimate the preliminary performance figures for the POWER7 from the graph on page 8.

I imagine integer, means specint_Rate and floating pt. means specfp_rate.

From the graphs, POWER7 is 5.65x faster in integer and 6.5x faster in floating point than POWER6 on a chip basis.

The best result for POWER6 is 542/544 for a 16 core/8 chip p570. Dividing by 8 would give the best POWER6 1 chip result (I admit this number might be higher than this since I'm assuming perfect scaling - which in turn means POWER7 result might be slightly higher as well).

Chip Int/fp
2 core 5.0Ghz POWER6: 68/68
8 core 4.0Ghz POWER7: 383/442
4 core 2.93Ghz Xeon 5570: 130/100
2x4core 2.93Ghz Xeon 5570: 259/198

POWER7 is reported to be 200W. Even with this figure, it would still give higher performance/watt than the Xeon 5570 (95W)

Chip Intrate/watt fpRate/watt
Xeon 5570 1.37 1.05
POWER7 1.92 2.21

BTW, Intel's upcoming Beckton 8 core chip is a 2.26Ghz /130W part. This would have no where near the outright performance as POWER7 or even the performance/watt of the POWER7.

Anyway, I doubt it will ever make it into a Mac again, but its good to see what IBM have been doing recently.

[rme]

A nice presentation on POWER7 here:
.........
BTW, Intel's upcoming Beckton 8 core chip is a 2.26Ghz /130W part. This would have no where near the outright performance as POWER7 or even the performance/watt of the POWER7.
........


Pretty sure Intel's price/performance ratio is much better than IBM's.

[AidenShaw]

Originally Posted by AidenShaw
Do you see "laptop" mentioned for that 90%? Didn't think so....

Eer, yeah, actually it's all over it - did you read a different article?.

90% is for "PCs over $1K". Laptops aren't separated.

If you'd said "PCs" instead of "laptops", no argument - I'm not debating the story, just your one-line summary of it.

[Azathoth]

After reading all this stuff about intel making a custom CPU for one of Apple's initial MBA offerings, and the allusion that Apple is some huge intel customer (it's <10% and below HP and Dell BTW), I became intrigued.

Looking at one of the sites that actually appears to be run by people with a modicum of technical understanding, it looks like intel *repackaged* one of their chips into a smaller BGA package. Sure that requires some clout, but it's *not* a processor redesign!

[Azathoth]

Actually if Intel did release special non integrated GPU Arrandale's solely for Apple they would likely be significantly more expensive due to the relatively small batch sizes involved. One option, though I don't know if its technically feasible would be to cripple the IGP as they did with the FPU in the i486SX.

I'm pretty sure that the Arrandales have the option to turn off the IGP, so apart from some silicon saving (offset by the need for a custom chip), I don't see why a custom version would be needed.

[AidenShaw]

After reading all this stuff about intel making a custom CPU for one of Apple's initial MBA offerings, and the allusion that Apple is some huge intel customer (it's <10% and below HP and Dell BTW), I became intrigued.

Looking at one of the sites that actually appears to be run by people with a modicum of technical understanding, it looks like intel *repackaged* one of their chips into a smaller BGA package. Sure that requires some clout, but it's *not* a processor redesign!

Right, and the BGA package itself wasn't designed for Apple - but was a design that was planned for a future CPU.

The CPU in the MacBook Air is a 65nm Merom based Core 2 Duo, with a 4MB L2 cache, 800MHz FSB and runs at either 1.6GHz or 1.8GHz. The packaging technology used for this CPU is what makes it unique; the CPU comes in a package that was originally reserved for mobile Penryn due out in the second half of 2008 with the Montevina SFF Centrino platform. Intel accelerated the introduction of the packaging technology specifically for Apple it seems.

http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=3203

Similarly, the "exclusives" on the 3.0 GHz Xeons for the Mac Pro were not custom silicon, they were a top bin of the existing parts at 150 watts. The bin had been offered to other server vendors - who passed on the 150 watt parts in favor of the 120 watt version a few months later.

I don't believe that Intel has made any custom silicon for Apple - just binning and packaging and slightly accelerated releases. That's still impressive, but not nearly as impressive as custom "Apple wafers" going through the Intel fabs.


Hmmmm, Apple wafers. (Homer Simpson style)

[bob5820]

Intel has many niche processors,... Rocketman

Can you offer any examples of niche processors costing less then the mainstream processor they are based on?


but Apple tends to have volume for the few processors it adopts.
Rocketman

Yes Apple has volume, but it is still relatively small compared to the mainstream market. The honeymoon treatment that Intel gave Apple in the early days of the switch from PPC may well be over.

[bob5820]

Didn't intel demonstate that they have the tech to turn off circuits completely (as demoed with nehalem itself)? Certainly more feasible than shutting off the gpu with a laser for different manufacturers/lines.
You're probably correct, I'm not that familiar with exactly what Intel has demoed on Nehalem. My example was of Intel's practice back in the early 90's. Crippling a chip may not sound like a viable solution but at one time it was a common practice.

[jgp]

I think that Apple is showing a little backbone on a good issue. Intel is getting a little too pushy with its chip set market plans.

[VoR]

Crippling a chip may not sound like a viable solution but at one time it was a common practice.

Still is isn't it? :)
Can overclock so many cpus at stock voltages to mhz ranges exceeding anything at retail, but I guess these companies have to leave some headroom (and time obviously) in between releases.
Do AMD even do chips that arent quad core now? Of course some are binned as dual/tri core due to defective silicon, but high percentages are just repackaged to meet market demand - much cheaper to produce single products in volume (unless you're apple :-).

[MorphingDragon]

Still is isn't it? :)Do AMD even do chips that arent quad core now? Of course some are binned as dual/tri core due to defective silicon, but high percentages are just repackaged to meet market demand - much cheaper to produce single products in volume (unless you're apple :-).

Ah, the Intel FUD machine hard at work.

[AidenShaw]

I think that Apple is showing a little backbone on a good issue. Intel is getting a little too pushy with its chip set market plans.

What issue? Some feature in the chip/chipset that you turn off if you don't want? Lots of systems ship with Intel chipsets with both the integrated chips and PCIe x16 slots. Low end SKUs use the IG, high end SKUs turn it off and ship a discrete card. The customer has the option of turning both on for a dual-head system.

Apple aren't "showing backbone", they're acting like prima donnas again if they expect special packaging from Intel.

(Of course, it's possible that the root of the story is that Apple are simply going to ship Arrandale systems in January with the IG turned off - and the whole story is nonsense.)

[MorphingDragon]

Apple aren't "showing backbone", they're acting like prima donnas again if they expect special packaging from Intel.


So its okay if the rest of the PC industry wants a special chip. (Cough Atom Cough)

[AidenShaw]

Ah, the Intel FUD machine hard at work.

What do you mean "FUD"? You're not one who typically wears the tin-foil hats around here.

The Intel Celeron line was born to rescue chips that had defective caches. Instead of throwing a chip with some bits of bad cache away, you blast it with a laser to turn it into a chip with a fully functioning cache that's half the size. (The transistors for the cache are a fairly large percentage of the chip area, so an isolated defect has a good chance of damaging part of the cache.) Intel's probably shipped single core Pentiums/Celerons that are actually dual-core chips with a defective core. (E.g., it's been said that "Core Solo" chips are "Core Duo" with a defective core, although Intel has not confirmed that.)

"Yield" is a key factor in profitable semiconductor manufacturing, so finding a way to sell chips with minor defects is something that everyone does.


So its okay if the rest of the PC industry wants a special chip. (Cough Atom Cough)

Atom was part of Intel's roadmap for 18 months or so before it appeared. It was not a special package for one customer.

[MorphingDragon]

What do you mean "FUD"? You're not one who typically wears the tin-foil hats around here.

Uh Huh

[thunng8]

Pretty sure Intel's price/performance ratio is much better than IBM's.

No doubt about that. POWER7 is a chip for IBM's servers. It does not have the volume to compete with Intel's Nehalem on price. It is compelling if you need the performance. Also, POWER7 seems to address the high power usage issue of previous POWER parts.

If you scale down the 200W 4Ghz 8 core part to 2 cores, you would get a 50W CPU. If you scale the frequency down to around 3Ghz, then theoretical it can even fit in a Mac laptop - with significant higher performance than Arrandale :cool:

[MattInOz]

After reading all this stuff about intel making a custom CPU for one of Apple's initial MBA offerings, and the allusion that Apple is some huge intel customer (it's <10% and below HP and Dell BTW), I became intrigued.

Looking at one of the sites that actually appears to be run by people with a modicum of technical understanding, it looks like intel *repackaged* one of their chips into a smaller BGA package. Sure that requires some clout, but it's *not* a processor redesign!

It was a repackaging that Intel already had in the planning for the product cycle but where also thinking of killing off due to lack of interest as well. Along comes Apple wanting to add something like the Air to their product line, Intel comes to the party by bring the product forward and letting Apple make the demand needed to get it running.

I could see the same happening again this IGPless version would only be offered to OEM's like Apple knowing that the demand from Apple is enough to kick start the production line, and see who else they can get onboard.

Then Again i doudt Intel makes any product with a pre-commit for one or more of the big customers

[gnasher729]

Interesting. During the Psystar case, I wondered whether Apple would ever be able to get Intel to make special versions of processors that it could somehow tie Mac OS to, instead of having to sue the clone makers. Perhaps this is the start of Apple moving in that direction?

Suing Psystar is a lot cheaper and a lot more satisfying than having a special version of the Intel processors. And remember that MacOS X probably up to 10.8 would have to run on current processors, so switching to an incompatible processor wouldn't gain anything.

[gnasher729]

Because they're utter crap and pointless if you have a discrete graphics card.

Once OpenCL is in wide use, many people would be very happy to use integrated graphics for their display and a discrete graphics card for number crunching.

[MorphingDragon]

Once OpenCL is in wide use, many people would be very happy to use integrated graphics for their display and a discrete graphics card for number crunching.

If they even know what they're computer is doing. XD

[Rocketman]

Can you offer any examples of niche processors costing less then the mainstream processor they are based on?


Apple comes to Intel with a large single source order and PREPAYS with a letter of credit which is financeable at any bank in the country at around prime -1%.

That is cost reduction.

Rocketman

[bob5820]

Apple comes to Intel with a large single source order and PREPAYS with a letter of credit which is financeable at any bank in the country at around prime -1%.

That is cost reduction.

Rocketman
Interesting, but it did not my question. There is no doubt that Apple will leverage the cost as best they can but unless Apple can get others to jump on board with a IGP less Arrandale it would remain a special order. I don't see Intel releasing a special version of Arrandale without an incentive. Intel is not going to be saving any money by disabling the IGP, so the incentive has to come from increased revenue. A price premium on the CPU if Apple is the sole buyer, or increased volume if Apple can get others on board would be such an incentive.

[RBR2]

Interesting, but it did not my question. There is no doubt that Apple will leverage the cost as best they can but unless Apple can get others to jump on board with a IGP less Arrandale it would remain a special order. I don't see Intel releasing a special version of Arrandale without an incentive. Intel is not going to be saving any money by disabling the IGP, so the incentive has to come from increased revenue. A price premium on the CPU if Apple is the sole buyer, or increased volume if Apple can get others on board would be such an incentive.

I see the DOJ being very interested in following this development as there has been considerable time spent with NVidia regarding Chipzillas business practices.

[Terminal.app]

"Intel,

your integrated GPUs are crap, pull them out. Not that big of a deal.

- Steve

Sent from my iPhone"

I lol’d. :D

There are 57XXs too, a 5770 for example would be excellent.

I got the 5770 for the PC I just built, and it's awesome! 1 GiB GDDR5 and DX11 for 175 bucks on NewEgg.

Also, I can't be bothered to quote these, but I've seen ITT and in others a lot of people turning up their noses at quad-core CPUs, saying "Oh, there's no way I'd ever use more than two cores...I don't need that much power...my 1.xx GHz Core Duo is overkill for me...", etc. This kind of thinking drives me up the wall. The "I don't need..." mindset is flawed because, although you may not think you need it now, what about later? Remember in the early 90's when you paid $2,000 for a 233-megaherz system? Are you still using it today? Wait...you're not? Wasn't it overkill when you bought it?

Also, when Apple rolled out the Core i7 iMac, did you think, "Ewwww!!!11!! A rly fast processor! Ewww, it has moar than 2 corez!! I want moar Core 2 Duo!!!!"?

[yfyfyf]

...so the incentive has to come from increased revenue. A price premium on the CPU if Apple is the sole buyer, or increased volume if Apple can get others on board would be such an incentive.

very true but I think a bigger incentive would be to keep apple happy. They have pretty much dominated their CPU market sector (as at DEC 09 AMD is not cutting it) so to generate more revenue and p155ing off a massive client at this time would not seem logical.

On the contrary, as they have GPUs in R&D, they should focus the brand awareness and completely remove their 'more-so-than-before' arch-enemies AMD/ATI... if apple is not happy, they can turn to anybody else and everyone will jump at the opportunity to produce CPUs for them. OK, that will cost those CPU companies quite a bit, but they will have SOOO much on publicity.

in conclusion, i think Apple is who Intel wants to keep happy as opposed to the other way round....

[teaneedz]

Just need a solid replacement for my venerable 12" PowerBook. I thought the 13" might be it.

Apple stand tough and make the right product decision. This really is the Apple that I am a fan of, one that knows when an integrated graphics solution by Intel is a huge fail and won't buy it. Give me a good replacement in 1Q 2010.

[AidenShaw]

This really is the Apple that I am a fan of, one that knows when an integrated graphics solution by Intel is a huge fail and won't buy it. Give me a good replacement in 1Q 2010.

But, every other vendor chooses to disable the IG in the BIOS and adds discrete graphics (mobo GPU on laptops, PCIe card on desktops) if the Intel graphics in the chipset is not suitable for the target market.

There's no drama involved....

I have a hard time believing this story. No problem believing that Apple would decide to not use the IG in the Arrandale - but big problems believing that they're raising a stink about getting a custom package.

Especially when I read that Arrandale isn't a full SOC with an IG tacked on, but more like a CPU and Northbridge with IG in one package.

http://hothardware.com/articleimages/Item1388/Arrandale-die.jpg (click to enlarge)

Both chips are needed for the package to work.

[Erasmus]

I have a hard time believing this story. No problem believing that Apple would decide to not use the IG in the Arrandale - but big problems believing that they're raising a stink about getting a custom package.

A random guy overhears an Apple representative somewhere say "Apple aren't going to use the Intel Arrandale integrated GPU. It's not nearly fast enough."

Suddenly this story is born.

Clearly what he meant to say is "Apple are disabling the Arrandale integrated GPU in favour of using a discrete card."

See how easy these things are to screw up???

[RBR2]

A random guy overhears an Apple representative somewhere say "Apple aren't going to use the Intel Arrandale integrated GPU. It's not nearly fast enough."

Suddenly this story is born.

Clearly what he meant to say is "Apple are disabling the Arrandale integrated GPU in favour of using a discrete card."

See how easy these things are to screw up???

We will know when Apple releases the product, but it seems logical to not pay for something you do not want and will not use which, by the way, increases your thermal envelope and reduces your performance per watt.

Cheers!

[scotteh]

A random guy overhears an Apple representative somewhere say "Apple aren't going to use the Intel Arrandale integrated GPU. It's not nearly fast enough."

Suddenly this story is born.

Clearly what he meant to say is "Apple are disabling the Arrandale integrated GPU in favour of using a discrete card."

See how easy these things are to screw up???

i hope your right

[AidenShaw]

We will know when Apple releases the product, but it seems logical to not pay for something you do not want

It's a few transistors on a chip. It would be far, far more expensive to design, test and integrate a second version of the chip without the IGP transistors. You'd need huge volumes of the second chip to keep the price from shooting up.


and will not use which, by the way, increases your thermal envelope and reduces your performance per watts.

Intel has the technology to power off chip sections dynamically - so your assumption about power could be completely wrong.

Nehalem’s power gates allow one or more cores to be operating in an active state at a nominal voltage, while remaining idle cores can have power completely shut off to them - without resorting to multiple power planes, which would drive up motherboard costs and complexity.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=3382&p=12

It's also possible to disable the graphics core by cutting the power leads on the silicon - but then you'd never be able to use it. With the dynamic power, the IG could be used for a second display or for lower power use when you want to stretch battery life. With the news that the IG can be used as a GPGPU, Apple could even use it for OpenCL or video decoding/transcoding.

[RBR2]

It's a few transistors on a chip. It would be far, far more expensive to design, test and integrate a second version of the chip without the IGP transistors. You'd need huge volumes of the second chip to keep the price from shooting up.




Intel has the technology to power off chip sections dynamically - so your assumption about power could be completely wrong.

Nehalem’s power gates allow one or more cores to be operating in an active state at a nominal voltage, while remaining idle cores can have power completely shut off to them - without resorting to multiple power planes, which would drive up motherboard costs and complexity.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=3382&p=12

It's also possible to disable the graphics core by cutting the power leads on the silicon - but then you'd never be able to use it. With the dynamic power, the IG could be used for a second display or for lower power use when you want to stretch battery life. With the news that the IG can be used as a GPGPU, Apple could even use it for OpenCL or video decoding/transcoding.

I doubt that it is a difficult as you think to "option delete" the graphic core. I would be surprised if the chip was not designed in such a way that it could easily be done.

Even given the ability to "throttle back" a particular portion of the chip, there is still a power drain. How much less only Intel knows for sure at this point.

Silicon is still expensive and you are paying for something you don't want.

Let's face it, Intel's record in graphics processors to date is undistinguished, at best. Don't count them out of the equation, but they do not represent the best solution at the present time in my view, and, apparently, that of Apple.

Even Chipzilla need be concerned about forcing things customers do not want down their throats.

[AidenShaw]

Silicon is still expensive and you are paying for something you don't want.

Intel's pricing has been for the IGP and non-IGP chipsets to be within a few dollars of each other (the G33 was $38, the Q33 was $35).

Note also that the IG die is 45nm, so as Intel makes the transition to 32nm they'll have excess capacity in the 45nm fabs so that the amortized cost of the second die can be very small. Overall, it may have made cost sense for Intel to make only one part and price it at the level of the non-IG chip.

If Intel can shut down 99.9% of the IG chip, a few μamps of leakage isn't going to matter for battery life or heat.

Neither of us knows the answers, I'm just suggesting evidence that cost and power might not be important issues.

[RBR2]

<snip>
Neither of us knows the answers, I'm just suggesting evidence that cost and power might not be important issues.

Yep.

Intel is somewhat behind AMD/ATI in terms of the capability of their graphics designs, but, as always, well ahead in production capability (even with AMD becoming a fabless company...which was probably a smart move).

NVidia is reported to have been talking with the DOJ a lot lately. It will be interesting to see what influence, if any, this may have on Chipzilla's offerings.

Cheers

[blackhand1001]

indeed... there is always a possibility that Apple could go back to Power PC, although an improbable scenario the option is still there. Apple has an insatiable desire of getting exactly what it wants from vendors to build what they have in mind. That is perhaps Apples greatest advantage over MS as OSX can run natively on various CPU platforms. No need to be reliant only on Intel or AMD, PA Semi, Freescale, and to a lesser degree IBM are all still possible partners in future portable machines. think iphone, itablet, and future laptop possibilities... Intel does not have an absolute monopoly over low power high performance CPU options.

Actually, the NT kernel is very easy to port as no code has to be rewritten. You just have to abstract the hardware AKA the HAL.

[vailr]

Isn't it a little odd, that Apple balks at putting "slow" Intel graphics inside their laptop machines, yet never offers any "cutting-edge" graphics solutions in their more expensive full size Mac Pro machines?

[thermodynamic]

I'm guessing that apple doesn't rate intel's graphics much then? I guess that this is a good thing, but I'm also guessing that this is going to push back the dates of the new macbook pros.

I work with Windows-based laptops. I don't care for Intel's graphics subsystem, either... I can see why Apple isn't keen on a chipset with an integrated video system. It's not a powerful graphics system to begin with, and how it would interact with nVidia and ATi cards could be interesting...

[thermodynamic]

well for people waiting to get new stuff (e.g. notebooks) in january or february, this will again be a headache and keep asking themselves, wait for the latest and greatest or get an "old" system, which is available today :o

Quite.

With the Arrandale Incident, and a ton of speculation over "will it be quad, like how the HP Pavilion dv7-3085 has the same chip but customers constantly complain it overheats and dies?" on top of everything else... never mind a possible 16:9 screen to replace the current 16:10 beauty (yes, I want 1200 rows instead of 1080 :p )... and the Nehalem, while great in many ways, isn't great in all. The Core 2 Duo isn't dead... maybe a lower cost, but I doubt it.

Not to mention, the nVidia cards (GT230, 260, 130, et al) are said to be mostly a rebranded 9800, 9600, et al... not to mention someone once said the 9800 was a rebranded 8800... oh my...)

What's out now isn't terribly "old" at all. And the 17" is the only laptop in stores that has a resolution better than 1600x900... (1920x1200)

[thermodynamic]

Isn't it a little odd, that Apple balks at putting "slow" Intel graphics inside their laptop machines, yet never offers any "cutting-edge" graphics solutions in their more expensive full size Mac Pro machines?

That's been bothering me too. As a Mac Pro owner, a 5790 or the latest nVidia-slaughtering ATi model really, REALLY would be nice to get. I only play two games on it (Sims 2, X-Plane 9) and they run very nice as it is, but especially with OpenCL and Adobe's apps using OpenGL, there are no bad reasons to upgrade at all...

Still, it's nice to know that Apple would agree: "it is possible to be TOO slow." :D That and Intel's video subsystem isn't known for speed to begin with... Not to mention driver development... nVidia and ATi exist and are solid.

[-Penti-]

Not likely. I think they will go with Intel graphics.

As they still need an Intel south bridge. Intel SB plus discrete in their smallest form factor pcs, I think hardly. After all last Intel graphics they used where X3100. It's not the same situation today, and it's not like 9400M or equivalents is fast enough to game on anyway. OpenCL can run on cpu and so on. It's good enough for basic 3D and video.

[MorphingDragon]

Not to mention, the nVidia cards (GT230, 260, 130, et al) are said to be mostly a rebranded 9800, 9600, et al... not to mention someone once said the 9800 was a rebranded 8800... oh my...)


No it IS a rebranded 8800.

[cmaier]

I doubt that it is a difficult as you think to "option delete" the graphic core. I would be surprised if the chip was not designed in such a way that it could easily be done.

Even given the ability to "throttle back" a particular portion of the chip, there is still a power drain. How much less only Intel knows for sure at this point.

Silicon is still expensive and you are paying for something you don't want.

Let's face it, Intel's record in graphics processors to date is undistinguished, at best. Don't count them out of the equation, but they do not represent the best solution at the present time in my view, and, apparently, that of Apple.

Even Chipzilla need be concerned about forcing things customers do not want down their throats.

They're almost certainly using virtual grounds. As a result the leakage of the payload would be zero, but the ground drivers themselves will still draw some power - not very much though.