PDA

View Full Version : Intel GMA HD - thoughts on use in MBA?




Thunder82
Jan 25, 2010, 07:59 AM
Saw this review/article on bit-tech regarding the new arrandale GMA HD GPU. Link (http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2010/01/25/intel-gma-hd-graphics-performance/1) What do you guys think about this being the GPU for the MBA? Seems like a much better jump from the older integrated GMA chips, but still not quite up to par with the 9400.

As far as I see it, this looks like the only option for notebooks that don't have the space or ability to dissipate the heat of a dedicated card. Unless I'm missing something..?



ayeying
Jan 25, 2010, 10:58 AM
No. It's horrible.

The 9400M makes the Air a capable gaming system. Hell, I run CoD: MW2 on this thing with high texture settings and get no frame drops.

With the Intel GMA HD, I can forget about running any games at all. I can forget about CUDA or OpenCL also.

Using Intel video cards is a cheap method for notebooks designed not to be gaming systems or for the business world. They have a relatively low power consumption and less heat generation. However, if you look at the lower end video cards such as 9400M or even 9300M, they have nearly the same trade off but much better performance. However the pricing would be a lot higher vs the Intel Options.

coast1ja
Jan 25, 2010, 11:21 AM
I think they should disable the on-chip GPU and stick with the 9400m. If there was any way to get them to work together, that would be awesome.

Eidorian
Jan 25, 2010, 11:24 AM
Bit-Tech (http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2010/01/25/intel-gma-hd-graphics-performance/1) takes a look at the desktop Intel GMA HD.

Thunder82
Jan 25, 2010, 01:10 PM
Bit-Tech (http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2010/01/25/intel-gma-hd-graphics-performance/1) takes a look at the desktop Intel GMA HD.

That article was the reason I initially posted.. what do you think about it?

I was hoping that this new chip would be a bit better for gaming. I realize that 3DMark isn't the end all, but it gets a better 3dmark05 score than the 9400m. Wonder if better drivers would allow this chip to perform better & really open up its potential?

Eidorian
Jan 25, 2010, 01:11 PM
That article was the reason I initially posted.. what do you think about it?

I was hoping that this new chip would be a bit better for gaming. I realize that 3DMark isn't the end all, but it gets a better 3dmark05 score than the 9400m. Wonder if better drivers would allow this chip to perform better & really open up its potential?It's better than the old Intel GMA 4500MHD. That's about it to be honest. It'll pass for HD playback and battery life but no games.

ayeying
Jan 25, 2010, 02:13 PM
That article was the reason I initially posted.. what do you think about it?

I was hoping that this new chip would be a bit better for gaming. I realize that 3DMark isn't the end all, but it gets a better 3dmark05 score than the 9400m. Wonder if better drivers would allow this chip to perform better & really open up its potential?

That article talks about Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2. It's worse than the 9400M. Scores don't mean anything if the performance is worse...

Arex
Jan 25, 2010, 03:22 PM
I guess whether it is good or bad depends entirely on what you use your MBA for. The gamers (as noted above) are probably not going to be too happy. As for me, if it causes it to run a little cooler so I get less fan noise and uses less power so I can get a few more minutes out the battery I will be quite pleased.

fun173
Jan 25, 2010, 03:29 PM
i would be so upset. I have been looking into a macbook air as my next laptop and i really hope there is no intel graphics in any macs anymore.

alxths
Jan 25, 2010, 03:30 PM
From the review, it doesn't look to be AS bad as I would've thought based on people's posts around here..

One thing I'm not clear on though, is whether or not the processers in the system with the 9400m in that review are equivalent to those with the intel GMA setup? From what I can, the ones using the nvidia GPU have slower, C2D chips? So an i5/7 with the 9400m should be substantially better than the numbers posted in that review.

Anonymous Freak
Jan 25, 2010, 06:06 PM
No. It's horrible.

The 9400M makes the Air a capable gaming system. Hell, I run CoD: MW2 on this thing with high texture settings and get no frame drops.

With the Intel GMA HD, I can forget about running any games at all. I can forget about CUDA or OpenCL also.

Using Intel video cards is a cheap method for notebooks designed not to be gaming systems or for the business world. They have a relatively low power consumption and less heat generation. However, if you look at the lower end video cards such as 9400M or even 9300M, they have nearly the same trade off but much better performance. However the pricing would be a lot higher vs the Intel Options.

According to AnandTech (http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3704&p=4), the graphics in the higher-end desktop i5 are about even with the AMD 790GX, which, in turn, is roughly equivalent to (http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=3432&p=4) nVidia 9400. The mobile i3/i5 has graphics on par with the desktop i3/i5 (other than the highest-end,) which is only slightly slower (http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3724&p=3) than the high-end i5.

Remember, 9400M is now two years old. Yes, there are faster options now, but the integrated graphics in the laptop i3/i5/i7 are roughly equivalent. Any games that run on 9400M will run on "Intel HD Graphics", minus a single-percent frame rate in some games, and even plus a single-percent frame rate in others.

And the latest Intel graphics do support OpenCL. (They don't support CUDA, but neither does anything from AMD, for that matter, as CUDA is nVidia-specific.

Yes, the GMA 950 that came in the first Mac mini, MacBook, and MacBook Air sucked ass. The next-generation after that (which Apple skipped,) was noticeably better, and the current generation is even better yet. Yes, if nVidia and AMD could make 'integrated graphics' chipsets for the i3/i5/i7, it would likely be noticeably faster than what Intel provides; the Intel graphics are competitive with the 9400M.

Finally, the notebook i3/i5/i7 have "Turbo Boost" that includes the GPU in its calculations. So the GPU can ramp up in speed if the whole package has enough thermal headroom. Yeah, if you're running SETI@Home on both CPU and GPU, you'll end up with crappy speeds on both; but if you're playing a game that isn't massively CPU-intensive, the GPU will ramp up and provide you with better speed. Likewise, when you're doing video rendering on the CPU, the GPU won't be using much power, so the CPU can ramp up in speed. All staying inside a much lower power envelope than adding the 9400M would.

Don't get me wrong, I don't want to see Intel HD graphics in the MacBook Pro; and would prefer not to see it in the 'plain' MacBook; but for the low-power Air, it fits perfectly.

jimboutilier
Jan 25, 2010, 06:31 PM
According to AnandTech (http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3704&p=4), the graphics in the higher-end desktop i5 are about even with the AMD 790GX, which, in turn, is roughly equivalent to (http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=3432&p=4) nVidia 9400. The mobile i3/i5 has graphics on par with the desktop i3/i5 (other than the highest-end,) which is only slightly slower (http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3724&p=3) than the high-end i5.

Remember, 9400M is now two years old. Yes, there are faster options now, but the integrated graphics in the laptop i3/i5/i7 are roughly equivalent. Any games that run on 9400M will run on "Intel HD Graphics", minus a single-percent frame rate in some games, and even plus a single-percent frame rate in others.

And the latest Intel graphics do support OpenCL. (They don't support CUDA, but neither does anything from AMD, for that matter, as CUDA is nVidia-specific.

Yes, the GMA 950 that came in the first Mac mini, MacBook, and MacBook Air sucked ass. The next-generation after that (which Apple skipped,) was noticeably better, and the current generation is even better yet. Yes, if nVidia and AMD could make 'integrated graphics' chipsets for the i3/i5/i7, it would likely be noticeably faster than what Intel provides; the Intel graphics are competitive with the 9400M.

Finally, the notebook i3/i5/i7 have "Turbo Boost" that includes the GPU in its calculations. So the GPU can ramp up in speed if the whole package has enough thermal headroom. Yeah, if you're running SETI@Home on both CPU and GPU, you'll end up with crappy speeds on both; but if you're playing a game that isn't massively CPU-intensive, the GPU will ramp up and provide you with better speed. Likewise, when you're doing video rendering on the CPU, the GPU won't be using much power, so the CPU can ramp up in speed. All staying inside a much lower power envelope than adding the 9400M would.

Don't get me wrong, I don't want to see Intel HD graphics in the MacBook Pro; and would prefer not to see it in the 'plain' MacBook; but for the low-power Air, it fits perfectly.

+1 Bravo

Scottsdale
Jan 25, 2010, 10:38 PM
Saw this review/article on bit-tech regarding the new arrandale GMA HD GPU. Link (http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2010/01/25/intel-gma-hd-graphics-performance/1) What do you guys think about this being the GPU for the MBA? Seems like a much better jump from the older integrated GMA chips, but still not quite up to par with the 9400.

As far as I see it, this looks like the only option for notebooks that don't have the space or ability to dissipate the heat of a dedicated card. Unless I'm missing something..?

So the MBA wouldn't be able to drive the 30" Apple Cinema Display. Bad solution all around. This would be a terrible option for Apple to go with.

No. It's horrible.

The 9400M makes the Air a capable gaming system. Hell, I run CoD: MW2 on this thing with high texture settings and get no frame drops.

With the Intel GMA HD, I can forget about running any games at all. I can forget about CUDA or OpenCL also.

Using Intel video cards is a cheap method for notebooks designed not to be gaming systems or for the business world. They have a relatively low power consumption and less heat generation. However, if you look at the lower end video cards such as 9400M or even 9300M, they have nearly the same trade off but much better performance. However the pricing would be a lot higher vs the Intel Options.

You're right. The whole point Apple went with Nvidia chipsets and GPU was to take advantage of OpenCL and other technologies it developed with Snow Leopard. Is Apple really going to throw its hard work out the window and accept the IGP? I don't think so.

I think they should disable the on-chip GPU and stick with the 9400m. If there was any way to get them to work together, that would be awesome.

Not possible with Core series CPUs. Intel claims Nvidia has no license to create for its Core architecture CPUs, and Nvidia accepted Intel's decision and quit making chipsets for anything beyond Penryn Core 2 Duo CPUs.

That article was the reason I initially posted.. what do you think about it?

I was hoping that this new chip would be a bit better for gaming. I realize that 3DMark isn't the end all, but it gets a better 3dmark05 score than the 9400m. Wonder if better drivers would allow this chip to perform better & really open up its potential?

Would it really be better for ANYTHING? We gain 20% theoretical CPU boost and lose nearly 60% of graphics power... What about taking advantage of the GPU and utilizing OpenCL and other tech? Could Apple's OS X really perform better than Windows even? Has Apple ever been king at writing great drivers? When we compare the 9400m between Windows 7 and OS X, Windows shows massive improvements over OS X. In my opinion, Apple doesn't write good drivers... most of the time.

It's better than the old Intel GMA 4500MHD. That's about it to be honest. It'll pass for HD playback and battery life but no games.

That's the problem though. Would it really pass for HD playback within OS X? Remember the original MBA? Remember the problems with the 3100 and Merom CPU? I don't think HD playback is guaranteed with the 4500HD and OS X.

I guess whether it is good or bad depends entirely on what you use your MBA for. The gamers (as noted above) are probably not going to be too happy. As for me, if it causes it to run a little cooler so I get less fan noise and uses less power so I can get a few more minutes out the battery I will be quite pleased.

Will you really be pleased if your MBA cannot playback an HD movie? What about the future, do you really want to lose the whole point we "upgraded" to Snow Leopard for? If OpenCL cannot take full advantage, you lose more than just a video game. We're not just talking video games and video playback people, we're talking about a system that is technologically behind the MBA introduced in October 2008. What about all of the apps that will be written in the future that don't focus on graphics but still could utilize the 9400m for its processing capabilities.

Make no mistake about it... and don't believe Intel, this is a huge step in the WRONG direction. It will severely limit the MBA's capabilities and the future of the MBA.

From the review, it doesn't look to be AS bad as I would've thought based on people's posts around here..

One thing I'm not clear on though, is whether or not the processers in the system with the 9400m in that review are equivalent to those with the intel GMA setup? From what I can, the ones using the nvidia GPU have slower, C2D chips? So an i5/7 with the 9400m should be substantially better than the numbers posted in that review.

I think you're reading into the review exactly what Intel wants you to think. If Apple goes along with this, we are all screwed... except those of us who just want to use the MBA for writing a book and reading email. Even Flash was torture to the first MBA with its Intel integrated graphics. If you think this solution isn't bad, you're not seeing the whole picture.

Remember, 9400M is now two years old. Yes, there are faster options now, but the integrated graphics in the laptop i3/i5/i7 are roughly equivalent. Any games that run on 9400M will run on "Intel HD Graphics", minus a single-percent frame rate in some games, and even plus a single-percent frame rate in others.

You are reading what they want you to believe. The Intel IGP is at least a 60% loss in complete capabilities over the "15-month old" not two year old 9400m.

Okay, let's say it is OpenCL compliant, if the processing capabilities are 60% lower, what do you think that means for how it takes advantage of OpenCL? Means it will do 40% of what the 9400m would do.

Your post was too long and too naive. You're going to lose a hell of a lot more than the "nothing" you have described. Intel wants you to believe this too. It's simply not true. HD video playback, MAYBE on OS X... we don't know. Remember that OS X is not as capable as Windows at many things.

I pray to God that nobody at Apple was as naive as you when deciding what to do about the graphics problem with Intel's Core architecture. We all better hope that Apple figured out that a dedicated ATI solution might cost more but would be the only thing not going backwards to the tech used before the 9400m was implemented in the MBA. It's not just the MBA we're talking about here people. Apple uses the 9400m in every Mac except the Mac Pro!

This is a big problem. What we saw Apple do to counter this problem in the iMacs was to continue utilizing Penryn CPUs on its lower end offerings. It did this so it could continue taking advantage of the Nvidia 9400m. It has invested heavily into the technologies capable of the 9400m, and it's not just going to throw it away.

I will HAPPILY take Penryn at 2.13 GHz with Nvidia's 9400m or any new Nvidia solution (like 105m) over Arrandale CPU with Intel's IGP as sole graphics solution. And you all should study this a hell of a lot more if you think Intel's IGP will be acceptable for anything more than using your MBA as a word processor!

+1 Bravo

- 1 MILLION... I am speaking for the fans who don't know any better here... those who haven't read about this... those who don't want to accept what Intel says as gospel... those who want someone to stand up for their MBA's future and are too busy to do it for themselves.

If Apple goes with this in the MBA, there better be a BTO option allowing a real graphics solution to be in the higher end MBA.

I can just see it now... going back to the same thing we had with the original MBA... and all the hours I preached for people to not fall into the same trap as I did. The hours spent explaining why NOT to buy the original MBA and to instead spend a little more and get the machine that was 5x as capable

Apple will not do this. It makes no sense. Sticking with Penryn and Nvidia makes far more sense for this last update... until it gives Apple ample time to figure out how to move forward with the next update.

Eidorian
Jan 25, 2010, 10:54 PM
That's the problem though. Would it really pass for HD playback within OS X? Remember the original MBA? Remember the problems with the 3100 and Merom CPU? I don't think HD playback is guaranteed with the 4500HD and OS X.It was from a Windows or Linux perspective sadly. Apple doesn't want anyone who doesn't own an Apple TV or buys videos from iTunes to enjoy the benefits of low CPU hardware accelerated video playback via a graphics processor.

It's amazing what XBMC can do that Apple doesn't want to.

Anonymous Freak
Jan 25, 2010, 11:13 PM
So the MBA wouldn't be able to drive the 30" Apple Cinema Display. Bad solution all around. This would be a terrible option for Apple to go with.

http://www.intel.com/products/notebook/chipsets/hm57/hm57-overview.htm

The new mobile chips can handle the 30" display's resolution just fine. (And the resolution of the 27" iMac in 'display target mode', for that matter.)

Yes, Intel's mobile graphics are worse than ATI/nVidia. The Air isn't meant to be a graphics powerhouse.

And I don't know about the Arrandale graphics' ability to handle HD decoding, but my previous-generation GM45 can handle Blu-ray playback, and Adobe Flash playback, just fine GPU-accelerated.

It was from a Windows or Linux perspective sadly. Apple doesn't want anyone who doesn't own an Apple TV or buys videos from iTunes to enjoy the benefits of low CPU hardware accelerated video playback via a graphics processor.

It's amazing what XBMC can do that Apple doesn't want to.

As Apple has never shipped any hardware with G45/GM45 chipsets (aka 4500HD graphics,) it's not really surprising at all. Apple has never had any reason to write Intel 4500HD drivers. Personally, I'd like to see Intel do OS X drivers, but I'm sure Apple has Intel on a short leash on not helping drive unsupported hardware.

robeddie
Jan 26, 2010, 04:54 AM
http://www.intel.com/products/notebook/chipsets/hm57/hm57-overview.htm



Yes, Intel's mobile graphics are worse than ATI/nVidia. The Air isn't meant to be a graphics powerhouse.




Maybe, but with the 9400, it is a very, very capable machine, graphics-wise. To take a step backwards after 15+ months would be lame.

We expect our cpu's to advance after that amount of time, why should we be satisfied with lower graphics performance after all this time?

+1 for me as someone who will absolutely avoid a Mac laptop with the Intel GMA HD

Scottsdale
Jan 26, 2010, 07:01 AM
http://www.intel.com/products/notebook/chipsets/hm57/hm57-overview.htm

The new mobile chips can handle the 30" display's resolution just fine. (And the resolution of the 27" iMac in 'display target mode', for that matter.)

Yes, Intel's mobile graphics are worse than ATI/nVidia. The Air isn't meant to be a graphics powerhouse.

And I don't know about the Arrandale graphics' ability to handle HD decoding, but my previous-generation GM45 can handle Blu-ray playback, and Adobe Flash playback, just fine GPU-accelerated.



As Apple has never shipped any hardware with G45/GM45 chipsets (aka 4500HD graphics,) it's not really surprising at all. Apple has never had any reason to write Intel 4500HD drivers. Personally, I'd like to see Intel do OS X drivers, but I'm sure Apple has Intel on a short leash on not helping drive unsupported hardware.

According to the link to the article this thread focuses on, the IGP only works with Display Port native displays. Apple's own 30" Cinema Display doesn't work with Display Port.

We will see what happens, but I suggest a complete failure and problems for even HD video playback on OS X if Intel's IGP is the sole solution in the MBA. I predict threads upon threads of problems about the IGP. Unfortunately, the MBAs of days past will be more valuable and coveted than a 4GB RAM MBA v3,1 with only an Intel IGP.

I just don't think Apple is this stupid. I pray that I don't have to eat more words, because eating my words will not be for the better solution. Apple surely wants to move past the 2008 Nvidia technology and not to relive the events that ruined the MBA's reputation with its first release.

Scottsdale
Jan 26, 2010, 07:24 AM
Maybe, but with the 9400, it is a very, very capable machine, graphics-wise. To take a step backwards after 15+ months would be lame.

We expect our cpu's to advance after that amount of time, why should we be satisfied with lower graphics performance after all this time?

+1 for me as someone who will absolutely avoid a Mac laptop with the Intel GMA HD

You are 100% correct. The problem is we have experienced an alternative solution for 15 months, and the targeted buyers really want a capable MBA. We are not wanting a "powerhouse" machine with graphics capable of creating a 3D motion picture. We only want an MBA that builds upon its past versions, and that moves forward capable of being a primary Mac for those who purchase it.

Unfortunately our "senior" ehurtley (member since 2003), doesn't remember how badly the MBA was with Intel's graphics in the original MBA. Sorta like the saying goes, "fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me." Apple isn't going to fool me twice with such an MBA as one that solely uses Intel's IGP.

I do believe that an Intel IGP would probably sell more MBAs, because it would probably be targeted to a sub $1,000 MBA that focuses on those who want a secondary Mac. Does anyone here really want an MBA that is essentially a "Mac OS X Lite." This would be an MBA that doesn't really want to be a MacBook but rather a "Netbook" of sorts. Why would Apple do that? Would that make any sense with the iPad being released to compete for the same market? The whole point of the MacBook Air is that it focuses on being a MacBook, with components capable of the same as a MB, with a full-sized keyboard, and with a full 13" display, yet is more lightweight and better for travel than a MB.

Eidorian
Jan 26, 2010, 09:54 AM
As Apple has never shipped any hardware with G45/GM45 chipsets (aka 4500HD graphics,) it's not really surprising at all. Apple has never had any reason to write Intel 4500HD drivers. Personally, I'd like to see Intel do OS X drivers, but I'm sure Apple has Intel on a short leash on not helping drive unsupported hardware.Apple on supports GPU accelerated video playback on the 9400M G and even so in limited instances. There are plenty of other graphics processors that would be able to so from DVD playback to h.264.

Thunder82
Jan 26, 2010, 10:05 AM
If Apple goes with this in the MBA, there better be a BTO option allowing a real graphics solution to be in the higher end MBA.

While I hope your right, there really isn't space on the MBA motherboard for a dedicated chip. Have you seen the current board? There is VERY little unused space. The only reason we currently have the 9400, is because it's built into the chipset.

Beyond all this, can the MBA really handle the heat of a dedicated card?

nick9191
Jan 26, 2010, 10:17 AM
There is not enough room/battery life/cooling in the Air for a dedicated GPU. Intel wont let anyone else build chipsets for the Nehalem processors. So yes it will get Intel graphics. Unless AMD or PA Semi can build a CPU faster than the current 2.13ghz Core 2 Duo in the Air, that is x86, very low power and then have AMD build a chipset for it. Not likely.

And they're not going to make the Air bigger to accommodate a GPU, not whilst Jobs has Air in his lungs.

Scottsdale
Jan 26, 2010, 10:33 AM
While I hope your right, there really isn't space on the MBA motherboard for a dedicated chip. Have you seen the current board? There is VERY little unused space. The only reason we currently have the 9400, is because it's built into the chipset.

Beyond all this, can the MBA really handle the heat of a dedicated card?

Technology changes and gets smaller. I am certain Apple can either miniaturize the current capabilities and make a smaller MBA, or it can keep the same size MBA and give it more capabilities. One or the other should happen. Think about the battery space for example... does Apple use its technology to get the same output from a smaller battery, or does Apple make the battery the same size and give it more output to increase time between charges?

I definitely agree there is currently very little extra space, but don't count Apple out on finding more available space to improve the user experience. I don't know for sure what Apple is going to do, but I have more faith that it will actually use a better graphics solution than Intel's IGP.

I certainly am believing more and more that tomorrow's MBA update will include an Intel SL9x00 Penryn Core 2 Duo processor and Nvidia GPU/chipset. I believe it's the best currently capable solution to the graphics "problem" created by Intel and its IGP. Anyone that's willing to give up an Intel Core 2 Duo CPU and Nvidia GPU/chipset for an Intel Arrandale CPU and IGP, hasn't thought out the solution and the system's total performance loss. Surely Apple has considered both possibilities and proven to itself that a 10 to 20% CPU boost would be nice, but when paired with a 60% GPU performance loss, the decision becomes obvious.

While Core 2 Duo can be improved upon, the experience with the MBA is amazingly great since the Nvidia GPU is used. Improving the CPU is not necessary to give MBA users a great experience. Remember Apple is about the performance of the complete system including OS X. The "average" buyer is a business professional who just needs a stable system that "just works." While others make the argument that the MBA doesn't need to be a powerful machine with Nvidia's GPU and Intel's IGP should do, they aren't considering that the Core series CPU isn't necessary since the MBA is not for the professional who needs a professional grade computer. Their own argument is being ignored...

Eidorian
Jan 26, 2010, 10:38 AM
Technology changes and gets smaller. I am certain Apple can either miniaturize the current capabilities and make a smaller MBA, or it can keep the same size MBA and give it more capabilities. One or the other should happen. Think about the battery space for example... does Apple use its technology to get the same output from a smaller battery, or does Apple make the battery the same size and give it more output to increase time between charges?

I definitely agree there is currently very little extra space, but don't count Apple out on finding more available space to improve the user experience. I don't know for sure what Apple is going to do, but I have more faith that it will actually use a better graphics solution than Intel's IGP.

I certainly am believing more and more that tomorrow's MBA update will include an Intel SL9x00 Penryn Core 2 Duo processor and Nvidia GPU/chipset. I believe it's the best currently capable solution to the graphics "problem" created by Intel and its IGP. Anyone that's willing to give up an Intel Core 2 Duo CPU and Nvidia GPU/chipset for an Intel Arrandale CPU and IGP, hasn't thought out the solution and the system's total performance loss. Surely Apple has considered both possibilities and proven to itself that a 10 to 20% CPU boost would be nice, but when paired with a 60% GPU performance loss, the decision becomes obvious.

While Core 2 Duo can be improved upon, the experience with the MBA is amazingly great since the Nvidia GPU is used. Improving the CPU is not necessary to give MBA users a great experience. Remember Apple is about the performance of the complete system including OS X. The "average" buyer is a business professional who just needs a stable system that "just works." While others make the argument that the MBA doesn't need to be a powerful machine with Nvidia's GPU and Intel's IGP should do, they aren't considering that the Core series CPU isn't necessary since the MBA is not for the professional who needs a professional grade computer. Their own argument is being ignored...I can't imagine a MacBook Air updated unless Apple did get first pick of Arrandale LV. It looks like Spring before anyone else releases any Arrandale LV product and at worst all the way to May. Maybe MCP89 did manage to survive and Apple is going to use it.

Scottsdale
Jan 26, 2010, 10:49 AM
There is not enough room/battery life/cooling in the Air for a dedicated GPU. Intel wont let anyone else build chipsets for the Nehalem processors. So yes it will get Intel graphics. Unless AMD or PA Semi can build a CPU faster than the current 2.13ghz Core 2 Duo in the Air, that is x86, very low power and then have AMD build a chipset for it. Not likely.

And they're not going to make the Air bigger to accommodate a GPU, not whilst Jobs has Air in his lungs.

Remember, Jobs is deep involved with the tablet. He has forgotten the MBA completely. I don't believe you're considering the possibility of continuing to use Core 2 Duo and Nvidia GPU/chipset in Macs that don't need faster CPUs. Macs need to keep being more innovative and provide a better complete system performance update with each release. I believe the using Intel Core CPUs with only IGPs will lead to a worse complete system performance experience. How does Apple make us want to "downgrade" to the "NEW MBA?"

The other thing you're not remembering is that technology gets smaller. Don't count Apple out on making room for an ATI graphics solution by miniaturizing other components via technology advancements. So if there is a Core Architecture CPU it will probably be a Core i7 using ATI 4xxx graphics. Either solution is an improvement that builds upon the past MBAs.

The problem is no matter what other improvements Apple makes (IE 4 GB RAM), if the MBA only has an Intel IGP, it will be a downgrade. Until Intel improves the IGP, Apple will need to find a way around Intel. In the past, Apple learned its way around Intel, and it makes sense to keep doing the same.

Anonymous Freak
Jan 26, 2010, 11:11 AM
According to the link to the article this thread focuses on, the IGP only works with Display Port native displays. Apple's own 30" Cinema Display doesn't work with Display Port.

Actually, the current MacBook Air, Pro, plain MacBook, mini, and iMac are all in the same boat. They only officially support higher-than 1920x1200 via DisplayPort-native. That's why you need to pay $100 for the DisplayPort-to-Dual-Link-DVI adapter to run a 30" display off any of those systems.

Unfortunately our "senior" ehurtley (member since 2003), doesn't remember how badly the MBA was with Intel's graphics in the original MBA. Sorta like the saying goes, "fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me." Apple isn't going to fool me twice with such an MBA as one that solely uses Intel's IGP.

I remember it quite well, based on the fact that I own a first-generation black MacBook, with Intel GMA950 graphics. And if you didn't read my previous posts, you will see that I fully agree that GMA950 sucks. Period. If you re-read my posts, you will also see that Intel's newer graphics chipsets are markedly improved. And finally, if you re-read my posts, you will see that I agree that discrete chipsets are better still; I just make the point that for what the Air is targeted at, Intel's current integrated graphics are "acceptable". They support OpenCL, they support on-GPU decode of MPEG-2 and H.264, etc.

I do believe that an Intel IGP would probably sell more MBAs, because it would probably be targeted to a sub $1,000 MBA that focuses on those who want a secondary Mac.

Which is exactly the point of the MBA. A secondary Mac. Apple has never said anything different. (Although it would be nice if the $1000 price point was accurate.)

applesupergeek
Jan 26, 2010, 11:59 AM
No. It's horrible.

The 9400M makes the Air a capable gaming system. Hell, I run CoD: MW2 on this thing with high texture settings and get no frame drops.

With the Intel GMA HD, I can forget about running any games at all. I can forget about CUDA or OpenCL also.

Using Intel video cards is a cheap method for notebooks designed not to be gaming systems or for the business world. They have a relatively low power consumption and less heat generation. However, if you look at the lower end video cards such as 9400M or even 9300M, they have nearly the same trade off but much better performance. However the pricing would be a lot higher vs the Intel Options.
+100000000000. That's the honest truth despite the garbage a lot pundits, and even posters here, are trying to spin in favour of intel.

applesupergeek
Jan 26, 2010, 12:02 PM
According to AnandTech (http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3704&p=4), the graphics in the higher-end desktop i5 are about even with the AMD 790GX, which, in turn, is roughly equivalent to (http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=3432&p=4) nVidia 9400. The mobile i3/i5 has graphics on par with the desktop i3/i5 (other than the highest-end,) which is only slightly slower (http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3724&p=3) than the high-end i5.

Remember, 9400M is now two years old. Yes, there are faster options now, but the integrated graphics in the laptop i3/i5/i7 are roughly equivalent. Any games that run on 9400M will run on "Intel HD Graphics", minus a single-percent frame rate in some games, and even plus a single-percent frame rate in others.

And the latest Intel graphics do support OpenCL. (They don't support CUDA, but neither does anything from AMD, for that matter, as CUDA is nVidia-specific.

Yes, the GMA 950 that came in the first Mac mini, MacBook, and MacBook Air sucked ass. The next-generation after that (which Apple skipped,) was noticeably better, and the current generation is even better yet. Yes, if nVidia and AMD could make 'integrated graphics' chipsets for the i3/i5/i7, it would likely be noticeably faster than what Intel provides; the Intel graphics are competitive with the 9400M.

Finally, the notebook i3/i5/i7 have "Turbo Boost" that includes the GPU in its calculations. So the GPU can ramp up in speed if the whole package has enough thermal headroom. Yeah, if you're running SETI@Home on both CPU and GPU, you'll end up with crappy speeds on both; but if you're playing a game that isn't massively CPU-intensive, the GPU will ramp up and provide you with better speed. Likewise, when you're doing video rendering on the CPU, the GPU won't be using much power, so the CPU can ramp up in speed. All staying inside a much lower power envelope than adding the 9400M would.

Don't get me wrong, I don't want to see Intel HD graphics in the MacBook Pro; and would prefer not to see it in the 'plain' MacBook; but for the low-power Air, it fits perfectly.
Anandtech is on intel's payroll, allegedly. They are one of their biggest sponsors. I wouldn't trust anything that comes out of these jokes, especially where they have vested interests.

edit: The always astute Scottsfield summed it up excellently on the previous page.

Eidorian
Jan 26, 2010, 12:04 PM
Anandtech is on intel's payroll, allegedly. They are one of their biggest sponsors. I wouldn't trust anything that comes out of these jokes, especially where they have vested interests.Bit-Tech confirms Anandtech's findings for the most part.

applesupergeek
Jan 26, 2010, 12:19 PM
Bit-Tech confirms Anandtech's findings for the most part.

I am sorry Eidorian, but first of all I will refer you to the analysis of Scottsdale to see why rating for cpus/gpus can be skewed and not representative.

Secondly I am not naive or young enough to believe that intel with all their billions don't have the spare peanuts, forget that, the month's old crubs of peanuts under some tight corner, to spare to finance a few tens of geeks spread around tec websites with early technology and a pay that will make up for all those years of lack of legitimate orgasms they haven't had. Intel continued its stonghold on the market with monopoly tactics and such sites when amd was making them look like complete and utter fools and putting intels offerings to shame, and they won't be able to pull it off now that despite their crappy gfx offerings they have taken a small but appreciable lead in the cpu industry (not in the ultra mobile segment of course where the arm dwarfs the atom)?

Like I said we are talking about billions and billions of dollars, trillions arguably, they can rent out senators and politicians as if they were call gals, heck the numero uno sponsors of Israel's military, industrial complex and they can't channel their fud in a few web of tec sites?

p.s. btw, what part is it that they dont confirm?

Eidorian
Jan 26, 2010, 12:22 PM
I am sorry Eidorian, but first of all I will refer you to the analysis of Scottsdale to see why rating for cpus/gpus can be skewed and not representative.

Secondly I am not naive or young enough to believe that intel with all their billions don't have the spare peanuts, forget that, the month's old crubs of peanuts under some tight corner, to spare to finance a few tens of geeks spread around tec websites with early technology and a pay that will make up for all those years of lack of legitimate orgasms they had. Intel continued its stonghold on the market with monopoly tactics and such sites when amd was making them look like complete and utter fools and putting intels offerings to shame, and they won't be able to pull it off now that despite their crappy gfx offerings they have taken a small but appreciable lead in the cpu industry (not mobile segment of course where the arm dwarfs the atom)?

Like I said we are talking about billions and billions of dollars, trillions arguably, they can rent out senators and politicians as if they were call gals, heck the numero uno sponsors of Israel's military, industrial complex and they can't channel their fud in a few web of tec sites?

p.s. btw, what part is it that they dont confirm?I take medication for that. I'd rather have the 790GX or 9400M G over the Intel GMA HD but you're only irking out a few more FPS at lowest settings.

ayeying
Jan 26, 2010, 12:26 PM
I'm not going to argue about what benchmarks comes out with. Even with the original X3100 video card, even though its similar to an low end nVidia or ATi video card, the performance was extremely worse and sometimes won't even run even though the benchmarks are the same. I just feel Intel's GFX is really only good for battery life and business uses in which they don't require fast 3D graphics.

The Air, even though it's not a gaming machine, is still capable as a gaming machine. It's been proven by me and many other users who have used bootcamp to play an occasional game or two.

To be honest, I really liked my Rev. A macbook air. I found nothing wrong with the latest one I got (which apparently was a refurb). The only problem I did find is the video card. If that Air had a 9400M or something other than Intel, I really wouldn't have switched. I don't care about the SSD or the SATA2 connection or the 2.13GHz processor. I really just cared about the video card being able to play an occasional game without being less than 10 fps.

Scottsdale
Jan 26, 2010, 12:31 PM
Which is exactly the point of the MBA. A secondary Mac. Apple has never said anything different. (Although it would be nice if the $1000 price point was accurate.)

I will accept your first several points as your understanding of the facts. I will even say that maybe my reply wasn't "respectful," because I cannot fathom your views of Intel's IGP. Of course we all agree that a dedicated graphics solution is preferred. We will have to agree to disagree on the rest.

I most certainly disagree 1,000,000% that the MacBook Air was meant to be a "secondary" Mac from the beginning. From my own experience and from my interaction with colleagues, friends, and forum members, I believe that at least three of every four NEW MBA buyers is buying the MBA to be their primary Mac. I also believe that Apple's target market for the MBA was always as a primary Mac.

Now, the targeted market could have changed over time. Remember, the initial price of the MBA was $1799 to $3099. Do you think Apple would really expect the MBA to be a secondary Mac at that price? No, the MBA was meant for the "professional" that didn't need a professional grade computer to do their daily computing workload - businesspeople, grad students, writers, professors, consultants, and tech enthusiasts. These are the people who can afford an MBA.

Those who didn't need an MBP, would pay more money for a similar "experience" to that which they could from a MacBook. While not needing a professional computer, these people still want a premium device that gives them the "Mac experience" that they enjoy and that makes them feel cool. Not only that, these professionals are on the go. They can use the MBA in an airplane seat, and it's easy to carry around. While at their desk, they could plug it into an ACD and the MBA became an amazing "desktop."

Make no mistake about it, the MBA is a "primary" Mac. Now, what happened was the original MBA was a failure. Apple didn't tell people that while the MBA might fit in an envelope, it wasn't capable of, what people would consider, a "normal" Mac experience. This lead to original MBA owners dumping their MBAs and migrating back to an MBP or even a PC ultraportable/notebook.

The MBA owners original experience damaged the brand "MacBook Air." Apple realized that it couldn't make software updates to completely repair the challenges of the overheated Merom CPU and completely worthless Intel 3100 graphics. Apple learned its lesson and introduced a new model with an updated Penryn CPU that was lower voltage at 17W and utilized Nvidia's new 9400m GPU/chipset to reduce heat and improve performance substantially. The resulting MBA was a success and the perfect companion, and primary Mac, for those who didn't need a professional grade computer but wanted a premium/luxury computer. These are the people that can afford $1799 to $2499 for a luxury MBA. The targeted market and right computer had finally been created. It was thin and lightweight, yet it had a capable CPU and GPU that could do everything that a primary Mac user would need if they didn't need a professional grade computer. The MBA was cool and provided a typical MB experience yet in its "Air" form.

The MBA had failed in its original version, and Apple couldn't completely make it a real Mac like experience usable by those who wanted to use it as their primary Mac. Apple then decided to "DUMP" its stockpile of original MBAs. This "dumping" of many MBAs, that were incapable to achieve a Primary Mac status, led to the MBA taking on a new role as a "secondary" Mac. Apple surely didn't intend for the MBA to fail. Its failure was on implementing the MBA before it had components capable of making the MBA a primary Mac. Basically, it relied on Intel in too tight of a space. Once it got Nvidia's GPU involved, along with a LV Penryn CPU, the MBA became a "primary" Mac once again. Since switching over to Nvidia, most MBA buyers have enjoyed their experience and fallen in love with the fun of owning an MBA that was capable of being their primary Mac.

With the June 2009 update, Apple's challenge was to take advantage of those of us who are willing to pay more money for an MBA that is primary Mac capable but still sell the MBA to those who wanted a secondary Mac that couldn't wait out the tablet or fill the role of a netbook. Apple decided to forego changes that might be wanted by some to reduce the pricing to capture sales from both markets. Really, Apple knew it didn't have a "netbook" available and didn't want to compete there. The MBA was still selling refurbished for $999 to $1299, so Apple was successfully selling some secondary MBAs for those who wanted the Mac "experience" and would pay more than they would have for a $400 netbook that was similarly as capable but that had smaller displays and keyboards... this led to Apple providing a better secondary Mac experience than a netbook could provide. For those who would pay even a little more (the infamous incremental upgrade Apple provides), a brand new MBA that was really "cool" and bypassed the 2 GHz barrier! The result was more and more people buying new MBAs from both markets and more people buying refurbished MBAs thus changing both markets further. Apple doesn't often fail with its products, but when it does, it usually learns well from those failures. In this case, Apple learned to expand the MBA's market by also taking advantage of those who wanted a secondary computing device... yet Apple got its way by not offering a "netbook" at a sub-$1000 price.

I expect tomorrow's MBA update to further solidify the MBA as a "primary" Mac. Apple will continue to find a way around Intel when it comes to graphics. This will ensure the MBA's capabilities remain in tact for those who want to use the MBA as their primary Mac; these people don't need a professional grade computer, but they want an incredible Mac experience. At the same time, Apple will introduce its tablet which will capitalize on the market which was previously buying MBAs to fulfill the role of secondary computing. The MBA will take a small hit on sales of tablets, but that was NEVER its primary target. Apple will gladly capitalize on those who don't want a tablet and will pay more for the MBA experience.

Eidorian
Jan 26, 2010, 12:38 PM
I expect tomorrow's MBA update to further solidify the MBA as a "primary" Mac. Apple will continue to find a way around Intel when it comes to graphics. This will ensure the MBA's capabilities remain in tact for those who want to use the MBA as their primary Mac; these people don't need a professional grade computer, but they want an incredible Mac experience. At the same time, Apple will introduce its tablet which will capitalize on the market which was previously buying MBAs to fulfill the role of secondary computing. The MBA will take a small hit on sales of tablets, but that was NEVER its primary target. Apple will gladly capitalize on those who don't want a tablet and will pay more for the MBA experience.I can't really imagine the MacBook Air going to Arrandale right now. Another Core 2 low voltage revision and maybe even a slight price drop are more than likely.

Apple backed itself into a corner with nVidia. nVidia mentioned the MCP89 and MCP99 (Nehalem/Westmere) back in August of 2009. A few months later nVidia completely backs down from trying to pursue a DMI/QPI license. ION2 turns into a hackneyed mobile G210 on an overclocked PCIe x1 lane for Atom (Pineview).

It's still entirely possible that MCP89 managed to survive for a Core 2 LV/ULV/CULV environment. Bring on the 32 shader IGP, DDR3, and I/O on a 55/40nm die.

applesupergeek
Jan 26, 2010, 01:59 PM
I take medication for that. I'd rather have the 790GX or 9400M G over the Intel GMA HD but you're only irking out a few more FPS at lowest settings.
What do you take medication for?:confused:


Excellent post as per usual Scottsdale.

iMacmatician
Jan 26, 2010, 02:22 PM
Apple will not do this. It makes no sense.And it made no sense to go to integrated GPUs with the first Intel Macs…oh wait.

I am sorry Eidorian, but first of all I will refer you to the analysis of Scottsdale to see why rating for cpus/gpus can be skewed and not representative. And if those ratings were negative would you still be claiming skew and bias?

I can't really imagine the MacBook Air going to Arrandale right now. Another Core 2 low voltage revision and maybe even a slight price drop are more than likely.I'd say a large part of that depends on when the LV Arrandales are coming out and if Apple can squeeze in another Core 2 update.

applesupergeek
Jan 26, 2010, 02:52 PM
[QUOTE=iMacmatician;9146692
And if those ratings were negative would you still be claiming skew and bias?
[/QUOTE]

That's an alternate reality you are talking about, when was the last time they were negative? Right, I didn't so.

Scottsdale
Jan 26, 2010, 03:05 PM
And it made no sense to go to integrated GPUs with the first Intel Macs…oh wait.


My point is obvious; Apple has learned from past experiences with Intel that its integrated graphics are not just inferior, in every way, they're also JUNK!

You usually put a little more effort into your replies...

MacModMachine
Jan 26, 2010, 03:16 PM
i bought my air as my main machine, with the runcore drive it has made it much more possible.

i have a mac mini desktop at home that will become a new media center.

the air is my favorite machine.

its drawbacks will be solved shortly (i hope)

once the 4gb ram comes out...thats all i need. :D



ill be ordering a new cinema display for it and using it as my main machine once again.

iMacmatician
Jan 26, 2010, 03:25 PM
That's an alternate reality you are talking about, when was the last time they were negative? Right, I didn't so.You still haven't answered my question.

How about I make it easier for you… if a different source gave highly negative ratings to the GMA HD, would you still be critically analyzing it?

My point is obvious; Apple has learned from past experiences with Intel that its integrated graphics are not just inferior, in every way, they're also JUNK!Previous releases have shown that Apple is perfectly capable of downgrading certain components or feature sets while upgrading others in an update.

You usually put a little more effort into your replies...So do you.

once the 4gb ram comes out...thats all i need. :D4 GB is basically a given for the next update.

applesupergeek
Jan 26, 2010, 03:34 PM
You still haven't answered my question.

How about I make it easier for you… if a different source gave highly negative ratings to the GMA HD, would you still be critically analyzing it?


I don't like your condescending tone. Let me make it easier for you too. Hypothetical scenarios are something I don't dignify with replies. You want to answer to my actual points, be my guest.

Scottsdale
Jan 26, 2010, 03:39 PM
So do you.

4 GB is basically a given for the next update.

I already put forth a substantial post on what I think about the topic. Your reply to that didn't consider the entire post but merely one small part of it. If you're going to reply to it, make a considerable effort and base your opinions with a little more conviction. Otherwise, forget it.

Apple can take its 4 GB of RAM and shove it if it is paired with Intel's IGP as its sole graphics solution. I don't think 8 GB of system RAM will make up for Intel's IGP inclusion - not even close. I am looking for more like 4 GB shared with Nvidia GPU or 4 GB system RAM + 256MB video RAM for an ATI solution.

iMacmatician
Jan 26, 2010, 03:44 PM
I don't like your condescending tone. Let me make it easier for you too. Hypothetical scenarios are something I don't dignify with replies. You want to answer to my actual points, be my guest.You keep missing my point, don't you? Which is: Would you critically analyze performance figures (or other types of reports) no matter what their conclusions were?

Don't bother replying as you'll miss the point of this post too.

I already put forth a substantial post on what I think about the topic. Your reply to that didn't consider the entire post but merely one small part of it.Do I have to reply to every point in your whole post? No. Your whole point is the loss of graphics power. My whole point is that Apple has downgraded components in the past.

But then again, nothing in your last post refutes my point.

And no, my 4 GB of RAM comment has nothing to do with your quote, if you even read my post.

applesupergeek
Jan 26, 2010, 03:50 PM
You keep missing my point, don't you?

Don't bother replying as you'll miss the point of this post too.


What is your point exactly? Points are not usually phrased as leading questions. You are trying to insinuate that I would ebrace any critical review of intel graphics, and I would dismiss any positive one on the grounds of bias. So? That is very expected, people don't just write negative review about intel on a grudge, but they almost always write positive ones when they are on a nice little earner, which most of them are. I didn't see you taking up what I said that intel has huge marketing force and billions and they have most tec site on the web pocketed, you missed that point. As you missed the point that they even had their clout working for them back when they were by all accounts inferior to the competition.

iMacmatician
Jan 26, 2010, 03:56 PM
You are trying to insinuate that I would ebrace any critical review of intel graphics, and I would dismiss any positive one on the grounds of bias. That is exactly what you did above.

I didn't see you taking up what I said that intel has huge marketing force and billions and they have most tec site on the web pocketed, you missed that point. So they're paying everyone. Any solid evidence for that would be of interest.

As you missed the point that they even had their clout working for them back when they were by all accounts inferior to the competition.I'm pretty sure the Pentium 4 reviews were bad. I don't think the Pentium G6950 review was that good either.

applesupergeek
Jan 26, 2010, 04:00 PM
That is exactly what you did above.

So they're paying everyone. Any solid evidence for that would be of interest.

Common sense, the least commonest of all senses, that is my "solid evidence". Do you perhaps want bank account no.s, phone call taps, or maybe I can summon an investigative committee to belabour the obvious.

iMacmatician
Jan 26, 2010, 04:01 PM
Common sense, the least commonest of all senses, that is my "solid evidence".Whatever works for you.

Scottsdale
Jan 26, 2010, 04:02 PM
I don't like your condescending tone. Let me make it easier for you too. Hypothetical scenarios are something I don't dignify with replies. You want to answer to my actual points, be my guest.

I agree. I don't understand what's going on here. Normally iMacmatician is a little more dignified and substantial. Must be having a bad day, or he just owns a bunch of Intel stock... and is bitter about negative revelations.

iMacmatician
Jan 26, 2010, 04:04 PM
I agree. I don't understand what's going on here. Normally iMacmatician is a little more dignified and substantial. Must be having a bad day, or he just owns a bunch of Intel stock... and is bitter about negative revelations.Neither. Maybe you guys are just bitter that you can't refute my arguments…and instead make other comments that have no relation to my points (or yours).

MacModMachine
Jan 26, 2010, 04:11 PM
wow...you guys got your mac's in a twist....and right before a huge media event....


im very disappointed.

iMacmatician
Jan 26, 2010, 04:13 PM
wow...you guys got your mac's in a twist....and right before a huge media event....


im very disappointed.If you think it's bad now… wait until after the event.

MacModMachine
Jan 26, 2010, 04:26 PM
i do believe putting in intel HD (even though its comparable to the 9400M ) is a step backwards.

i will have to call it quits on the air if they throw in intel video.

spaceballl
Jan 26, 2010, 04:26 PM
I think this graphics chip is an inevitability for the MBA. Apple's top priority with this thing is to get it as thin as possible. For 80% of the people out there, the intel integrated graphics chip is all they need, and by using this, Apple no longer needs an extra discreet chip, helping them cut down on power usage / space usage / heat. I'd love an even thinner MBA with better battery life. That's my focus, not "gaming," which to be fair, sucks on a MBA even w/ the 9400M. I have an iPhone / PS3 for gaming. I don't need a MacBook Air for one.

Scottsdale
Jan 26, 2010, 04:34 PM
You keep missing my point, don't you? Which is: Would you critically analyze performance figures (or other types of reports) no matter what their conclusions were?

Don't bother replying as you'll miss the point of this post too.

Do I have to reply to every point in your whole post? No. Your whole point is the loss of graphics power. My whole point is that Apple has downgraded components in the past.

But then again, nothing in your last post refutes my point.

And no, my 4 GB of RAM comment has nothing to do with your quote, if you even read my post.

Whatever you might think, I wish Intel had an IGP that could compete with anything Nvidia has to offer. There is no conspiracy here to lower Intel's stock price. I wish the inclusion of the IGP with Arrandale CPUs could offer the same performance as even Nvidia's 9400m (15-month-old). If Intel could compete, even closely, it would be advantageous to stick with 25W TDP between both the CPU and IGP. For example, the Core i7 CPU that may replace the current MBA CPU is 25W including IGP over the current MBA at 17W Penryn + 12W Nvidia GPU. Obviously saving 4W would be advantageous and promote better battery life/lower usage. The problem is not only is Intel's IGP a possible 60% loss in performance, its loss is over a 15-month-old GPU.

It's too bad that Intel's IGP with Core architecture CPUs is essentially a joke. I believe the real results would show/prove that, but I definitely hope I don't get a chance to prove you wrong. For me it is all about the actual results not what we're hopeful for. Intel has been a poor performer in the past when it comes to its IGP; it's not like I am just making this up as I go. Apple moved to Nvidia to improve the graphics performance by 5x. When it did that, it furthered the concept by integrating OpenCL and Grand Central Dispatch into its OS (Snow Leopard) to further take advantage of cores and untapped processing power.

While Apple could decide to "downgrade" with Intel and its IGP, I don't think there is any merit for assuming it has done this in the past with regards to something it has invested so heavily in. Apple has marketed not only its Macs but also its OS in taking advantage of the graphics, so "downgrading" here would be confusing for certain. If it had not ever adopted Nvidia, and if it had never developed Snow Leopard to take advantage of untaped power in the graphics system, then maybe Intel's IGP would make sense. This is more than a downgrade, it's a huge loss of system performance.

Like I said before, I can see another Core 2 Duo with Nvidia or a new Core i7 with an ATI solution, before I see Apple downgrading the MBA so far. Remember that Apple will probably migrate all Macs (except Mac Pro) into the solution if it's a new one... as every Mac except the Mac Pro currently uses the 9400m. With the last iMac update, Apple showed its willingness to continue using the 9400m even though it was over a year old.

I even see leaving the MBA as is until it can figure out the correct decision to move forward with. Perhaps the rumors are true and Apple even required Intel to provide CPUs without its IGP. The IGP is going to end up being problematic for Intel in the long run, as it's anti-competitive for certain. Forcing Nvidia out is going to prove costly one way or another.

Scottsdale
Jan 26, 2010, 04:45 PM
i do believe putting in intel HD (even though its comparable to the 9400M ) is a step backwards.

i will have to call it quits on the air if they throw in intel video.

That's just it, the Intel IGP is NOT comparable to even the 15-month-old 9400m (that doesn't even consider a bump to its successor). There's no proof the MBA wouldn't suffer similar problems as did the original MBA. It's probably the end of the road for me too, if Apple only includes Intel's IGP. That's sad to say for certain. I will probably actually migrate over to Sony and Windows 7 when my current MBA becomes impractical versus other available PC ultraportables.

I think people aren't considering the fact that the MBA really is marketed towards being a primary computer for the business user who doesn't need a professional grade computer. We are the ones who will pay extra for the convenience of a lighter and thinner MBA. For me, I don't need the MBA to go thinner, have a smaller display, or weigh less. All I need is the capability for the MBA to remain my primary computer that can do all of my computing needs - AS MY CURRENT MBA CAN PERFORM. It cannot go backwards.

If the MBA's price tag was sub-$1000, and if the tablet wasn't being produced, the Intel IGP direction could make sense if the MBA was changed to market to those wanting a secondary Mac. I still think people are confusing the fact that so many ended up with the MBA being their secondary Mac because Apple dumped them for $999; they're all missing the point that a $1799 MBA isn't marketed as a secondary Mac.

Scottsdale
Jan 26, 2010, 04:47 PM
Neither. Maybe you guys are just bitter that you can't refute my arguments…and instead make other comments that have no relation to my points (or yours).

Honestly now, tell me if you own some Intel stock??? LMAO!!!

iMacmatician
Jan 26, 2010, 04:59 PM
Honestly now, tell me if you own some Intel stock??? LMAO!!!I said "neither." :confused:

jimboutilier
Jan 26, 2010, 06:01 PM
- 1 MILLION... I am speaking for the fans who don't know any better here... those who haven't read about this... those who don't want to accept what Intel says as gospel... those who want someone to stand up for their MBA's future and are too busy to do it for themselves.

If Apple goes with this in the MBA, there better be a BTO option allowing a real graphics solution to be in the higher end MBA.

I can just see it now... going back to the same thing we had with the original MBA... and all the hours I preached for people to not fall into the same trap as I did. The hours spent explaining why NOT to buy the original MBA and to instead spend a little more and get the machine that was 5x as capable

Apple will not do this. It makes no sense. Sticking with Penryn and Nvidia makes far more sense for this last update... until it gives Apple ample time to figure out how to move forward with the next update.

1) Where are the benchmarks that suggest a 60% loss in performance, or even some antidotal evidence?
2) As to long and naive posts, isn't that the pot calling the kettle black ;-)
3) My RevA was a great machine that never had any over heating or core shutdown issues and I never had any performance issues with it in daily business use for about a year. The new chipset is two generations beyond that so its hardly "back to the same thing" even if you were not happy with the original. And the RevC MBA is not 5x as capable as the RevA even if you only consider Video - which was by far the largest increase and is only 4x.
4) The new Intel GPU is OpenCL compliant and the few numbers I've seen indicate it produces about the same performance as what we have today and uses less power. Yes they could be lying.
5) I would expect a current cpu speed bump rather than a migration to Airedale this year on the MBA but other features are more important to me so it won't bother me one way or another as long as what I've read so far about it turns out to be anywhere close to true.

jimboutilier
Jan 26, 2010, 06:25 PM
Yeah, I thought the original MBA was a polarizing machine. It seems the NEXT one thats not announced or specced is even more controversial.

Even more ironic the few benchmarks/tests available that all show pretty good performance from the Intel GPU are considered evidence that its a poor performer.

Supposition posing as fact, opinion posing as analysis, ad homonym and intellectually dishonest attacks on the reasonable posts, and complete illogic. What a thread. Must be a full moon or something.

Anonymous Freak
Jan 26, 2010, 06:41 PM
Yeah, I thought the original MBA was a polarizing machine. It seems the NEXT one thats not announced or specced is even more controversial.

Even more ironic the few benchmarks/tests available that all show pretty good performance from the Intel GPU are considered evidence that its a poor performer.

Supposition posing as fact, opinion posing as analysis, ad homonym and intellectually dishonest attacks on the reasonable posts, and complete illogic. What a thread. Must be a full moon or something.

Yeah, I stopped arguing. You'd think this was an abortion debate......

Scottsdale
Jan 26, 2010, 11:33 PM
1) Where are the benchmarks that suggest a 60% loss in performance, or even some antidotal evidence?
2) As to long and naive posts, isn't that the pot calling the kettle black ;-)
3) My RevA was a great machine that never had any over heating or core shutdown issues and I never had any performance issues with it in daily business use for about a year. The new chipset is two generations beyond that so its hardly "back to the same thing" even if you were not happy with the original. And the RevC MBA is not 5x as capable as the RevA even if you only consider Video - which was by far the largest increase and is only 4x.
4) The new Intel GPU is OpenCL compliant and the few numbers I've seen indicate it produces about the same performance as what we have today and uses less power. Yes they could be lying.
5) I would expect a current cpu speed bump rather than a migration to Airedale this year on the MBA but other features are more important to me so it won't bother me one way or another as long as what I've read so far about it turns out to be anywhere close to true.

Your reply is quite unnecessarily accusatory and insulting... I am not going to reply to that anymore, as to say I hope I don't have to prove anyone right after tomorrow. Let's hope Apple is smarter than the consortium in this thread (myself included).

robeddie
Jan 27, 2010, 03:30 AM
Yeah, I thought the original MBA was a polarizing machine. It seems the NEXT one thats not announced or specced is even more controversial.

Even more ironic the few benchmarks/tests available that all show pretty good performance from the Intel GPU are considered evidence that its a poor performer.

Supposition posing as fact, opinion posing as analysis, ad homonym and intellectually dishonest attacks on the reasonable posts, and complete illogic. What a thread. Must be a full moon or something.

The main tests referenced in the first page of this thread indicated that the Intel GMA was a clear measure slower than the 9400, and on the one test where it was faster, that was because it lacked a bunch of the graphic detail that the 9400 produced.

There are plenty of people who only look at CPU performance and don't really care all that much about GPU performance, and that's fine. It's just that some of us here were hoping for an actual ADVANCE in GPU performance as well.

I bought the rev. B MBA because of the jump in graphics power. I would buy a newer model for the same reason.

So, all that some of us are saying is that a step back in graphics performance (or sideways if you're being really really generous with the Intel GMA) would be a deal killer for some of us who otherwise would be interested in buying the next model of the MBA.

Thunder82
Jan 27, 2010, 08:03 AM
The main tests referenced in the first page of this thread indicated that the Intel GMA was a clear measure slower than the 9400, and on the one test where it was faster, that was because it lacked a bunch of the graphic detail that the 9400 produced.

There are plenty of people who only look at CPU performance and don't really care all that much about GPU performance, and that's fine. It's just that some of us here were hoping for an actual ADVANCE in GPU performance as well.

I bought the rev. B MBA because of the jump in graphics power. I would buy a newer model for the same reason.

So, all that some of us are saying is that a step back in graphics performance (or sideways if you're being really really generous with the Intel GMA) would be a deal killer for some of us who otherwise would be interested in buying the next model of the MBA.

I agree with you 100%. While i still might consider buying a new Air (if it gets bumped to arrandale & 4GB of memory) I would still consider the GMA chip a big time downgrade.

I know we'll all see what happens in a few hours, but I'm just really hoping Apple has found a way to bypass all of this Intel mess.

applesupergeek
Jan 27, 2010, 10:55 AM
wow...you guys got your mac's in a twist....and right before a huge media event....


im very disappointed.

Sorry for that. :o We got our mac signals crossed, but some people are getting overly defensive of intel without bothering to reply to some valid points, and just muck about.

Your reply is quite unnecessarily accusatory and insulting... I am not going to reply to that anymore, as to say I hope I don't have to prove anyone right after tomorrow. Let's hope Apple is smarter than the consortium in this thread (myself included).

Ignore him buddy. :)

Anonymous Freak
Jan 27, 2010, 11:51 AM
Sorry for that. :o We got our mac signals crossed, but some people are getting overly defensive of intel without bothering to reply to some valid points, and just muck about.

Funny, I'm seeing the exact opposite. People going "INTEL GRAPHICS SUCKED THREE YEARS AGO, THEREFORE THEY SUCK NOW, BENCHMARKS ARE FAKED, APPLE WOULD BE STUPID BEYOND BELIEF TO GO WITH INTEL GRAPHICS! SHUT UP -- YOU ALL SUCK!"

Okay, not quite that bad. But like I said, it feels like an abortion debate in here.

Scottsdale
Jan 27, 2010, 05:40 PM
Ignore him buddy. :)

Yes, I most certainly will. I will never reply to any of his posts ever again. I obviously am not making anything up, as we all know where Intel has been and where it is now with its inferior IGP. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out that whether Intel's IGP is 30% slower or 60% slower than the 9400m, it's nowhere near where the Nvidia GPU was 15 months ago.

Today good news was no news at all about the MBA. I hope that Apple takes its time and comes up with the best solution that moves forward with "progress" and an MBA that we ALL can really love.

jimboutilier
Jan 27, 2010, 08:49 PM
Your reply is quite unnecessarily accusatory and insulting... I am not going to reply to that anymore, as to say I hope I don't have to prove anyone right after tomorrow. Let's hope Apple is smarter than the consortium in this thread (myself included).

When you frequently make extreme or controversial posts, stating suppositions, opinions and gross exaggerations as fact, without offering any proof and which available sources of facts seem to dispute, you should expect to be asked questions or corrected.

I made no accusations. I asked you for a data source for your claim of a 60% performance loss when the only common sources (even those in this thread) imply a vastly smaller performance difference.

You made a number of factual errors that are clearly disputed by Apples own specifications and I pointed those out.

I'm sorry if you don't like it or found it accusatory. I was merely questioning what appeared to be disinformation or correct facts that appeared to be in error. If I get a fact wrong (and have) I would expect someone to correct me (and they have) and if I make exaggerations or state opinions or suppositions as fact I would hope someone would call me on that as well.

iMacmatician
Jan 27, 2010, 09:52 PM
Your reply is quite unnecessarily accusatory and insulting... I am not going to reply to that anymore, as to say I hope I don't have to prove anyone right after tomorrow. Let's hope Apple is smarter than the consortium in this thread (myself included).Translation: I disagree with those points, but can't refute them. But they're still wrong!

Sorry for that. :o We got our mac signals crossed, but some people are getting overly defensive of intel without bothering to reply to some valid points, and just muck about.What? I addressed and refuted each and every one of your points (and Scottsdale's that I chose to address), you refuted none of my points, and started accusing me of ridiculous things! :rolleyes:

Funny, I'm seeing the exact opposite. People going "INTEL GRAPHICS SUCKED THREE YEARS AGO, THEREFORE THEY SUCK NOW, BENCHMARKS ARE FAKED, APPLE WOULD BE STUPID BEYOND BELIEF TO GO WITH INTEL GRAPHICS! SHUT UP -- YOU ALL SUCK!"Don't forget the huge conspiracy involving anyone who favors Intel in any way. The only fanboys in this thread are applesupergeek and Scottsdale, and their posts prove that.

When you frequently make extreme or controversial posts, stating suppositions, opinions and gross exaggerations as fact, without offering any proof and which available sources of facts seem to dispute, you should expect to be asked questions or corrected.

I made no accusations. I asked you for a data source for your claim of a 60% performance loss when the only common sources (even those in this thread) imply a vastly smaller performance difference.

You made a number of factual errors that are clearly disputed by Apples own specifications and I pointed those out.

I'm sorry if you don't like it or found it accusatory. I was merely questioning what appeared to be disinformation or correct facts that appeared to be in error. If I get a fact wrong (and have) I would expect someone to correct me (and they have) and if I make exaggerations or state opinions or suppositions as fact I would hope someone would call me on that as well.Do you remember that time when he said he had "sources" that claimed a MacBook Air revamp in September 2009 or so, and when people doubted his source, he got mad and threw all kinds of accusations at them. Well we know how reliable that source was. :rolleyes:

Bosman
Jan 27, 2010, 10:38 PM
Ok, I am throwing this out there and it no doubt could be turned into confetti within 2 posts buttttt. I was reading from my iPhone an article at tuaw.com that Jobs raved about how the processor screamed and the graphics were incredible...ok i only remember the screamed part but something was said about the graphics and it left me with an impression that maybe the air line could get a beefed up integrated chip from PMI Semi rather than do the Intel w/ integrated graphics. If the ipad is supposed to run an HD movie without a prob imagine what a beefier chip could do for the air...;)

Anonymous Freak
Jan 28, 2010, 12:20 AM
Ok, I am throwing this out there and it no doubt could be turned into confetti within 2 posts buttttt. I was reading from my iPhone an article at tuaw.com that Jobs raved about how the processor screamed and the graphics were incredible...ok i only remember the screamed part but something was said about the graphics and it left me with an impression that maybe the air line could get a beefed up integrated chip from PMI Semi rather than do the Intel w/ integrated graphics. If the ipad is supposed to run an HD movie without a prob imagine what a beefier chip could do for the air...;)

Even the highest-end 'integrated device' GPU pales in comparison to even the lowest-end 'integrated computer' GPU.

The only possible exception is the GPU in the low-end Atom netbooks. It's pretty bad. Even the ultra-mobile PCs (smaller than 'netbook',) have a GPU that is slightly better than the GPU in the standard Atom netbooks.

Bosman
Jan 28, 2010, 01:03 AM
Even the highest-end 'integrated device' GPU pales in comparison to even the lowest-end 'integrated computer' GPU.

The only possible exception is the GPU in the low-end Atom netbooks. It's pretty bad. Even the ultra-mobile PCs (smaller than 'netbook',) have a GPU that is slightly better than the GPU in the standard Atom netbooks.

Tell me then you have not seen the keynote before replying to me on this. I saw fast responsive hd graphics on a 1.5 lb device with every possible feature buit into one chip that pretty much blew my mind. Now take that new integrated speed/IO/GPU/CPU and beef it up for a large portable device then i imagine things are getting pretty amazing. Apple has stated in the video now that they are chip makers. I am thinking we will see more chips moving into more products if they are making that claim. I for one did not see stutter in any video they played. I for one wont rule it out either.

Scottsdale
Jan 28, 2010, 02:32 AM
Translation: I disagree with those points, but can't refute them. But they're still wrong!

What? I addressed and refuted each and every one of your points (and Scottsdale's that I chose to address), you refuted none of my points, and started accusing me of ridiculous things! :rolleyes:

Don't forget the huge conspiracy involving anyone who favors Intel in any way. The only fanboys in this thread are applesupergeek and Scottsdale, and their posts prove that.

Do you remember that time when he said he had "sources" that claimed a MacBook Air revamp in September 2009 or so, and when people doubted his source, he got mad and threw all kinds of accusations at them. Well we know how reliable that source was. :rolleyes:

Not true. What I said was that my source had revealed some prototype information and that I expected it to be accurate. I even remember that it was "thought to be" a MacBook Air that was shaped "differently," it was plastic or carbon fiber and thought to have an Atom or ULV CPU. It definitely wasn't the MBA I wanted! Why would I make that CRAP up? It might have been the next MB or maybe not. Irrelevant. It was the wrong information for the MBA and the timing wasn't even right. Perhaps that exact MBA is coming out tomorrow! You don't know! I don't know. It doesn't matter!

However, I had a good reason to trust my source. The prior release of the 24" LED ACD, my friend had almost exactly described to me BEFORE the release. He described the new 24" or 27" LED ACD that would incorporate "docking station like" functionality; it happened nearly exactly a few days later. My friend also said "different" sized displays were either coming out or "different" sized iMacs were coming out... didn't happen until October 2009 iMac update! BUT IT DID HAPPEN EVENTUALLY! The information from the October update that I thought might be correct wasn't, and I fully admitted it 100%. So what's wrong with that? I learned my lesson, and I am not sharing any "perceived factual" information that I receive from that source with anyone here publicly ever again. I will continue sharing with members that I communicate with via PM or email. None of which have criticized me for sharing "wrong" information.

What I have also learned is some prototype information never makes it to the final launch. I have even been told Apple will put real parts inside fake cases and totally trick any unsuspecting person. Maybe the source is seeing that and deciding the wrong ones that are supposedly real.

In all truth, my source has correctly identified about 35% of what was actually on specific products as to their dates released, but has been about 75% accurate on accessory products that go with the computers. And my source is the family member of someone that works at Apple on keyboards, mice, displays, and etc. It's all second-hand/hearsay and I even disclosed that.

I actually believe my source shared truthful information about what the next MBP is going to be updated with, but I am not going to share that with anyone because it MIGHT be wrong; then you will come on here and imply that I am "fabricating" information. That's certainly not correct, I may be listening to the wrong information, but I didn't pull it out my arse! In addition, I have NO DATES FOR ANYTHING! It's all stuff seen on campus. It's not like someone is opening a box a week before and listing the specs from the side and sending me a list... and I never implied that.

What about all of the analysts and insiders who get their wrong information all of the time... do you go tell them they're liars and require them to site their sources! BAD INFORMATION HAPPENS! GET OVER IT! Go tell off John Gruber or the New York Times the next time they post information that they think is correct but eventually is revealed to be incorrect! It's not a crime to be wrong about what information you choose to believe. It might make you lose credibility for future predictions if you keep getting it wrong over and over again.

Bottom line, lesson learned... I won't share with you. Now go make your derogatory statements elsewhere. Quite frankly, it's disgusting! It's disgusting that if I don't want to reply to bogus ridiculous crap, from people who think Intel's IGP is equivalent in any way to the 9400m, I get called out. My ridiculous move is trusting a source that doesn't know facts and sharing information that might be correct or might not. Bottom line, I am 100% correct that Intel's IGP is NOT EQUIVALENT to Nvidia's 9400m. What percent is the Intel IGP behind? Does it matter? I say 50 to 60% processing power behind. Maybe you think my information is incorrect, but I am not calling you a liar for believing what you do. I just plain think you're wrong. That's it! I am not going to try to ruin your name or reputation over it! Intel will come up with some skewd number and some people will believe it... go ahead, be that way. The only way we will be able to figure the EXACT PERCENTAGE of the differences between the graphics is to get a MBA with a C2D and an MBA with its Core i# and list all of the graphics benchmarks. When considering these "facts" you're seeing in calling the 9400m and Core i# IGP "EQUIVALENT," are you also reading OS X as the OS used to benchmark? That's another huge flaw with your concept of these two chips being the same. Compared to Windows, Mac is incredibly inefficient at running video playback, Flash, and etc. So only providing Windows results is NOT the proper way to compare graphics on OS X.

And I don't know why anyone would say the Intel IGP included with Arrandale is EQUIVALENT in ANY WAY to the 9400m or its successor. It's not! And the article listed at the start of this thread doesn't say that either. Finally, I don't have to document every article I read stating Intel sucks and site my source to you.

I agree to disagree with you. I don't care that you are on the other side of the fence. That's your own issue. I am passionate about the MBA, and I don't want its capabilities lost by trusting Intel's graphics again. I don't want to prove you wrong, as I don't want to see the Arrandale and its IGP as the only solution in the mBA. I would pray to God you're right if Apple puts only Intel's IGP in the next MBA. Finally, I admit when I make mistakes, and ever replying to you in the first place was a BIG MISTAKE as it simply wasn't worth my time.

Scottsdale
Jan 28, 2010, 02:39 AM
Ok, I am throwing this out there and it no doubt could be turned into confetti within 2 posts buttttt. I was reading from my iPhone an article at tuaw.com that Jobs raved about how the processor screamed and the graphics were incredible...ok i only remember the screamed part but something was said about the graphics and it left me with an impression that maybe the air line could get a beefed up integrated chip from PMI Semi rather than do the Intel w/ integrated graphics. If the ipad is supposed to run an HD movie without a prob imagine what a beefier chip could do for the air...;)

I absolutely believe that, and I have suggested that as a possibility. At this point, the iPad looks pretty incredible given a 1GHz Apple A4 and whatever graphics it is using (has that been disclosed)??? I completely believe that Apple's dream is to cut out Intel completely with its own chips for all of its Macs, iPods, and iPhones. I suppose even that the MBA might be the first Mac to have an Apple designed CPU.

I believe that an Apple solution could be lightyears ahead of Intel's Arrandale with only IGP. I do think we're a year off from that happening. However, we could see one last Penryn C2D update with Nvidia for the MBA and low end MBPs. Then that would give Apple eight months to determine the best way to deal with the Intel IGP "problem." It might take longer than that, but Apple needs to give itself time and demand that Intel provide CPUs without IGPs that are CRAP! Yes, I will call the Intel Arrandale IGP crap because no matter what it's worse than the 15-month-old Nvidia 9400m... and nobody should have to go 15-months backwards AND BEYOND for tech in a new computer!

iMacmatician
Jan 28, 2010, 06:22 AM
What about all of the analysts and insiders who get their wrong information all of the time... do you go tell them they're liars and require them to site their sources! BAD INFORMATION HAPPENS! GET OVER IT!They do not get mad when someone doubts the validity of their sources, or even the sources themselves (as what happens all the time in forums). Unlike you.

Bottom line, lesson learned... I won't share with you. Now go make your derogatory statements elsewhere. Pot calling the kettle black (as you see I am not the first to say that to you), especially when both kettles aren't even black.

Quite frankly, it's disgusting! Obviously you can't respectfully disagree with anyone with a different opinion from yours, especially if it's MBA related, calling them "disgusting" and such. You know what that reminds me of? Yeah, those posts concerning your "source" before September.

I say 50 to 60% processing power behind. Exactly. Throwing out your own opinion. Link me to a source that says that. Remember, I used to state 9400M = 2x GMA HD = 4x previous GMA, and yes that was from a source (which was fairly old and that's why I've stopped saying it).

Maybe you think my information is incorrect, but I am not calling you a liar for believing what you do. I just plain think you're wrong. Not necessarily incorrect. Just unsourced.

Intel will come up with some skewd number and some people will believe it... go ahead, be that way. Didn't I mention independent reviewers in that one post?

The only way we will be able to figure the EXACT PERCENTAGE of the differences between the graphics is to get a MBA with a C2D and an MBA with its Core i# and list all of the graphics benchmarks. Nobody is asking for exact percentages. We are asking for approximate percentages. A range of 10% is good enough.

And I don't know why anyone would say the Intel IGP included with Arrandale is EQUIVALENT in ANY WAY to the 9400m or its successor. Because they have looked up sources? :rolleyes:

Finally, I don't have to document every article I read stating Intel sucks and site my source to you. So give a few instead. Articles will help me; long posts won't.

I agree to disagree with you. I don't care that you are on the other side of the fence. That's your own issue. Where in this thread have I advocated the use of the Intel IGP in the MBA?

I am passionate about the MBA,To the point of fanboyism.

Finally, I admit when I make mistakes, and ever replying to you in the first place was a BIG MISTAKE as it simply wasn't worth my time.Good, so you won't reply to this post. Or for that matter, why did you make this post anyway?

Likewise, I'm done here. (At least that's what I hope, because I don't want to waste my time with irrational fanboys.) I'll just quote one of the most reasoned posts in the last two pages.

Yeah, I thought the original MBA was a polarizing machine. It seems the NEXT one thats not announced or specced is even more controversial.

Even more ironic the few benchmarks/tests available that all show pretty good performance from the Intel GPU are considered evidence that its a poor performer. Not just a poor performer but a very poor performer

Supposition posing as fact, opinion posing as analysis, ad homonym and intellectually dishonest attacks on the reasonable posts, and complete illogic. What a thread. Must be a full moon or something.

alxths
Jan 28, 2010, 07:56 AM
Can't everyone just find some common ground? We'd all like to have the best performance possible for the lowest price possible. If this next update doesn't provide much of a performance boost, that's unfortunate, but at least there are other options out there.

Who remembers the good ol' G4 days? I paid around $2400 after taxes for a 12" powerbook whose performance was atrocious compared to what the PC world could offer. It was worth it then, because OS X was much more pleasant to use than windows, not to mention that apple seemed to be the only company at the time that knew how to design elegant notebooks.

At least now, even with integrated graphics, the MBA will still be a very capable computer compared to what else is available. Personally, I'd rather see a price cut than an ATi or nvidia gpu. And if I don't like the next update, at least the PC makers have learned a thing or two about aesthetics at this point.. not to mention that windows 7 is just as usable as OS X.

Bosman
Jan 28, 2010, 10:02 AM
I absolutely believe that, and I have suggested that as a possibility. At this point, the iPad looks pretty incredible given a 1GHz Apple A4 and whatever graphics it is using (has that been disclosed)??? I completely believe that Apple's dream is to cut out Intel completely with its own chips for all of its Macs, iPods, and iPhones. I suppose even that the MBA might be the first Mac to have an Apple designed CPU.

I believe that an Apple solution could be lightyears ahead of Intel's Arrandale with only IGP. I do think we're a year off from that happening. However, we could see one last Penryn C2D update with Nvidia for the MBA and low end MBPs. Then that would give Apple eight months to determine the best way to deal with the Intel IGP "problem." It might take longer than that, but Apple needs to give itself time and demand that Intel provide CPUs without IGPs that are CRAP! Yes, I will call the Intel Arrandale IGP crap because no matter what it's worse than the 15-month-old Nvidia 9400m... and nobody should have to go 15-months backwards AND BEYOND for tech in a new computer!

I believe it was the very last part of the keynote when sj ran a video that had his team of developers state everything was on one chip. The statement about apple now being chip makers was not tounge in cheek in my opinion. It's kinda like someone going to the store and buying a sweet camera with pro lenses and saying they are pro photographers. No, I think Apple was sending a message to the world at many points in that video. I think it was the last 10 min.

Anonymous Freak
Jan 28, 2010, 10:20 AM
Tell me then you have not seen the keynote before replying to me on this. I saw fast responsive hd graphics on a 1.5 lb device with every possible feature buit into one chip that pretty much blew my mind. Now take that new integrated speed/IO/GPU/CPU and beef it up for a large portable device then i imagine things are getting pretty amazing. Apple has stated in the video now that they are chip makers. I am thinking we will see more chips moving into more products if they are making that claim. I for one did not see stutter in any video they played. I for one wont rule it out either.

These devices contain dedicated H.264 decoder chips. The integrated CPU in that can almost certainly *NOT* handle 720p H.264 without the help of the decoder chip. The 3D graphics is on-par with the Playstation Portable, not even with Intel GMA 4500HD graphics. Of course, it is possible that the 3D chip is more powerful than it appeared during the presentation, just that there haven't been apps to take full advantage of it yet.

Of course, if you want high-quality gaming graphics, you would need a discrete GPU that by itself would draw more power than the entire iPad.

Bosman
Jan 28, 2010, 10:46 AM
These devices contain dedicated H.264 decoder chips. The integrated CPU in that can almost certainly *NOT* handle 720p H.264 without the help of the decoder chip. The 3D graphics is on-par with the Playstation Portable, not even with Intel GMA 4500HD graphics. Of course, it is possible that the 3D chip is more powerful than it appeared during the presentation, just that there haven't been apps to take full advantage of it yet.

Of course, if you want high-quality gaming graphics, you would need a discrete GPU that by itself would draw more power than the entire iPad.

"It is possible it is more powerful than appeared"? You got to be kidding me! Schooling me or anyone about dedicated graphics is not necessary. We all know that currently, and i mean currently, this is the paradigm that is the way to go for powerful graphics. I am talking about a macbook air and who if not Apple would like to say screw you all we designed something just for our computers and electronic devices that doesn't require us to compare our systems with Sonys and Dells. Further more we can make them faster and spec them to do specifically what we want each device to procure because we are not limited by our imagination for what is possible. We will just hire the top GPU and CPU engineers and dream!

robeddie
Jan 28, 2010, 11:45 AM
Can't everyone just find some common ground?

I don't know. When I read ehurtley's (and other's) first couple of posts (before things really went south), the subtext did seem to be that they would think it was perfectly acceptable to have the new, but still inferior Intel GMA in the upcoming MacBook Air.

Like Scottsdale (obviously LOL), that sentiment makes my hair stand on end. For the past 15 months, we've enjoyed and appreciated the outstanding performance of the 9400. We were also really looking forward to what Nvidia would come up with in their next generation integrated chip - and how that would make the next gen MBA even better.

But of course, Intel shut Nvidia out of the process... and that pisses me off.

So when someone suggests that the new Intel GMA would be acceptable, (when it's not even as fast as our 'old' 9400) I find that irritating.

It's too bad things got a little nuts in this thread, but I do understand Scottsdale's irritation on this one.

applesupergeek
Jan 28, 2010, 12:46 PM
So when someone suggests that the new Intel GMA would be acceptable, (when it's not even as fast as our 'old' 9400) I find that irritating.

It's too bad things got a little nuts in this thread, but I do understand Scottsdale's irritation on this one.

Things went a little south buddy because some people would have us believe that it is acceptable to have a new air with inferior graphics technology, which is the thing that the air hurt more to begin with. This is the plane and simple reality of the matter. They quoted some test run by sites that have most probably strong marketing ties with intel, intel being the giant it is, and even these don't conclusively display and superior performance by the intel graphics, just being worse off than the previous gen nvidia option currently in the air. But even if they did the press is so often a mouthpiece for the pr of such companies. Years and year intel was sustained by such tec sites when AMD had a far superior product. Moreover even when their alleged tests showed intel graphics as comparable to actual options, almost always the reality has been that in real life usage they just don't perform equally well. And instead of those points made being addressed some posters chose to use innuendoes and half truths derailing the discussion.

madmaxmedia
Jan 28, 2010, 01:53 PM
I think it's somewhat pointless to argue whether it is acceptable or not for Apple to go back to Intel integrated graphics, it's obviously a subjective argument. I think everyone would prefer Apple continue with Nvidia anyways.

I think that Apple may unfortunately be more or less forced to go back to Intel graphics though due to 'Intel vx. Nvidia', and that's the reality we're dealing with.

I guess I will hold onto my 13" MBP, it will go through the same change as well.

Scottsdale
Jan 28, 2010, 02:43 PM
They do not get mad when someone doubts the validity of their sources, or even the sources themselves (as what happens all the time in forums). Unlike you.

Pot calling the kettle black (as you see I am not the first to say that to you), especially when both kettles aren't even black.

Obviously you can't respectfully disagree with anyone with a different opinion from yours, especially if it's MBA related, calling them "disgusting" and such. You know what that reminds me of? Yeah, those posts concerning your "source" before September.

Exactly. Throwing out your own opinion. Link me to a source that says that. Remember, I used to state 9400M = 2x GMA HD = 4x previous GMA, and yes that was from a source (which was fairly old and that's why I've stopped saying it).

Not necessarily incorrect. Just unsourced.

Didn't I mention independent reviewers in that one post?

Nobody is asking for exact percentages. We are asking for approximate percentages. A range of 10% is good enough.

Because they have looked up sources? :rolleyes:

So give a few instead. Articles will help me; long posts won't.

Where in this thread have I advocated the use of the Intel IGP in the MBA?

To the point of fanboyism.

Good, so you won't reply to this post. Or for that matter, why did you make this post anyway?

Likewise, I'm done here. (At least that's what I hope, because I don't want to waste my time with irrational fanboys.) I'll just quote one of the most reasoned posts in the last two pages.

Of course it ticks me off when someone calls me a liar. I take pride in the fact that I am an extremely honest person. While my opinions may differ from yours, I don't stand up in the middle of a different debate and call you a liar regarding some other topic; and you did just this by bringing up my believing and sharing certain information that didn't pan out with the latest MBA update. It wasn't even information that I would have wanted the MBA to have in any way, shape or form. There was no reason in the world for me to fabricate the information as you have suggested by bringing it up.

You don't know anything about me or my race, creed or color, so drop that BS now!

My opinion is ALWAYS MY OPINION. It doesn't mean I am stating anything as fact when I believe a potential Intel IGP in the MBA would be a 50% to 60% loss. The only FACTUAL way to prove that would be an Intel IGP in an MBA to compare it with. NOBODY can do that but Apple. You are failing in your own opinion to understand DETAILS. The detail you are most lacking of is the difference between a test with Windows and OS X. Just because Intel's IGP was in one article/advertisement (with ties to Intel) and showed an improvement of Intel's IGP doesn't mean it will even have the same result if examined with OS X. The bottom line is Windows and OS X are very different, and taking one article that may or may not be embellishing Intel's IGP and applying it over to OS X is a ridiculous assumption.

Not only that, do the math. Intel's 3100 was 20% of the capabilities of Nvidia 9400m, ACCORDING TO APPLE. However, I remember reading other articles that basically said their test results were similar (may or may not be true, it was just printed on the Internet). Now, you're implying that Intel's IGP in two updates has improved 500%. Is that likely? Where are the numbers to support that with regards to the MBA? Have you read any scientific study, using the current MBA's components, the potential MBA's components, and the same exact OS X operating system and application software? If you haven't read that exactly, you are making too many assumptions in supposing something as factual. Forget what you read on the Internet, it's not all fact!

Who are you to determine whether a review is "independent" or not? Anyone can go publish ANYTHING on the Internet. Some will choose to believe certain information is "fact," when in actuality it's not factual. Just because you cite a source doesn't make the information factual! Do you understand that? You tell me to cite my source, but anyone can go prove anything on the Internet, and that doesn't make them correct. Can you understand that the Internet is full of incorrect information?

My opinion remains that if we had an MBA with a new Arrandale CPU in it and only the IGP, that it would be a 50% to 60% loss in total graphics performance (I do believe that's accurate within 10%). It will always be an opinion until we have both MBAs in hand and we can research it, scientifically prove it is the standard repeatable performance, and make ourselves believe that our past opinion was indeed correct or incorrect. No matter what Internet article you link me to it doesn't mean that I am incorrect. It just means that you perceive the article's information to be factual and differ from my opinion. To be factual that that article must have accurately performed a scientific study that could be repeated using the hardware that was in the MBA AND MORE IMPORTANTLY THE SAME SOFTWARE, OS X. Just because something is true with Windows does not make it true with OS X.

I do really love the MBA. Am I a fanboy? It depends on your definition of fanboy. I can definitely point out all of our compromises in using OS X over Windows and an MBA over an MBP. I can definitely admit to all of the MBA's problems. I definitely understand that Apple's Macs are far behind the competing PCs on the market. I definitely have called out Apple's problems in the past. I typically think of a fanboy as someone who cannot see the truth. I don't think that's me, but that's your own opinion, and you're entitled to it whether you're correct or not. Do you understand what I am saying? YOU ARE ENTITLED TO YOUR OWN OPINION.

We all make our arguments for and against certain statements, concepts, or beliefs. It is definitely always just our opinions. It's an opinion to believe in something posted on the Internet. A lot of people have said they enjoy my posts, and they're entitled to their own opinion. You, and a lot of other people, don't like my posts, and all of them are entitled to their own opinion. I don't believe you have cited "factual" information in how the MBA would perform with OS X and only Intel's IGP, and I am entitled to my own opinion. Whether each person is for or against someone's statement is their own opinion.

I believe your replies to me have been naive and insulting. While you may choose to believe something different is your own opinion. I didn't intend to try to insult anyone here. My intention is to share the fact that I believe Intel's IGP would be a terrible mistake as a sole solution for the graphics used in the MBA (the FACT in this statement is I believe that Intel's IGP would be a terrible mistake). We each post our own OPINIONS here. It is the duty of each reader to decide for himself/herself whether they choose to believe opinions or not. Some people enjoy my posts. Some people hate my posts (like yourself). You're entitled to your own opinion, but to go on with personal attacks to try to discredit a source is, quite frankly, a sad way to make people believe your own arguments over my arguments.

Anonymous Freak
Jan 28, 2010, 03:22 PM
They quoted some test run by sites that have most probably strong marketing ties with intel...

No, it went South because of baseless unsubstantiated claims such as this.

So I take it that the *ONLY* source you trust for independent reviews of *ANYTHING* is Consumer Reports? Your arguments smack of "This review disagrees with me, therefore it must have been bribed by the company I dislike. And because that company bribes reviewers, I dislike them!"

Yes, because Intel would bribe a website to issue a review that shows that their latest integrated graphics are only slightly inferior to three year old low-end graphics....... Now if you find a website that has three extremely obscure games that Intel graphics win by 50% over current nVidia and AMD low-end discrete graphics, you might have a case. But when it shows Intel graphics winning one of four tests, by a whopping 3%, and losing the rest by about 3-5%, that doesn't strike me as them being in bed with Intel.

Really, if you want to convince people, you should use actual facts, not baseless conjecture.

We're both talking about what we estimate Apple may do. It's not worth descending into insanity over. If you wouldn't buy a MacBook Air with Intel graphics, fine! Don't! However to call even the mere idea of it stupid, and call anyone/everyone who suggests that it might even be a possibility idiots is just massively ignorant and insulting.

Now, you're implying that Intel's IGP in two updates has improved 500%. Is that likely? Where are the numbers to support that with regards to the MBA?
Obviously, we won't have any MBA numbers until/if Apple releases an Arrandale MBA. But if you're unwilling to accept similar comparisons in the Windows world, then you can't reasonably make *ANY* estimates about *ANY* unreleased product of any kind. By your measure, we can't even assume that the upcoming 6-core processors would be faster in the Mac Pro than the current 4-core processors.

But, yes. I am saying that it has improved 500%. According to aggregated benchmarks at Notebookcheck.net, Intel HD Graphics (http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Graphics-Media-Accelerator-HD.23065.0.html) is, in general, 5x as fast as X3100 (http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Graphics-Media-Accelerator-X3100.2176.0.html). And is about a wash with the 9400M (http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-9400M-G.11949.0.html). It loses to the 9400M, sometimes by large numbers, but it also wins against the 9400M.

My opinion remains that if we had an MBA with a new Arrandale CPU in it and only the IGP, that it would be a 50% to 60% loss in total graphics performance (I do believe that's accurate within 10%).

I wouldn't estimate it that far, based largely on the Notebookcheck.net numbers above; but yes, it would be a performance loss. I have never attempted to argue otherwise. Yes, it would be great if Intel were to license the DMI/FDI bus to nVidia so nVidia could make a low-power integrated-GPU Southbridge. Yes, it would be great if Apple went with a discrete GPU instead of using the onboard one. Looking back, you, Scottsdale, have been 'defensive' but not 'insulting', so thank you for remaining calm (even if you are 'on the other side' from my viewpoint.) It is others who have been doing the outright attacks against anyone who even makes an attempt to argue that Intel graphics wouldn't be a horrendous choice.

Mods, please shut this thread down. If people wish to discuss the actual technical merits of Intel graphics vs. nVidia, a new, less heated thread needs to be created.

Scottsdale
Jan 28, 2010, 04:35 PM
Mods, please shut this thread down. If people wish to discuss the actual technical merits of Intel graphics vs. nVidia, a new, less heated thread needs to be created.

Now if we "believe" Intel's IGP is not comparable to Nvidia's 9400m, you ask the Mods to shut down the thread??? Why? Because opinions different than yours somehow is hurting you or Intel? How about Free Speech? Can we not say what we believe or share our opinions? I THOUGHT THE WHOLE POINT OF MACRUMORS.COM WAS TO SHARE OUR OPINIONS!

Whether it's correct or incorrect, I will NOT believe that Intel's Arrandale IGP will even COMPARE with Nvidia's 15-month-old 9400m GPU, UNTIL I RECEIVE SCIENTIFIC REPEATABLE PROOF TO THE CONTRARY or I can use an MBA with an Intel IGP that provides the same graphics experience as Nvidia has with its 9400m. That's the biggest point, no matter what, it doesn't seem to me, that the Intel IGP can even compare with Nvidia's 15-month-old GPU. Then when Intel cannot compete, it decides to squash the competition; I believe (again an opinion) that Intel's anti-competitive practices will cost it in the long run. Unfortunately, customers are the biggest losers in the battle. Because until Nvidia wins a court case, it cannot continue to compete fairly. We are not talking about a licensing dispute here; this is Intel flexing its muscles because it's a LOSER when it comes to graphics performance versus the competition.

Furthermore, I believe in the end Apple will be using its own processors to shutout Intel. It seems obvious to me that Apple doesn't really benefit by working with Intel, and it's obvious Apple knows it too. Why did Apple buy its own chip company? We are seeing it in the iPad, Apple is shutting out Intel and using its own chip, which creates competition and better products for consumers. Depending on other companies who act anti-competitively, like Intel, is a terrible business strategy. Businesses often work together to provide a better experience for the customer; Nvidia and Apple have tried to create an alliance to provide a better graphics experience for Mac users. It really worked out well for us, for a while.

Intel still provides great CPUs, but the real constraints are not the CPUs in current computers. The CPUs on the market are incredibly great, and we don't really need Arrandale over Penryn C2D. What computers need for improvement is better software that takes advantage of the hardware available, better drive technology that provides better throughput (speed as it's usually the bottleneck), and better graphics to provide the user with a better visual experience that compares with the processing performance of the CPU.

applesupergeek
Jan 29, 2010, 02:49 PM
No, it went South because of baseless unsubstantiated claims such as this.

So I take it that the *ONLY* source you trust for independent reviews of *ANYTHING* is Consumer Reports? Your arguments smack of "This review disagrees with me, therefore it must have been bribed by the company I dislike. And because that company bribes reviewers, I dislike them!"

Yes, because Intel would bribe a website to issue a review that shows that their latest integrated graphics are only slightly inferior to three year old low-end graphics....... Now if you find a website that has three extremely obscure games that Intel graphics win by 50% over current nVidia and AMD low-end discrete graphics, you might have a case. But when it shows Intel graphics winning one of four tests, by a whopping 3%, and losing the rest by about 3-5%, that doesn't strike me as them being in bed with Intel.

Really, if you want to convince people, you should use actual facts, not baseless conjecture.


The fact that intel has a strong arm in tec sites and would have them preview (mark my word again PREVIEW) something under their own terms isn't conjecture, it is a fact. All the more so when they are in the middle of one of their most anticompetitive moves recently, that of saddling their quite good chips with a worst in class gpu.

Don't worry though a Federal Trade Commission antitrust lawsuit has been already filled against them.

Of course based on some tests someone run on a piece of hardware and posted on the internet, you want us to bow down and accept them as gospel. And when those very tests prove intel's igfx still inferior to old tec by nvidia, despite selectively running their own tests, and being privy to the new igfx from intel thanks to their sponsors, intel.

Well tough luck some people here see this for what it is and they don't like it, and we wish apple would find some way to bypass that whole backward step for the air that intel signalled with their dishonest, anticompetitive practises and their crap igfx that they couldn't even sell at a swap meet.

Not only that, you want this thread closed...my, my a lot of people have intel stock nowadays it seems...

findingforever
Jan 29, 2010, 03:14 PM
What processors would be ideal in the next MBA? Everything I'm hearing points to a slower Rev D MBA. What solutions does the MBA have to actually improve performance? Does Arrandale have any solutions?

iMacmatician
Jan 29, 2010, 03:33 PM
I take pride in the fact that I am an extremely honest person. If you really were an honest person you would not even reply to my last post because you said that you made a mistake replying to me. So are you going to keep making your "mistake" or not?

I don't stand up in the middle of a different debate and call you a liar regarding some other topicI brought up what happened then because it relates to the point of jimboutilier's post.

My opinion is ALWAYS MY OPINION. Exactly. Don't make it as fact or force it on anyone.

It doesn't mean I am stating anything as fact when I believe a potential Intel IGP in the MBA would be a 50% to 60% loss. That's exactly what you've been stating/implying the whole time. :rolleyes:

The only FACTUAL way to prove that would be an Intel IGP in an MBA to compare it with. NOBODY can do that but Apple.So why are you throwing numbers around?

You are failing in your own opinion to understand DETAILS. While you are mentioning them yet ignoring them in your "analysis."

The detail you are most lacking of is the difference between a test with Windows and OS X. Just because Intel's IGP was in one article/advertisement (with ties to Intel) and showed an improvement of Intel's IGP doesn't mean it will even have the same result if examined with OS X. The bottom line is Windows and OS X are very different, and taking one article that may or may not be embellishing Intel's IGP and applying it over to OS X is a ridiculous assumption.Again, so why are you throwing around numbers? And what if OS X shows a greater improvement?

Now, you're implying that Intel's IGP in two updates has improved 500%. Is that likely? Where are the numbers to support that with regards to the MBA? Already addressed by ehurtley.

Have you read any scientific study, using the current MBA's components, the potential MBA's components, and the same exact OS X operating system and application software which gives the HD graphics performance "50%-60% lower" than the 9400M's? If you haven't read that exactly, you are making too many assumptions in supposing something as factual.Fixed that for you. Again, mentioning yet ignoring details.

Forget what you read on the Internet, it's not all fact!And your OPINONS are? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Who are you to determine whether a review is "independent" or not? Who are you to determine whether a review is "biased" or not?

Just because you cite a source doesn't make the information factual! Do you understand that? A step above throwing numbers out of nowhere, right?

You tell me to cite my source, but anyone can go prove anything on the Internet, and that doesn't make them correct. Can you understand that the Internet is full of incorrect information?So, you have no citation whatsoever, and when others disagreeing with you have citations, you expect us to believe your rants over them?

I typically think of a fanboy as someone who cannot see the truth. I don't think that's me, but that's your own opinion, and you're entitled to it whether you're correct or not. You and applesupergeek are obviously fanboys, because:

You are overpassionate about one or a few things (GPU)
You ignore benchmarks with conclusions different to your beliefs, even if those types of benchmarks are widely accepted elsewhere
You get mad at and accuse people when they challenge your ideas
You make statements without any basis whatsoever to try to "challenge" 1. and 2.
Anyone who challenges you is either (or both) an employee (in this case of Intel) or a stockholder, and therefore cannot see clearly


I don't believe you have cited "factual" information in how the MBA would perform with OS X and only Intel's IGP, and I am entitled to my own opinion. Neither have you. So don't go around bashing people who challenge your "50%-60%" analysis, which as far as I can tell has no source whatsoever attached to it.

I believe your replies to me have been naive and insulting. Funny thing to say for someone who is single-minded at a set of made-up performance values and dismisses anything contrary to that.

You're entitled to your own opinion, but to go on with personal attacks to try to discredit a source is, quite frankly, a sad way to make people believe your own arguments over my arguments.Who here has been trying to discredit all the sources that show the HD graphics is a contender against the 9400M? :rolleyes:

Now if we "believe" Intel's IGP is not comparable to Nvidia's 9400m, you ask the Mods to shut down the thread??? No, read his post.

It is others who have been doing the outright attacks against anyone who even makes an attempt to argue that Intel graphics wouldn't be a horrendous choice.

Mods, please shut this thread down. If people wish to discuss the actual technical merits of Intel graphics vs. nVidia, a new, less heated thread needs to be created.

How about Free Speech? Free speech does not extend to attacks or overly heated up arguments.

Can we not say what we believe or share our opinions? See above.

I THOUGHT THE WHOLE POINT OF MACRUMORS.COM WAS TO SHARE OUR OPINIONS!Of course, you blow up at ehurtley without even properly reading his post. Thanks for proving our point.

Whether it's correct or incorrect, I will NOT believe that Intel's Arrandale IGP will even COMPARE with Nvidia's 15-month-old 9400m GPU, UNTIL I RECEIVE SCIENTIFIC REPEATABLE PROOF TO THE CONTRARY or I can use an MBA with an Intel IGP that provides the same graphics experience as Nvidia has with its 9400m.Given your past posts I expect you to find some bias or error in whatever scientific studies come up. If not, then congratulations.

Why did Apple buy its own chip company? We are seeing it in the iPad, Apple is shutting out Intel and using its own chip, which creates competition and better products for consumers.They did it because Intel does not have a CPU that works in that power envelope.

What computers need for improvement is better software that takes advantage of the hardware available, better drive technology that provides better throughput (speed as it's usually the bottleneck), and better graphics to provide the user with a better visual experience that compares with the processing performance of the CPU.More RAM too. I'm not liking the relatively low RAM ceiling in recent notebooks.

Of course based on some tests someone run on a piece of hardware and posted on the internet, you want us to bow down and accept them as gospel. Not as much "gospel" as "more reliable and higher likelihood of being accurate than guesses."

And while you dismiss those benchmarks…

And when those very tests prove intel's igfx still inferior to old tec by nvidia, despite selectively running their own tests, and being privy to the new igfx from intel thanks to their sponsors, intel.…you want us to believe these benchmarks?

Not only that, you want this thread closed...my, my a lot of people have intel stock nowadays it seems...If that's true then maybe that's saying something about the company. ;)

iMacmatician
Jan 29, 2010, 03:34 PM
What processors would be ideal in the next MBA? Everything I'm hearing points to a slower Rev D MBA. What solutions does the MBA have to actually improve performance? Does Arrandale have any solutions?Arrandale LV should provide increased performance over Penryn LV. The speculated slow CPUs are the Arrandale ULVs, which given past trends probably won't go in the MBA.

EDIT: Actually read ehurtley's post, which explains it very well.

Anonymous Freak
Jan 29, 2010, 03:37 PM
What processors would be ideal in the next MBA? Everything I'm hearing points to a slower Rev D MBA. What solutions does the MBA have to actually improve performance? Does Arrandale have any solutions?

What would actually be *BEST* for the Air would be an Arrandale plus low-end discrete GPU. You'd trade off battery life for better graphics performance. There has been pages of debate on the possibility of using the integrated GPU.

The options Apple has:

1. Apple keeps Core 2 Duo + nVidia 9400M. This is a two chip solution (processor is one chip, GPU/northbridge/southbridge is a second chip.) The problem is that it already has the fastest Core 2 Duo at that power range. (17W Core 2 Duo SL9600 at 2.13 GHz.) They could just get rid of the the lower-end 1.86 GHz model and make the faster processor cheaper, but that wouldn't be much of an upgrade. And Intel is unlikely to release any new Core 2 Duo processors. Last year nVidia said they weren't going to do any more chipsets, so unless they've been going against that in secret, I doubt we'll see a new chipset.

2. Apple moves to Arrandale with integrated graphics. This is a two chip solution (processor/GPU/northbridge is one chip, southbridge is a second chip.) Arrandale is available with 18W total consumption chips (that's 18W for both CPU and GPU,) the fastest the Core i7-640UM, which is nominally 1.2 GHz, but can "Turbo Boost" up to 2.26 GHz. Considering further, I doubt Apple would use this, simply because while it would use considerably less power than my option 1, it would be quite a step back, in both CPU and GPU. (Its GPU is only 500 MHz.) More likely would be one of the 25W chips, which would likely put it on par with the Core 2 Duo+nVidia solution, power-wise. The likely options here are the Core i7-640LM and i7-640LM. They are 2.0/2.8 and 2.13/2.93 GHz, respectively (standard/turbo,) so even their non-Turbo speeds are on par with the current Core 2 Duo; plus they have a slightly faster 566 MHz GPU. This would be quite a bit faster at CPU work than the Core 2 + nVidia; and has debatable performance on GPU work.

3. Apple moves to Arrandale with discrete graphics. This is a three chip solution (processor/northbridge is one chip, southbridge is a second chip, GPU a third.) To fit in the current power envelope with a discrete GPU, Apple would possibly have to resort to the 18W Arrandales. I haven't seen any tests that see how much power an Arrandale draws with a discrete GPU, it may be possible to get away with the 25W CPUs and still not have too much battery difference. But then we open up GPU performance to much better options, depending on how much power Apple is willing to budget. This also opens up the possibility of GPU switching, which is supported on Arrandale. This means that the system could run on the internal Arrandale GPU for better battery life, and on a discrete GPU for better performance. The current MacBook Pro offers this with 9400M/9600M GT switching, but that requires a log out to switch. Some PC notebooks offer this ability without a log out, although many require a log out, some even a reboot. It's all in the combination of hardware and driver design. I would hope that if Apple goes this route, they make it transparent, no log out needed.

The third option would be, by far, the best option from a performance standpoint. The question being debated in this thread is the probability of which option Apple picks.

(Of course, further options are that Apple abandons the Air in favor of the iPad; or repositions the Air as an ultra-mobile, but with how Steve slammed netbooks in the iPad intro, I doubt they'd do that.)

findingforever
Jan 29, 2010, 04:13 PM
Thanks ehurtley, very informative. I'm holding out for "transparent" option 3. This would almost certainly warrant/require a redesign right?

jimboutilier
Jan 29, 2010, 04:40 PM
Now if we "believe" Intel's IGP is not comparable to Nvidia's 9400m, you ask the Mods to shut down the thread??? Why? Because opinions different than yours somehow is hurting you or Intel? How about Free Speech? Can we not say what we believe or share our opinions? I THOUGHT THE WHOLE POINT OF MACRUMORS.COM WAS TO SHARE OUR OPINIONS!

Whether it's correct or incorrect, I will NOT believe that Intel's Arrandale IGP will even COMPARE with Nvidia's 15-month-old 9400m GPU, UNTIL I RECEIVE SCIENTIFIC REPEATABLE PROOF TO THE CONTRARY or I can use an MBA with an Intel IGP that provides the same graphics experience as Nvidia has with its 9400m. That's the biggest point, no matter what, it doesn't seem to me, that the Intel IGP can even compare with Nvidia's 15-month-old GPU. Then when Intel cannot compete, it decides to squash the competition; I believe (again an opinion) that Intel's anti-competitive practices will cost it in the long run. Unfortunately, customers are the biggest losers in the battle. Because until Nvidia wins a court case, it cannot continue to compete fairly. We are not talking about a licensing dispute here; this is Intel flexing its muscles because it's a LOSER when it comes to graphics performance versus the competition.

Furthermore, I believe in the end Apple will be using its own processors to shutout Intel. It seems obvious to me that Apple doesn't really benefit by working with Intel, and it's obvious Apple knows it too. Why did Apple buy its own chip company? We are seeing it in the iPad, Apple is shutting out Intel and using its own chip, which creates competition and better products for consumers. Depending on other companies who act anti-competitively, like Intel, is a terrible business strategy. Businesses often work together to provide a better experience for the customer; Nvidia and Apple have tried to create an alliance to provide a better graphics experience for Mac users. It really worked out well for us, for a while.

Intel still provides great CPUs, but the real constraints are not the CPUs in current computers. The CPUs on the market are incredibly great, and we don't really need Arrandale over Penryn C2D. What computers need for improvement is better software that takes advantage of the hardware available, better drive technology that provides better throughput (speed as it's usually the bottleneck), and better graphics to provide the user with a better visual experience that compares with the processing performance of the CPU.

Sharing an opinion is one thing. Yelling and trying to browbeat everyone else til they conform to your opinion (particularly when they have facts that appear to dispute your opinion) is just annoying and rude. I mean your BOLD button must just be worn to a frazzle. Relax. We're hear to help each other out.

I expect Intel will eventually loose, pay a price for its anti competitive behavior and Nvidia will be able to offer their superior products with Intel CPU's once again. In reality though that could be quite a while off and until then Apple only has four choices:
- No updates
- Stick with the current CPU/GPU but speed bump them
- New CPU and Intel IGP
- New CPU and ATI GPU

Just because something may appear to be a better theoretical solution doesn't mean its a better practical solution. The PowerPC was a far better solution than Intel was offering when Apple started offering PowerPC.s But Intel's market share allowed more iterations and better R&D and the technically inferior solution became the better practical solution. I think Apple learned its lesson there and won't be leaving the mainstream for their PC CPU's anytime soon. But thats just my opinion ;-)

Anonymous Freak
Jan 29, 2010, 05:14 PM
Thanks ehurtley, very informative. I'm holding out for "transparent" option 3. This would almost certainly warrant/require a redesign right?

It would require a major software update, for sure. But hardware-wise, it shouldn't be a problem. The original MacBook Air was a three-chip design. (Before they moved to nVidia chipsets, they were using Intel's CPU+two-chip-chipset design. Intel has only in the last four months moved to a CPU+one-chip design.)

robeddie
Jan 29, 2010, 05:20 PM
k.

3. Apple moves to Arrandale with discrete graphics. )

This, sir... would be a dream if they did this!

My question, is whether there's the space or heat headroom to accommodate this.

Damn I sure hope so!

iMacmatician
Jan 29, 2010, 05:21 PM
If a redesign happens, it is likely due to accommodate the higher total TDP of the three-chip solution (that is if the 3-chip solution has a higher TDP than what is currently being used).

robeddie
Jan 29, 2010, 05:26 PM
If a redesign happens, it is likely due to accommodate the higher total TDP of the three-chip solution (that is if the 3-chip solution has a higher TDP than what is currently being used).

Right, but that - presumably - would mean a bigger, thicker MBA, no?

Which, of course, would kind of be defeating the purpose.

Anonymous Freak
Jan 29, 2010, 05:26 PM
P.S., as this has gotten heated, I feel I should re-iterate in larger print, and with more words, what is in my signature:

I am a contract employee working for a company other that Intel; however at present I am working temporarily inside an Intel facility. I receive no money or benefits directly from Intel; and even if I piss Intel off, my paycheck will continue to come through the third-party company.

I have nothing to do with engineering or marketing. I have no access to anything Apple, not even information about Apple.

I have no access to any unreleased notebook or desktop hardware of any kind, and don't even have any of the just-released (Arrandale mobile, Clarkdale desktop,) equipment. I have no access to internal information about it, either. (A single Clarksfield laptop with nVidia graphics recently was brought through this department, there was much ogling. It is gone now. There are apparently a couple Lynnfield dekstops hiding somewhere, I have not touched them.)

All of my statements are my own personal opinion, with my facts largely drawn from sources that are widely considered reputable (Ars Technica, Anandtech, [H]ard|OCP, and the like,) or from outright factual-statement sources (Intel's publicly-accessible support pages for specifications of chips, for example.)

I have no innate 'love' of Intel. I happen to own Intel CPU systems at home right now because it's what Apple offers; or it had the best bang for the buck when I bought it. I have happily purchased PowerPC Macs in the past, and AMD processor-based PCs, when they provided the best bang for the buck. I am GPU-vendor neutral, as well; purchasing both nVidia or AMD, whichever provided the best experience at the time. (And Matrox, and 3dfx, etc, etc...)

Anonymous Freak
Jan 29, 2010, 05:34 PM
Right, but that - presumably - would mean a bigger, thicker MBA, no?

It would depend on which chips they went with. If they go for the 18W Arrandale, and a very-low-wattage GPU, there would be no problem at all. But that would likely end up worse than the current Air, performance-wise.

I have not seen any numbers on how much power the 25W Arrandale draws by itself when used with a discrete GPU; it is possible that 25W Arrandale+southbridge+low-end GPU could have the same power envelope as Core 2 Duo+9400M. I can't find any power draw numbers for the 9400M by itself, but the HM55 southbridge is claimed to draw 3.5 Watts; so the total of 25W Arrandale+southbridge is 30W.

The Air's launch chipset, 945GM, drew 7 Watts for the northbridge, 3.3 Watts for the southbridge, totalling 27.3W for all three chips (using the 17W Core 2 Duo.) I would imagine that Core 2 + 9400M comes to about the same.

But, again, we don't know how much the power draw of Arrandale would be with the internal GPU going unused, so we won't know what discrete GPU would match nicely, power-wise. (One of the things about Arrandale is that it can dynamically reassign power to the CPU or GPU depending on load; so it's possible that the CPU by itself would claim the full 25W to run faster more often when the GPU is not being used.)

Edit: A quick search shows that the Radeon Mobility 5830 draws 25 Watts, so it's out of the question in the Air. The 5430 only draws 7 Watts, though; and it is still theoretically much faster than the 9400M. So it might be a good match to Arrandale. I haven't seen any hard benchmarks on that chip yet, though.

Scottsdale
Jan 30, 2010, 02:03 AM
It would depend on which chips they went with. If they go for the 18W Arrandale, and a very-low-wattage GPU, there would be no problem at all. But that would likely end up worse than the current Air, performance-wise.

I have not seen any numbers on how much power the 25W Arrandale draws by itself when used with a discrete GPU; it is possible that 25W Arrandale+southbridge+low-end GPU could have the same power envelope as Core 2 Duo+9400M. I can't find any power draw numbers for the 9400M by itself, but the HM55 southbridge is claimed to draw 3.5 Watts; so the total of 25W Arrandale+southbridge is 30W.

The Air's launch chipset, 945GM, drew 7 Watts for the northbridge, 3.3 Watts for the southbridge, totalling 27.3W for all three chips (using the 17W Core 2 Duo.) I would imagine that Core 2 + 9400M comes to about the same.

But, again, we don't know how much the power draw of Arrandale would be with the internal GPU going unused, so we won't know what discrete GPU would match nicely, power-wise. (One of the things about Arrandale is that it can dynamically reassign power to the CPU or GPU depending on load; so it's possible that the CPU by itself would claim the full 25W to run faster more often when the GPU is not being used.)

Edit: A quick search shows that the Radeon Mobility 5830 draws 25 Watts, so it's out of the question in the Air. The 5430 only draws 7 Watts, though; and it is still theoretically much faster than the 9400M. So it might be a good match to Arrandale. I haven't seen any hard benchmarks on that chip yet, though.

The original MBA actually had a 65nm process Merom 20W TDP CPU, not a 17W CPU as you mentioned. In addition, it included a 965GMS chipset not a 945GM. Both CPU and chipset were miniaturized versions making them much smaller than the standard versions. If you add 20W + NorthBridge + SouthBridge (if your listed TDPs are correct = 10.3) = 30.3 total not 27.3 total.

The v 2,1 MBA (we refer to as B and C here), has a 17W TDP Penryn C2D Low Voltage CPU. In addition, the Nvidia 9400m is 12W TDP. Here we are at 29W total which shows the all-around advancement in using Nvidia over Intel.

Also, I read a Fudzilla article the other day that states the IGP with the Arrandale CPUs can be "turned off." I still didn't read anything that stated the effects of demand of power once IGP is "turned off." It would be nice to know...

Another interesting bit of information is that Asus UL80JTS notebook has an i7 CPU and Nvidia GeForce 310 graphics that automatically switch back and forth as needed. The result is claimed to be 10 hour battery usage. I know it's a different system, but the results and capabilities show what's possible and how to avoid Intel as a sole graphics solution. I really wish Apple could make something similar with less demanding graphics (like a low-end ATI dedicated solution). According to the article I read over at Engadget, the Sony Vaio Z will have something like this too. It really makes so much sense. The 80% of the time I am on the computer to write, I don't need dedicated graphics. The rest of the time, the computer can automatically select the dedicated graphics for me.

I think there are plenty of options out there for Apple to consider. It really doesn't have to just keep using C2D CPUs to avoid Intel's IGP.

applesupergeek
Jan 30, 2010, 08:29 AM
however at present I am working temporarily inside an Intel facility. I receive no money or benefits directly from Intel; and even if I piss Intel off, my paycheck will continue to come through the third-party company.


Really, you have some affiliation with intel? You are joking, I 'd have never guessed.:rolleyes:

iDisk
Jan 30, 2010, 11:26 AM
That article was the reason I initially posted.. what do you think about it?

I was hoping that this new chip would be a bit better for gaming. I realize that 3DMark isn't the end all, but it gets a better 3dmark05 score than the 9400m. Wonder if better drivers would allow this chip to perform better & really open up its potential?

MAC OS X & INTEL GPU's


Mac OS X 10.4 had support for the GMA 950, since it was used in previous revisions of the MacBook and 17-inch iMacs. It has been used in all Intel-based Mac minis (until Mac Mini released on March 3, 2009). Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard contains drivers for the GMA X3100, which were used in a recent revision of the MacBook range.

Late-release versions of Mac OS X 10.4 also support the GMA 900 due to its use in the Apple Developer Transition Kit, which was used in the PowerPC-to-Intel transition. However, special modifications to the kext file must be made to enable Core Image and Quartz Extreme.

Although the new MacBook line no longer uses the X3100, Mac OS X 10.5 (Leopard) ships with drivers supporting it that require no modifications to the kext file. Mac OS X 10.6 (Snow Leopard), which includes a new 64-bit kernel in addition to the 32-bit one, does not include 64-bit X3100 drivers.This means that although the MacBooks with the X3100 have 64-bit capable processors and EFI, Mac OS X must load the 32-bit kernel to support the 32-bit X3100 drivers. November 9's 10.6.2 update ships with 64-bit X3100 drivers.

The newer MacBook/Airs and MacBook Pro notebooks instead ship with a far more powerful NVIDIA GeForce 9400M, and the 15" and 17" MacBook Pro notebooks ship with an additional GeForce 9600GT supporting hybrid power to switch between GPUs. The NVIDIA GeForce 9400M chipset as implemented in current Apple Macbooks does not support composite or S-video output.

INTEL & GAMING


The Intel GMA products are designed to allow Intel to offer a full system platform that includes graphics hardware. However, due to the GMA's nature as a highly cost-sensitive product, performance and functionality are limited relative to more expensive discrete graphics components. Some games and 3D applications will not recognize support for some hardware functionality because of the simplification of parts of these graphics accelerators. The GMA X3x00's unified shader design allows for more complete hardware functionality, but the line still has issues with some games and has significantly limited performance.

Also Intel has put up a page with 'Known Issues & Solutions' for each version. For Intel Graphics Media Accelerator Software Development concerns, there is the Integrated Graphics Software Development Forum.... in other words their GPU Quality is ABHORRENT! ;)

NOT TO MENTION LARRABEE :rolleyes: BUT I GUESS EVERYONE FORGOT ABOUT THAT DISASTER

FORGET ABOUT INTEL GPU GUYS THEY JUST DON'T HAVE IT RIGHT

applesupergeek
Jan 30, 2010, 11:58 AM
Also Intel has put up a page with 'Known Issues & Solutions' for each version. For Intel Graphics Media Accelerator Software Development concerns, there is the Integrated Graphics Software Development Forum.... in other words their GPU Quality is ABHORRENT! ;)

NOT TO MENTION LARRABEE :rolleyes: BUT I GUESS EVERYONE FORGOT ABOUT THAT DISASTER

FORGET ABOUT INTEL GPU GUYS THEY JUST DON'T HAVE IT RIGHT

Thanks buddy for chiming in with some voice of reason here, because this thread has sadly become overpopulated with very vocal proponents of whatever junk intel dishes at us, with their critical faculties in judging intel highly diminished.

I personally haven't forgotten about the Larrabee fiasco, the igpu turned software framework, aka vapourware.

And just to add to what's been said above, I too would love it if apple could add a discrete option and turn off the intel igfx, or at least have it switch on on the most basic tasks. Unfortunately the air is incredibly thin, and while I see them being able to offer such an option in macbooks and pros I really can't see how they ll fit one in the air. But even if they do we will have to wait for an incubation period to see if this actually works thermal's wise, because gen A, despite working in the labs and on paper, was a far cry from managing the thermals well. Again, due to the intel igfx.

The air is probably the most beautiful laptop on the market at the moment, let's see what apple can figure out to make up for intel's fast one.

iDisk
Jan 30, 2010, 12:25 PM
Thanks buddy for chiming in with some voice of reason here, because this thread has sadly become overpopulated with very vocal proponents of whatever junk intel dishes at us, with their critical faculties in judging intel highly diminished.

I personally haven't forgotten about the Larrabee fiasco, the igpu turned software framework, aka vapourware.

And just to add to what's been said above, I too would love it if apple could add a discrete option and turn off the intel igfx, or at least have it switch on on the most basic tasks. Unfortunately the air is incredibly thin, and while I see them being able to offer such an option in macbooks and pros I really can't see how they ll fit one in the air. But even if they do we will have to wait for an incubation period to see if this actually works thermal's wise, because gen A, despite working in the labs and on paper, was a far cry from managing the thermals well. Again, due to the intel igfx.

The air is probably the most beautiful laptop on the market at the moment, let's see what apple can figure out to make up for intel's fast one.

Thanks for the kind words :) ....... Yeah if they turn off intel gpu I can live with that. Plus the reason Apple moved to Nvidia to begin with was for the OPEN CL (WHICH THEY SERIOUSLY INVESTED IN) And GCD another heavy investment...I think scottsdale said it "do we really think Steve would throw all that R&D down the tube, for crappy intel graphics!?" no way jose ....

The Air is also what the rest of apple notebooks will look like at some point down the road. Steve Jobs & Johnny Ive love minimalism and simplicity and the MacBook Air is that. So expect more things to come with this beautiful notebook

applesupergeek
Jan 30, 2010, 08:26 PM
Thanks for the kind words :) ....... Yeah if they turn off intel gpu I can live with that. Plus the reason Apple moved to Nvidia to begin with was for the OPEN CL (WHICH THEY SERIOUSLY INVESTED IN) And GCD another heavy investment...I think scottsdale said it "do we really think Steve would throw all that R&D down the tube, for crappy intel graphics!?" no way jose ....

The Air is also what the rest of apple notebooks will look like at some point down the road. Steve Jobs & Johnny Ive love minimalism and simplicity and the MacBook Air is that. So expect more things to come with this beautiful notebook

I do expect that too, the slimming and converging of the notebooks to the air prototype, but it will take time.

As for open cl, well said, again, I missed that again amongst all this madness going on in this thread, despite being the first one to probably mention it in the forums wrt the igfx from intel, in the waiting for arrandale thread. And when I did say that they were actually people who had the gal to profess that the intel's igfx would be open cl capable - or that open cl was a matter of firmware implementation. Even three year old ati and nvidia models are not open cl capable...

Eidorian
Jan 30, 2010, 08:29 PM
Even three year old ati and nvidia models are not open cl capable...You need to go further than that.

ayeying
Jan 31, 2010, 12:53 AM
Even three year old ati and nvidia models are not open cl capable...

The 8600GT was released in 2007... its 2010... its 3 years old... it's OpenCL capable...

Anonymous Freak
Jan 31, 2010, 02:56 AM
And when I did say that they were actually people who had the gal to profess that the intel's igfx would be open cl capable - or that open cl was a matter of firmware implementation.

I was one of the ones who had the "gall" to suggest that Arrandale may be OpenCL capable. It was based on an article at Guru 3D (http://www.guru3d.com/news/intel-clarkdale-goes-gpgpu/). Re-reading that article, it appears that I was mis-remembering, and equating "GPGPU" with "OpenCL", even though OpenCL isn't directly mentioned. And there was no "[having] the gall to profess", there was simple statement of something I had read. Just because I am (apparently mis-)quoting someone else does not mean that I am part of a vast "force Apple to use Intel graphics" conspiracy...

Although, to be honest, based on many of the replies in this thread, I now expect someone to decry that Guru 3D must be a shill of Intel, being paid off to up-sell Intel graphics.....

applesupergeek
Jan 31, 2010, 07:44 AM
You need to go further than that.

My bad, make this 4-5 years to be on the safe side, which stresses my point even more that you have to go that long back, to find non open cl gpus from the other major two, while intel hasn't still caught on in all those years.

Anonymous Freak
Jan 31, 2010, 06:26 PM
My bad, make this 4-5 years to be on the safe side, which stresses my point even more that you have to go that long back, to find non open cl gpus from the other major two, while intel hasn't still caught on in all those years.

The simple answer is because Intel would rather sell you a faster CPU than have you offload anything to the GPU.

The complex answer is because Intel has made very few graphics units that are capable of doing any non-graphics work on the graphics unit itself. Pretty much, only the 'X'-series chips.

The GMA950 in the original integrated-equipped Macs isn't capable of hardware-anything. It is barely more than just a glorified frame-buffer with fancy drivers that use the CPU to do work that should happen in GPU; but convincing the OS that they're happening in GPU. (This is a gross oversimplification, even the GMA950 does have some hardware processing going on, such as pixel shaders.)

The next GMA3100 wasn't much more than a slightly-beefed-up GMA950. The X3100, though, has 'real' hardware T&L unit onboard, as well as vertex shading.

The latest pre-Arrandale, GMA X4500, is again, just a beefed up X3100. Much more, especially video processing, can be done on-unit. The 4000-series was also available with non-X versions, so in the lower-end desktop 4-series chipsets, you still don't get real hardware T&L or vertex shaders. (The drivers claim it's available, but then have the host CPU do the actual work.)

The Arrandale (and Clarkdale on the desktop) are even more beefed-up versions of X4500. More execution units, more addressable memory, (potentially, depending on model,) faster execution core.