PDA

View Full Version : New faster, Intel ULV CPUs in Core i3, i5, i7 variants announced. Will MBA get one?




Scottsdale
May 24, 2010, 10:43 AM
New CPUs announced by Intel today. These could be the rumored CPUs used in the next MBA. They provide faster clock speeds than current ULV CPUs. In addition, they add a Core i3 ULV variant.

Core i7-660UM - 1.33 to 2.4 GHz
Core i5-540UM
Core 5-430UM
Core i3-330UM

The next variants come out in 4Q that offer the Core i7 at 1.46 GHz.

Anyways, these are all possible I would suppose. However, if only the Core i7 can be overclocked permanently it would be likely Apple would use this new Core i7-660UM in high-end and either the Core i7-620UM or Core i7-640UM in low-end.

I suppose anything is possible. All of the rumors have been saying this, maybe Jobs will announce this at WWDC now that more CPUs are available?

Here's a link to the Engadget Article

http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/24/intel-officially-outs-core-i3-i5-and-i7-ulv-processors-for-thos/

At least there's hope and a real reason for Apple to have waited this long for an MBA update... sorta.



Hellhammer
May 24, 2010, 10:52 AM
Looks promising though only 130MHz more. Are you sure about that 1.46GHz? It sounds very abnormal frequency. Anyway, MBA is forced to use the Intel GPU, so it's up to Apple whether Steve accepts the IGP or not. I would guess the price of 660UM to be ~340$.

aiqw9182
May 24, 2010, 11:02 AM
I'm guessing the GPU frequency is still terrible like the previous ULV processors? Meaing it's going to be worse than the 9400M? Disappointing. If Intel wasn't forcing everyone to use their garbage IGP this would be a great update.

hashholly
May 24, 2010, 11:04 AM
Any idea on what the real world performance differences between those core I ULV's and the Core 2 Duo in the current Macbook Airs? Would the increase in power be worth the loss of GPU power?

SaleenS351
May 24, 2010, 11:04 AM
Would an Intel GPU be a marked improvement over the current 9400m? or would the gains from core i series be crippled by the Intel GPU?

Would Jobs announce both new Mac Pros and new MBA's at WWDC?

Scottsdale
May 24, 2010, 11:07 AM
Looks promising though only 130MHz more. Are you sure about that 1.46GHz? It sounds very abnormal frequency. Anyway, MBA is forced to use the Intel GPU, so it's up to Apple whether Steve accepts the IGP or not. I would guess the price of 660UM to be ~340$.

Not if it turns the GMA IGP off. Then uses the full capabilities at up to 2.4 GHz of the new Core i7. If it did that, it would have to use a dedicated GPU for graphics. However, it could easily do it within the current MBA's TDP.

The current MBA is at 29W. Apple could use the 18W Core i7-660UM overclocked with GMA IGP off, and use an ATI 5430 at 7W for a total reduction of 4W to a 25W TDP in the MBA. That would add massive graphics performance boosts, with typical Core i7 boosts, a real marketable MBA with newest Core i7 and a GPU that would beat the 13" MBPs GPU... it would make those MBP buyers that don't need a 10-hour battery or optical drive be able to select an MBA at a price bump but with a highly preferred GPU.

This is all speculation that rumors are truthful that the MBA is getting a Core i7 with the GMA IGP turned off and full capabilities of CPU going towards the CPU's 32nm DIE with 45nm GMA DIE off. One would naturally assume that this requires a dedicated GPU. The most energy efficient discrete GPUs are ATI's. However, I suppose Apple could introduce a new Nvidia GPU that uses very little energy. The Nvidia 310m uses 14W, while the ATI 5430 uses a 7W TDP. I don't know how Nvidia makes that up, but I guess anything is possible.

hashholly
May 24, 2010, 11:09 AM
Not if it turns the GMA IGP off. Then uses the full capabilities at up to 2.4 GHz of the new Core i7. If it did that, it would have to use a dedicated GPU for graphics. However, it could easily do it within the current MBA's TDP.

The current MBA is at 29W. Apple could use the 18W Core i7-660UM overclocked with GMA IGP off, and use an ATI 5430 at 7W for a total reduction of 4W to a 25W TDP in the MBA. That would add massive graphics performance boosts, with typical Core i7 boosts, a real marketable MBA with newest Core i7 and a GPU that would beat the 13" MBPs GPU... it would make those MBP buyers that don't need a 10-hour battery or optical drive be able to select an MBA at a price bump but with a highly preferred GPU.

This is all speculation that rumors are truthful that the MBA is getting a Core i7 with the GMA IGP turned off and full capabilities of CPU going towards the CPU's 32nm DIE with 45nm GMA DIE off. One would naturally assume that this requires a dedicated GPU. The most energy efficient discrete GPUs are ATI's. However, I suppose Apple could introduce a new Nvidia GPU that uses very little energy. The Nvidia 310m uses 14W, while the ATI 5430 uses a 7W TDP. I don't know how Nvidia makes that up, but I guess anything is possible.

would a dedicated graphics solution be able to fit in the MBA?

Hellhammer
May 24, 2010, 11:12 AM
Would an Intel GPU be a marked improvement over the current 9400m? or would the gains from core i series be crippled by the Intel GPU?

Would Jobs announce both new Mac Pros and new MBA's at WWDC?

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Graphics-Media-Accelerator-HD.23065.0.html
http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-9400M-G.11949.0.html

Intel GPU is about as fast as 9400M, marginally faster in some tests

Not if it turns the GMA IGP off. Then uses the full capabilities at up to 2.4 GHz of the new Core i7. If it did that, it would have to use a dedicated GPU for graphics. However, it could easily do it within the current MBA's TDP.

The current MBA is at 29W. Apple could use the 18W Core i7-660UM overclocked with GMA IGP off, and use an ATI 5430 at 7W for a total reduction of 4W to a 25W TDP in the MBA. That would add massive graphics performance boosts, with typical Core i7 boosts, a real marketable MBA with newest Core i7 and a GPU that would beat the 13" MBPs GPU... it would make those MBP buyers that don't need a 10-hour battery or optical drive be able to select an MBA at a price bump but with a highly preferred GPU.

This is all speculation that rumors are truthful that the MBA is getting a Core i7 with the GMA IGP turned off and full capabilities of CPU going towards the CPU's 32nm DIE with 45nm GMA DIE off. One would naturally assume that this requires a dedicated GPU. The most energy efficient discrete GPUs are ATI's. However, I suppose Apple could introduce a new Nvidia GPU that uses very little energy. The Nvidia 310m uses 14W, while the ATI 5430 uses a 7W TDP. I don't know how Nvidia makes that up, but I guess anything is possible.

13" MacBook Pro didn't get dedicated GPU so it would be nonsense to include one in MBA. I wouldn't be surprised if Apple continued with C2D and would just add 320M

aiqw9182
May 24, 2010, 11:14 AM
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Graphics-Media-Accelerator-HD.23065.0.html
http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-9400M-G.11949.0.html

Intel GPU is about as fast as 9400M, marginally faster in some tests

The tests for the Intel HD Graphics are based on the higher end Arrandale chips. The ULV processors have a GPU frequency of 166MHz. The 35 watt Arrandale chips(which is what the link you provided used) have a GPU with a 500MHz frequency.

Hellhammer
May 24, 2010, 11:19 AM
The tests for the Intel HD Graphics are based on the higher end Arrandale chips. The ULV processors have a GPU frequency of 166MHz. The 35 watt Arrandale chips(which is what the link you provided used) have a GPU with a 500MHz frequency.

Base frequency of 166MHz, but up to 500MHz according to this (http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=47700). 35W Arrandale have 500MHz as base freq and maximum of 766MHz I think

aiqw9182
May 24, 2010, 11:22 AM
Base frequency of 166MHz, but up to 500MHz according to this (http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=47700). 35W Arrandale have 500MHz as base freq and maximum of 766MHz I think

From notebookcheck:
"The Turbo Boost function of the new Arrandale CPUs also allows the automatic overclocking of the GPU core. The graphics card is only overclocked if the CPU is not fully loaded and the TDP is not fully used.

High End: Core i5 520M, 540M, i7 620M: 500-766 MHz
Low End: Core i3 330M, 350M: 500-677 MHz
Low Voltage: Core i7 620LM, 640LM: 266-566 MHz
Ultra Low Voltage: Core i5-520UM, i5-620UM, 640UM: 166-500 MHz
It is questionable if the Turbo is really often used in current games, as most games also use a lot of CPU time. Therefore, the UM and LM versions of the GMA HD should be a lot slower because of the slow base speed of 166 / 266 MHz."

Either way if it was always at 500MHz it would still be a downgrade because of the lack of hardware acceleration and OpenCL support.

SaleenS351
May 24, 2010, 11:22 AM
13" MacBook Pro didn't get dedicated GPU so it would be nonsense to include one in MBA. I wouldn't be surprised if Apple continued with C2D and would just add 320M

What's the next ULV C2D alternative for the MBA?

Scottsdale
May 24, 2010, 11:25 AM
Would an Intel GPU be a marked improvement over the current 9400m? or would the gains from core i series be crippled by the Intel GPU?

Would Jobs announce both new Mac Pros and new MBA's at WWDC?

LMAO, um NO the Intel GMA IGP would be a disgusting move for Apple to make with the MBA. In fact, Jobs recently criticized the GMA IGP as the reason Apple used the Core 2 Duo with Nvidia 320m in the new 13" MBPs.

I don't know if a discrete GPU would fit in the MBA or not. I assume Apple is not including this system in the 13" MBP due to cost or the MacFive theory I have. Basically, if the discrete GPU wouldn't fit in any one of five Macs Apple wouldn't use it. Because Apple has used one setup for MacFive since October 2008.

The 13" MB, 13" MBA, 13" MBP, Mm, and 20/21.5" iMac all use the same basic system requiring the same driver integration into OS, requiring one set of Nvidia GPU drivers and h.264, OpenGL, and OpenCL integration into OS X. I offer the past MacFive as the reason Apple should release a C2D MBA with an Nvidia 320m in the MBA, Mm, and 21.5" iMac as soon as it gets the 13" MBP and MB inventories stocked up to meet demand.

I still think we should get a C2D with Nvidia 320m, because I don't think Apple will create a completely different strategy for the MBA. However, maybe Apple would think the MBA user doesn't need the 320m and can live with the GMA IGP. I just don't think that's going to happen. So if Apple is using a Core i7, turning of GMA IGP to permanently overclock the CPU it will be forced to use a discrete GPU.

I don't know if the limitation is based on MacFive, cost, space, or TDP factors? I don't think Apple would introduce an MBA with C2D and Nvidia 320m at WWDC as it would be a boring update. So if it gets the C2D with Nvidia 320m update, it will just come along some week when Apple gets to updating it in the factory lines. Why wouldn't Apple update the 13" MBP and MB first? Makes sense. Any update at WWDC probably offers something entirely new like the Core i7. I feel it would be awfully difficult to market a 1.33 GHz MBA. So Apple must have something else up its sleeve if it really plans to update the MBA at WWDC.

The good news is in two weeks and 36 minutes SJ takes the stage at WWDC. I suppose within two hours there we will know if the MBA update happens at WWDC. I suppose we're hoping Apple shuts down the Apple Store during the keynote to update to new MBA and Mac Pro along with new Apple Cinema Displays, AppleTV, 6" iPad, and iPhone updates. I know that it's extremely doubtful all of these would be updated but they're all due.

Hellhammer
May 24, 2010, 11:29 AM
From notebookcheck:
"The Turbo Boost function of the new Arrandale CPUs also allows the automatic overclocking of the GPU core. The graphics card is only overclocked if the CPU is not fully loaded and the TDP is not fully used.

High End: Core i5 520M, 540M, i7 620M: 500-766 MHz
Low End: Core i3 330M, 350M: 500-677 MHz
Low Voltage: Core i7 620LM, 640LM: 266-566 MHz
Ultra Low Voltage: Core i5-520UM, i5-620UM, 640UM: 166-500 MHz
It is questionable if the Turbo is really often used in current games, as most games also use a lot of CPU time. Therefore, the UM and LM versions of the GMA HD should be a lot slower because of the slow base speed of 166 / 266 MHz."

Either way if it was always at 500MHz it would still be a downgrade because of the lack of hardware acceleration and OpenCL support.

Yeah, could be. Never thought about the ULV one, have only thought about 35W ones MBPs use.

What's the next ULV C2D alternative for the MBA?

It's the 2.13GHz C2D the MBA already uses. Unless Apple can fit a 25W CPU which is unlikely, it's either that with better GPU or i7 with crappy GPU

fyrefly
May 24, 2010, 11:31 AM
I too have my fingers Crossed for a MBA update based on these new chips. An i7-660UM with the graphics Die shut off + an ATI or NVidia graphics solution would be amazing! MBA used to be positioned between the MB and the MBPro (before there was a 13" MBP) so I can see the graphics chip pushing it hopefully back to that niche (And the price to match).

would a dedicated graphics solution be able to fit in the MBA?

Here's hoping. The new i7-660UM chip is 32% smaller than the other i7 Mobile chips - so I'm hoping they can fit it all in... Plus no Optical Drive or Ethernet ports to clog up the motherboard - makes sense to me.

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Graphics-Media-Accelerator-HD.23065.0.html
http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-9400M-G.11949.0.html

Intel GPU is about as fast as 9400M, marginally faster in some tests

Yeah, but not in the underclocked UM packages as others have stated.

13" MacBook Pro didn't get dedicated GPU so it would be nonsense to include one in MBA. I wouldn't be surprised if Apple continued with C2D and would just add 320M

There's no other C2D chips in the ULV range to use. The 1.86 and 2.13 SL9600/9400 are the only chips Intel put out. So there's no C2D update that can be done.

Without the space taken up by the optical drive - I can easily see the MBA having room for a 32% smaller i7 chip and a dedicated GPU from Nvidia or ATI.

My dream (hopefully soon reality!) MBA Rev D specs:

Intel i7-660UM Chip - 1.33Ghz turbos to 2.4Ghz
ATI 5430 or even maybe 5650 (only uses ~15W)
4GB RAM
128 GB SSD
Better Battery (same one that gives iPad 10+ hours Battery life? - would give MBA 6hrs?)

That would make a MBA that's 2x faster than the older ones and still at under 3lbs! Amazing!!!

Scottsdale
May 24, 2010, 11:34 AM
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Graphics-Media-Accelerator-HD.23065.0.html
http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-9400M-G.11949.0.html

Intel GPU is about as fast as 9400M, marginally faster in some tests



13" MacBook Pro didn't get dedicated GPU so it would be nonsense to include one in MBA. I wouldn't be surprised if Apple continued with C2D and would just add 320M

I have always said I think the MBA should get the C2D and Nvidia 320m. I am just reporting on the news of a rumored potential CPU for the new MBA. It has potential to be used. I always think the MacFive strategy will be used until I see an MBA without the same base component makeup for not just lowering costs of buying in bulk but also for integration into OS X for drivers and etc.

What's the next ULV C2D alternative for the MBA?

Are you asking for the next C2D? Apple is done making C2D at the end of 2010. The Core i7-6x0LM is the Intel stated replacement chip for the current SL9x00 Apple uses in the MBA. The problem is Nvidia cannot provide chipsets for chips beyond C2D. That is why Apple used C2D so it could use the Nvidia 320m GPU/chipset in the 13" MBP and MB again.

aiqw9182
May 24, 2010, 11:38 AM
The 13" MB, 13" MBA, 13" MBP, Mm, and 20/21.5" iMac all use the same basic system requiring the same driver integration into OS, requiring one set of Nvidia GPU drivers and h.264, OpenGL, and OpenCL integration into OS X. I offer the past MacFive as the reason Apple should release a C2D MBA with an Nvidia 320m in the MBA, Mm, and 21.5" iMac as soon as it gets the 13" MBP and MB inventories stocked up to meet demand.


This iMac refresh will likely be the last to follow that. The next CPU's ready for the 21.5" iMacs is Clarkdale which comes with Intel's IGP.


There's no other C2D chips in the ULV range to use. The 1.86 and 2.13 SL9600/9400 are the only chips Intel put out. So there's no C2D update that can be done.
Apple can easily get away with the same C2D processors with the 320M. Shove a 128GB SSD in the low end and 256SSD in the high end and you have a pretty good situation on your hands.

Hellhammer
May 24, 2010, 11:49 AM
My dream (hopefully soon reality!) MBA Rev D specs:

Intel i7-660UM Chip - 1.33Ghz turbos to 2.4Ghz
ATI 5430 or even maybe 5650 (only uses ~15W)
4GB RAM
128 GB SSD
Better Battery (same one that gives iPad 10+ hours Battery life? - would give MBA 6hrs?)

That would make a MBA that's 2x faster than the older ones and still at under 3lbs! Amazing!!!

ATI 5650 would outperform 330M so no chance

This iMac refresh will likely be the last to follow that. The next CPU's ready for the 21.5" iMacs is Clarkdale which comes with Intel's IGP.

But Apple will likely (at least I hope so) use a dedicated GPU in all iMacs as they have no space issues. E.g. ATI 54xx in low-end, ATI 57xx in mid, and ATI 58xx in high-end

Apple can easily get away with the same C2D processors with the 320M. Shove a 128GB SSD in the low end and 256SSD in the high end and you have a pretty good situation on your hands.

Are there 256GB 1.8" SSDs available?

SaleenS351
May 24, 2010, 11:54 AM
Well at the very least, this new announcement has given renewed hope at the possibility at least in the near term that the MBA could see a core i series chip and that 2011 will certainly see the new core i series in the MBA.

However, what does the MBA need more a new GPU and upgraded RAM or an updated processor and RAM?

aiqw9182
May 24, 2010, 11:54 AM
But Apple will likely (at least I hope so) use a dedicated GPU in all iMacs as they have no space issues. E.g. ATI 54xx in low-end, ATI 57xx in mid, and ATI 58xx in high-end
Yeah, that's what I was saying. Only integrated graphics should've never been on the iMacs to begin with.


Are there 256GB 1.8" SSDs available?
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/08/05/26/samsung_intros_256gb_ssd_that_may_reach_macbook_air.html

fr4c
May 24, 2010, 11:57 AM
And now the waiting game...

Does ATI offer any GPU chips that might perhaps fit in the MBA, or is this going to be a C2D/320M update like the 13" MBP.

aiqw9182
May 24, 2010, 11:59 AM
And now the waiting game...

Does ATI offer any GPU chips that might perhaps fit in the MBA, or is this going to be a C2D/320M update like the 13" MBP.

The latter.

DraziGuy
May 24, 2010, 12:20 PM
Could they save space by soldering flash memory directly onto the mobo somewhere? Use the space a 1.8 or 2.5 form factor drive would take and apply discrete graphics. With the volume that Apple does in flash, they could probably do this fairly cost effectively.

hashholly
May 24, 2010, 12:21 PM
I too have my fingers Crossed for a MBA update based on these new chips. An i7-660UM with the graphics Die shut off + an ATI or NVidia graphics solution would be amazing! MBA used to be positioned between the MB and the MBPro (before there was a 13" MBP) so I can see the graphics chip pushing it hopefully back to that niche (And the price to match).



Here's hoping. The new i7-660UM chip is 32% smaller than the other i7 Mobile chips - so I'm hoping they can fit it all in... Plus no Optical Drive or Ethernet ports to clog up the motherboard - makes sense to me.



Yeah, but not in the underclocked UM packages as others have stated.



There's no other C2D chips in the ULV range to use. The 1.86 and 2.13 SL9600/9400 are the only chips Intel put out. So there's no C2D update that can be done.

Without the space taken up by the optical drive - I can easily see the MBA having room for a 32% smaller i7 chip and a dedicated GPU from Nvidia or ATI.

My dream (hopefully soon reality!) MBA Rev D specs:

Intel i7-660UM Chip - 1.33Ghz turbos to 2.4Ghz
ATI 5430 or even maybe 5650 (only uses ~15W)
4GB RAM
128 GB SSD
Better Battery (same one that gives iPad 10+ hours Battery life? - would give MBA 6hrs?)

That would make a MBA that's 2x faster than the older ones and still at under 3lbs! Amazing!!!

All things considered i think we are probably looking at

2.13ghz Core 2 Duo
4gb of Ram
Nvidia Geforce 320M
128gb or 256gb SSD options
7 Hours Battery Life (considering the relative increases from prior MBP to current)

Hopefully they will also include Audio support over MDP for HDMI

fyrefly
May 24, 2010, 12:39 PM
All things considered i think we are probably looking at

2.13ghz Core 2 Duo
4gb of Ram
Nvidia Geforce 320M
128gb or 256gb SSD options
7 Hours Battery Life (considering the relative increases from prior MBP to current)

Hopefully they will also include Audio support over MDP for HDMI

Audio over MDP is a no-brainer at this point.

If they do go with this config - they're gonna have to drop the price - have this 2.13Ghz model be at the price of the 1.86 Model currently.

We'll see - I really hope they can find a way to get the i7's in there.

tim100
May 24, 2010, 12:46 PM
New CPUs announced by Intel today. These could be the rumored CPUs used in the next MBA. They provide faster clock speeds than current ULV CPUs. In addition, they add a Core i3 ULV variant.

Core i7-660UM - 1.33 to 2.4 GHz
Core i5-540UM
Core 5-430UM
Core i3-330UM

The next variants come out in 4Q that offer the Core i7 at 1.46 GHz.

Anyways, these are all possible I would suppose. However, if only the Core i7 can be overclocked permanently it would be likely Apple would use this new Core i7-660UM in high-end and either the Core i7-620UM or Core i7-640UM in low-end.

I suppose anything is possible. All of the rumors have been saying this, maybe Jobs will announce this at WWDC now that more CPUs are available?

Here's a link to the Engadget Article

http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/24/intel-officially-outs-core-i3-i5-and-i7-ulv-processors-for-thos/

At least there's hope and a real reason for Apple to have waited this long for an MBA update... sorta.

I already posted this news,
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=921208

you found it second.

stefan1975
May 24, 2010, 01:06 PM
I already posted this news,
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=921208

you found it second.

you beat him by a whole whopping 12 minutes. well congratulations for that, it must make your day :D

tim100
May 24, 2010, 01:10 PM
you beat him by a whole whopping 12 minutes. well congratulations for that, it must make your day :D

it does

Scottsdale
May 24, 2010, 01:18 PM
I already posted this news,
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=921208

you found it second.

Whatever. Why would you act like this? Seriously? Why didn't you make a thread then? Why on Earth do people have to be first. Like a child wanting to be proclaimed "Winner." I cannot believe you.

stefan1975
you beat him by a whole whopping 12 minutes. well congratulations for that, it must make your day

And I actually added information to it. I still cannot believe someone would act this way. Wants recognition... OMG... shaking head in disbelief. I still cannot believe it and I have waited a few minutes.

it does

Always someone wanting to ruin the day and get so far off topic and act childish. I wouldn't be proud and bragging about your actions. It is truly sad to act that way.

Can we all please get back on topic if we're going to spend our time here... thanks.

Someone mentioned higher end ATI cards. The whole point a 7W 5430 would work is the low TDP. It is half the Nvidia low-end 310m's 14W TDP. This is why people were certain Apple would use ATI with its last MBP updates. Apparently Apple has something against ATI/AMD?

There is always the possibility of an AMD/ATI MBA that we're not discussing. The later the MBA update comes, the more possible Apple would go this route with the rumors.

Someone else mentioned the iMac. I agree Apple could use the same setup in the 21.5" iMac as it did in the 15" and 17" MBPs. It would still give Apple economies of scale in COGS and the drivers ready for OS X.

jdechko
May 24, 2010, 01:22 PM
2.13ghz Core 2 Duo
4gb of Ram
Nvidia Geforce 320M
128gb or 256gb SSD options
7 Hours Battery Life (considering the relative increases from prior MBP to current)

I agree. I really think this is all we will get for this next update.

hashholly
May 24, 2010, 01:34 PM
Whatever. Why would you act like this? Seriously? Why didn't you make a thread then? Why on Earth do people have to be first. Like a child wanting to be proclaimed "Winner." I cannot believe you.



And I actually added information to it. I still cannot believe someone would act this way. Wants recognition... OMG... shaking head in disbelief. I still cannot believe it and I have waited a few minutes.



Always someone wanting to ruin the day and get so far off topic and act childish. I wouldn't be proud and bragging about your actions. It is truly sad to act that way.

Can we all please get back on topic if we're going to spend our time here... thanks.

Someone mentioned higher end ATI cards. The whole point a 7W 5430 would work is the low TDP. It is half the Nvidia low-end 310m's 14W TDP. This is why people were certain Apple would use ATI with its last MBP updates. Apparently Apple has something against ATI/AMD?

There is always the possibility of an AMD/ATI MBA that we're not discussing. The later the MBA update comes, the more possible Apple would go this route with the rumors.

Someone else mentioned the iMac. I agree Apple could use the same setup in the 21.5" iMac as it did in the 15" and 17" MBPs. It would still give Apple economies of scale in COGS and the drivers ready for OS X.

I've always been interested in an AMD/ATI solution for the Macbook to knock the price down, but never really considered it past that because of the battery drain on current AMD laptops/netbooks. Now its possible if Apple has really been testing out chips with them, that together they may have come up with some power saving techniques, but how owuld this affect their Intel relationship?

Scottsdale
May 24, 2010, 01:36 PM
I agree. I really think this is all we will get for this next update.

The lower energy requirements of the Nvidia 320m could allow Apple to de-throttle the SL9x00 OR give it same performance and permit maybe an extra 15% battery performance between charges. In addition, I was thinking what about throttling the Nvidia 320m. We don't need full performance of the 320m on the MBA. Even if it were a true 20% bump over the 9400m at full clock speed it would be a great experience for the MBA.

Whoever posted the Intel GMA HD used in the Arrandale CPU w/45nm DIE is as good as the Nvidia 9400m is sure drinking some Intel kool-aid. What they're also forgetting is any report they have seen shows the Windows OS running both. Try running Windows 7 vs. OS X on a current MBA and see the performance differences. The Windows platform gives 4X the graphics experience with the 9400m over OS X. Recent reports show similar results of Windows as 3X to 4X the performance in OpenGL over OS X and Linux. The bottom line is what's true on Windows is NOT necessarily true on OS X or Linux. The graphics system is one simple way to see this in action and it's simple to see it on the MBA running OS X then Windows 7 and comparing. Flash uses 22 to 26% of the CPU that OS X uses to run the same files. Similar experiences when running HD video playback.

Has anyone run the 15" MBP solely on the Intel GMA HD and reported experience and any benchmark results? I don't know that the Intel GMA HD can be forced on the user? I would love if someone gave us a fair scientific test to show everyone exactly what SJ and Apple know and why they used C2D and Nvidia 320m over Intel Core i3 w/Intel GMA HD on the 13" MBPs.

tim100
May 24, 2010, 01:41 PM
Whatever. Why would you act like this? Seriously? Why didn't you make a thread then? Why on Earth do people have to be first. Like a child wanting to be proclaimed "Winner." I cannot believe you.



And I actually added information to it. I still cannot believe someone would act this way. Wants recognition... OMG... shaking head in disbelief. I still cannot believe it and I have waited a few minutes.


Always someone wanting to ruin the day and get so far off topic and act childish. I wouldn't be proud and bragging about your actions. It is truly sad to act that way.

Can we all please get back on topic if we're going to spend our time here... thanks.

Someone mentioned higher end ATI cards. The whole point a 7W 5430 would work is the low TDP. It is half the Nvidia low-end 310m's 14W TDP. This is why people were certain Apple would use ATI with its last MBP updates. Apparently Apple has something against ATI/AMD?

There is always the possibility of an AMD/ATI MBA that we're not discussing. The later the MBA update comes, the more possible Apple would go this route with the rumors.

Someone else mentioned the iMac. I agree Apple could use the same setup in the 21.5" iMac as it did in the 15" and 17" MBPs. It would still give Apple economies of scale in COGS and the drivers ready for OS X.

Its like this, your the king of the air forum. Dont get mad I am just giving you information.

hashholly
May 24, 2010, 01:51 PM
The lower energy requirements of the Nvidia 320m could allow Apple to de-throttle the SL9x00 OR give it same performance and permit maybe an extra 15% battery performance between charges. In addition, I was thinking what about throttling the Nvidia 320m. We don't need full performance of the 320m on the MBA. Even if it were a true 20% bump over the 9400m at full clock speed it would be a great experience for the MBA.

Whoever posted the Intel GMA HD used in the Arrandale CPU w/45nm DIE is as good as the Nvidia 9400m is sure drinking some Intel kool-aid. What they're also forgetting is any report they have seen shows the Windows OS running both. Try running Windows 7 vs. OS X on a current MBA and see the performance differences. The Windows platform gives 4X the graphics experience with the 9400m over OS X. Recent reports show similar results of Windows as 3X to 4X the performance in OpenGL over OS X and Linux. The bottom line is what's true on Windows is NOT necessarily true on OS X or Linux. The graphics system is one simple way to see this in action and it's simple to see it on the MBA running OS X then Windows 7 and comparing. Flash uses 22 to 26% of the CPU that OS X uses to run the same files. Similar experiences when running HD video playback.

Has anyone run the 15" MBP solely on the Intel GMA HD and reported experience and any benchmark results? I don't know that the Intel GMA HD can be forced on the user? I would love if someone gave us a fair scientific test to show everyone exactly what SJ and Apple know and why they used C2D and Nvidia 320m over Intel Core i3 w/Intel GMA HD on the 13" MBPs.

How throttled is the current MBA processor? Do you have any issues with watching HD Videos? I ask because considering i dont believe there will be a major bump with the MBA, i wonder if its capable as it to handle something as simple as 720p video (I've seen varying responses to HD video on this forum and i trust your opinion on the matter)

Hellhammer
May 24, 2010, 01:54 PM
How throttled is the current MBA processor? Do you have any issues with watching HD Videos? I ask because considering i dont believe there will be a major bump with the MBA, i wonder if its capable as it to handle something as simple as 720p video (I've seen varying responses to HD video on this forum and i trust your opinion on the matter)

It can handle 1080p fine

Scottsdale
May 24, 2010, 01:55 PM
Its like this, your the king of the air forum. Dont get mad I am just giving you information.

You were not giving information you were being a know it all wanting to prove you posted it first. Somehow you want to be known as "first" or "fastest" to post. I provide actual insight and information into my posts. If you think I found your post and made a thread out of it you're dead WRONG! I wouldn't copy you for anything, and I certainly wouldn't whine and cry and say everyone needs to recognize I posted something first if someone else was reading Engadget at the same time.

BTW, you NOR I were first. Engadget was FIRST to report the Intel Press Release.

Don't ever think that people will find you "better" or superior in any way because you copied someone else's website first. Readers enjoy intelligent analysis of information reported. You provided no such benefit from your post that I supposedly now copied from you.

GO start a thread crying you were first and leave this thread for some actual analysis and ideas of what these Intel processors COULD mean to the MBA.

Provide some intelligent analysis or ideas about these Intel CPUs if you're going to keep posting here... otherwise you're just wasting our time.

aiqw9182
May 24, 2010, 01:56 PM
I think if Apple does this to the next update they will be fine:

http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/5164/screenshot20100524at254.png

Give or take 100 bucks.

hashholly
May 24, 2010, 01:58 PM
It can handle 1080p fine

The 1.86ghz, 2.13, or both?

Hellhammer
May 24, 2010, 01:59 PM
I think if Apple does this to the next update they will be fine:

http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/5164/screenshot20100524at254.png

Give or take 100 bucks.

One USB more and 7-hour battery life and Apple gets a deal with my wallet :D

The 1.86ghz, 2.13, or both?

Both, unless you're trying to use Flash as it won't play even on Mac Pro :p

Scottsdale
May 24, 2010, 02:01 PM
How throttled is the current MBA processor? Do you have any issues with watching HD Videos? I ask because considering i dont believe there will be a major bump with the MBA, i wonder if its capable as it to handle something as simple as 720p video (I've seen varying responses to HD video on this forum and i trust your opinion on the matter)

The CPU in the MBA is throttled. It is rarely ever running at the clock speed advertised. The 2.13 GHz CPU is almost never running at 2.13 GHz. Could run as low as 800 MHz even.

It can handle 1080p fine

With h.264 acceleration the GPU can handle a lot of intensive stuff fine. What the MBA struggles at is running HD video within a browser plug-in. Definitely when running a video via an HD video playback application, the MBA handles HD video just fine.

Fortunately, Apple just gave API access to low-level h.264 GPU acceleration for the Nvidia GPUs in OS X. The 9400m changed the game in Macs. Now the 9400m, 320m and 330m GT all have GPU performance capabilities and hardware acceleration.

The MBA is indeed capable right now, but its CPU is throttled and so is the GPU. Neither runs at their full clock speed.

coast1ja
May 24, 2010, 02:05 PM
Thank you Scottsdale for bringing the new technology and possibilities for the MBA to our attention.

Reading this thread got me thinking about what could actually be possible for the next MBA. Here are a few of my thoughts:

1. integrate flash memory chips in the logic board, just like the current RAM configuration.

This would allow a completely different form factor by removing the 1.8" drive. The memory controller would also have to be engineered into the board, but that wouldn't be THAT difficult either. Imagine an MBA that is basically the size of two iPads face-to-face with a hinge, or possibly thinner on the screen side. Is that thinness even possible? perhaps.

2. new, thinner keyboard.

looking at the current keyboard, you lose about a quarter of an inch in total thickness due to the depth of the keys and the mechanism under them. This could mean just a new conventional style keyboard with thinner keys and less movement, or it could possibly mean a virtual keyboard using e-Ink and haptic feedback... this would be cool, as you could actually change what the keys say on them, when the function key is pressed, for example... this would also alleviate the need for different language versions of the keyboard.

3. Apple-designed CPU and GPU.

We have already seen that Apple can create it's own CPUs, but what if Apple designed it's own GPUs too? This would be ideal if apple doesn't want to build to the constraints of existing chips.


If all of these things were utilized in the next MBA (I'm not even considering they will be... but maybe on the Rev. E... eh, maybe M or N) imagine what apple could create for the MBA. Believe it or not, they need to make people want an MBA over an iPad (I know, they're totally different, but some don't see it that way).

Imagine a Macbook Air with uniform thinness, and hinges that would allow the screen to flip 360 degrees, thus making it fold up for easy reading of electronic content (with touch controls a la iPad). This MBA would also have an e-Ink keyboard that would simply clear the letters and disable typing once the screen was flipped past 180 degrees, leaving an aluminum-looking flat surface on the back of the machine when in tablet mode.

When the screen is flipped back into a more normal position, the e-Ink keys would appear and operate as normal... the trackpad would simply be outlined in e-ink, and be touch sensitive just like the keys with haptic feedback so you would feel an artificial 'click'.


Of course all of these features are simply musings based on what could possibly be done in the future. I am supremely sorry for going off topic, but this thread just got the gears turning and they wouldn't stop.

Now some questions for you:

Would you actually buy the proposed machine?... assuming it had something equivalent to an i7, discrete GPU, and at least 4gb of ram?

If so, how much would you be willing to pay, realistically?

Thanks for reading my rant, and I can't wait for the Rev. D!

hashholly
May 24, 2010, 02:08 PM
The CPU in the MBA is throttled. It is rarely ever running at the clock speed advertised. The 2.13 GHz CPU is almost never running at 2.13 GHz. Could run as low as 800 MHz even.



With h.264 acceleration the GPU can handle a lot of intensive stuff fine. What the MBA struggles at is running HD video within a browser plug-in. Definitely when running a video via an HD video playback application, the MBA handles HD video just fine.

Fortunately, Apple just gave API access to low-level h.264 GPU acceleration for the Nvidia GPUs in OS X. The 9400m changed the game in Macs. Now the 9400m, 320m and 330m GT all have GPU performance capabilities and hardware acceleration.

The MBA is indeed capable right now, but its CPU is throttled and so is the GPU. Neither runs at their full clock speed.

Wow, i guess those are the tradeoffs of having a device so thin, thank you for the info.

Scottsdale
May 24, 2010, 02:16 PM
I think if Apple does this to the next update they will be fine:

http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/5164/screenshot20100524at254.png

Give or take 100 bucks.

Not going to happen. Apple cannot provide a 256 GB SSD and lower the price of the MBA. In addition, it cannot provide a 128 GB SSD standard in the low-end MBA. This just isn't realistic.

In addition, we could consider Apple having Intel "overclock" capable SL9600 CPUs to make 2.26 GHz Core 2 Duo or faster out of the current SL9x00 CPUs. We could get a faster clock speed still from a C2D SL9x00 CPU. Apple could definitely provide this for the MBA by negotiating a deal with Intel. And I don't believe it's out of the realm of possibility for Intel to want to make Apple happy and go to an extra length for Apple.

I think the C2D plus Nvidia 320m makes so much sense for the MBA. I was originally disgusted with the idea of sticking with these CPUs and Nvidia, but Nvidia upped the 320m to an 80% boost over the 9400m and uses less power. Since Intel kicked Nvidia out of the GPU/chipset business, this provides the best possible update right now.

I think there are lots of possibilities, but I see your pricing as way off. I think the prices go back up because Apple now has the iPad for secondary entertainment type device used for "netbook" purposes. The MBA should get more powerful and a higher price tag to pay for the upgraded parts. The 256 GB SSD alone is going to add maybe $300 to the price of the 128 GB SSD Apple currently uses. I just don't see even $1799 happening in the high-end with 256 GB SSD. I think $1999 is the new high-end pricing. I think anyone that cannot afford the price should buy a 13" MBP or cheaper yet MB instead. Apple needs to provide luxury and charge its users to buy it.

There is the possibility of other better components too. We could get a complete design change, upgrade to Core i-series CPUs, discrete GPU, more RAM, double SSD, 3G/4G Verizon card included, IPS display, and etc. Whatever Apple includes that costs more than the current MBA is going to be added to the price. Any MBA update at WWDC has to include a high-end MBA not an MBA that competes in the secondary market with the iPad.

If Apple were to go lower prices as you suggest, I would say that MBA would make no sense and would actually compete with the iPad. Those customers would be deciding if they want a secondary Mac OS X experience or a secondary entertainment computing experience from the iPad. I believe Apple has a better chance to differentiate the MBA further from the iPad... it's the only move that makes sense right now. Apple has said it's a mobility company now, so why not provide an ultraportable computer that's high-class and runs Apple's competitive advantage over PCs with OS X. The OS is important to many customers who need the MBA as a more input or work type performance rather than just a consumption device. OS X makes sense on an ultraportable Mac for the mobility company Apple has declared itself. Many want more than a smartphone OS on a tablet and the MBA is that device. More than ever I think the demand will grow for the MBA and people will use an MBA as their primary computer and the iPad needs a "home" to dock to... the two together are the ultimate in both Mac OS X work capabilities in the MBA and entertainment consumption in the iPad.

Scottsdale
May 24, 2010, 02:21 PM
Thank you Scottsdale for bringing the new technology and possibilities for the MBA to our attention.


Hi there. Long time no see. Nice to see you back here.

Hey, you're thanking the wrong person for posting this thread. According to Timmy100 he or she deserves the credit for posting this as was posted with a link to a post 12 minutes before my thread creation of the topic. Nevermind that there was no information and just a link with his, he was indeed FIRST.

You should actually be thanking TimTom100 or maybe thank Engadget if you want to thank who truly posted this information FIRST.

In fact, I think MacRumors should delete this thread and credit it to Jim100.

LMAO!

Nice to see you again!

aiqw9182
May 24, 2010, 02:33 PM
Not going to happen. Apple cannot provide a 256 GB SSD and lower the price of the MBA. In addition, it cannot provide a 128 GB SSD standard in the low-end MBA. This just isn't realistic.

In addition, we could consider Apple having Intel "overclock" capable SL9600 CPUs to make 2.26 GHz Core 2 Duo or faster out of the current SL9x00 CPUs. We could get a faster clock speed still from a C2D SL9x00 CPU. Apple could definitely provide this for the MBA by negotiating a deal with Intel. And I don't believe it's out of the realm of possibility for Intel to want to make Apple happy and go to an extra length for Apple.

I think the C2D plus Nvidia 320m makes so much sense for the MBA. I was originally disgusted with the idea of sticking with these CPUs and Nvidia, but Nvidia upped the 320m to an 80% boost over the 9400m and uses less power. Since Intel kicked Nvidia out of the GPU/chipset business, this provides the best possible update right now.

I think there are lots of possibilities, but I see your pricing as way off. I think the prices go back up because Apple now has the iPad for secondary entertainment type device used for "netbook" purposes. The MBA should get more powerful and a higher price tag to pay for the upgraded parts. The 256 GB SSD alone is going to add maybe $300 to the price of the 128 GB SSD Apple currently uses. I just don't see even $1799 happening in the high-end with 256 GB SSD. I think $1999 is the new high-end pricing. I think anyone that cannot afford the price should buy a 13" MBP or cheaper yet MB instead. Apple needs to provide luxury and charge its users to buy it.

There is the possibility of other better components too. We could get a complete design change, upgrade to Core i-series CPUs, discrete GPU, more RAM, double SSD, 3G/4G Verizon card included, IPS display, and etc. Whatever Apple includes that costs more than the current MBA is going to be added to the price. Any MBA update at WWDC has to include a high-end MBA not an MBA that competes in the secondary market with the iPad.

If Apple were to go lower prices as you suggest, I would say that MBA would make no sense and would actually compete with the iPad. Those customers would be deciding if they want a secondary Mac OS X experience or a secondary entertainment computing experience from the iPad. I believe Apple has a better chance to differentiate the MBA further from the iPad... it's the only move that makes sense right now. Apple has said it's a mobility company now, so why not provide an ultraportable computer that's high-class and runs Apple's competitive advantage over PCs with OS X. The OS is important to many customers who need the MBA as a more input or work type performance rather than just a consumption device. OS X makes sense on an ultraportable Mac for the mobility company Apple has declared itself. Many want more than a smartphone OS on a tablet and the MBA is that device. More than ever I think the demand will grow for the MBA and people will use an MBA as their primary computer and the iPad needs a "home" to dock to... the two together are the ultimate in both Mac OS X work capabilities in the MBA and entertainment consumption in the iPad.
Jesus, you sure like to type a lot. I think that iPad claim is a bunch of garbage, because the MacBook and 13" MacBook Pro will still be cheaper and data has shown that the iPad has not affected any Mac sales. The Air already sells poorly as is, Apple might want you to buy the iPad, but they would like it even better if you'd spend more money for the up-sale to the Air. Putting it at $2000 for those specs will provide horrible sales results

Oh and I'm well aware the prices aren't super realistic but they support Apple's other pricings. Oh and Apple can't offer 128GB SSD in the low-end? If Apple sticks with those iPod hard-drives for one more round of updates I will seriously laugh my ass off.

"We could get a complete design change, Unlikelyupgrade to Core i-series CPUs Little chance, discrete GPU Zero chance, more RAM Sure, double SSD No chance, 3G/4G Verizon card included LMAO!, IPS display MacBook Pro doesn't have it, why would the Air?, and etc"

coast1ja
May 24, 2010, 02:33 PM
Hi there. Long time no see. Nice to see you back here.

Hey, you're thanking the wrong person for posting this thread. According to Timmy100 he or she deserves the credit for posting this as was posted with a link to a post 12 minutes before my thread creation of the topic. Nevermind that there was no information and just a link with his, he was indeed FIRST.

You should actually be thanking TimTom100 or maybe thank Engadget if you want to thank who truly posted this information FIRST.

In fact, I think MacRumors should delete this thread and credit it to Jim100.

LMAO!

Nice to see you again!


haha, don't let the glory-mongers get you down... the purpose of a forum such as this is to share ideas and information with people whom have similar interests, not to feed our egos. Any MBA discussion is good, as it shows Apple that there is still interest in this product. We should be glad to see that two people thought of the MBA (within 12 minutes of one another) when they discovered the information about the new intel chips.

gri
May 24, 2010, 03:00 PM
Audio over MDP is a no-brainer at this point.

If they do go with this config - they're gonna have to drop the price - have this 2.13Ghz model be at the price of the 1.86 Model currently.

We'll see - I really hope they can find a way to get the i7's in there.

And they will have to come up with something new by the end of the year (C2D out). So either they will skip the C2D solution now and wait for the more finite solution or if they have that already in the making they may introduce it as the new next thing (as it has been done before with the original MBA re: unibody) which will show the way for the MBP and MB in the future. Might even be ATI graphic solution to "punish" Intel for their move...

halledise
May 24, 2010, 03:16 PM
should the Air indeed be updated at WWDC, it will be awesome = extremely impressive - that's what Apple are great at.

wouldn't surprise me to see 2 models.

one with current 2.13ghz C2D and the aforementioned nVidia 320M, 2 or 4gb memory and same 120gb PATA or 128gb SSD (more likely)

t'other - one of the new fangled core i-x with suitably paired graphics, 4gb memory and either 128gb SSD or (more likely) a 256gb SSD.

expect to pay more than now for the 'high-end' Air, but should see same or less $ for the 'low-end' Air.
(hopefully with the Aus$ currently being sold down against the US$, we won't suffer pricing discrimination as in June '09 here in Australia)

then in 6 to 8 months time we may well see a total transition to core i-x with dedicated graphics and even a new form factor, though personally I'm still in love with the current shape.

a simplistic analysis I know, but having read all the foregoing posts we are in the realm of tech-speculation.
Apple read forums like these to gauge user sentiment and expectations and I'm sure they factor this in in a small way to their refresh plans.

ultimately though in comes down to what works, $ margins and of course the 'wow factor' at which Apple excel.

exciting time ahead boys and girls

Scottsdale
May 24, 2010, 03:22 PM
And they will have to come up with something new by the end of the year (C2D out). So either they will skip the C2D solution now and wait for the more finite solution or if they have that already in the making they may introduce it as the new next thing (as it has been done before with the original MBA re: unibody) which will show the way for the MBP and MB in the future. Might even be ATI graphic solution to "punish" Intel for their move...

As an AAPL shareholder, I would be irritated to know Apple isn't updating its Macs when the tech is available just because it wants to focus its energy on the damned iPad and iPhone OS.

As a customer, it is ridiculous that I cannot buy a CURRENT MBA. Seriously, it's an $1800 luxury product and could easily be updated with the Nvidia 320m, RAM update, and larger drive. It seems obvious from the users here that people are WAITING for an MBA update. Why not make customers happy? It is NOT too much to expect EVERY product be updated at least annually. I mean a 19-month-old MBA is ridiculous considering the tech exists to easily update it. Apple has parts and drivers ready for integration.

Surely there is an update soon whether it's a quiet update before or after WWDC or a real update at WWDC. It is ridiculous from either shareholder or customer viewpoints to accept a company to not keep its products current and relevant to focus on maximizing all products profitability.

We all know that people will buy an MBA with a 2 GHz C2D or C i7, with a 320m GPU or better, with 4 GB RAM or two RAM slots, with 192 GB to 256 GB SSD available even as BTO option, and a buttonless trackpad. The vast majority of would be customers don't need the C i7 CPU or discrete GPU, they just want the C2D and Nvidia 320m update with more RAM and more drive space. Why not take advantage of these customers and get a sale now and later rather than just one or none later by these customers adopting another brand. We all know OS X is quickly losing its superior brand advantage over Windows 7, so Apple needs to not count on holding its OS hostage... Apple needs to update products in a timely manner to ensure customer satisfaction in ALL MARKETS APPLE COMPETES IN.

Scottsdale
May 24, 2010, 03:31 PM
should the Air indeed be updated at WWDC, it will be awesome = extremely impressive - that's what Apple are great at.

wouldn't surprise me to see 2 models.

one with current 2.13ghz C2D and the aforementioned nVidia 320M, 2 or 4gb memory and same 120gb PATA or 128gb SSD (more likely)

t'other - one of the new fangled core i-x with suitably paired graphics, 4gb memory and either 128gb SSD or (more likely) a 256gb SSD.

expect to pay more than now for the 'high-end' Air, but should see same or less $ for the 'low-end' Air.
(hopefully with the Aus$ currently being sold down against the US$, we won't suffer pricing discrimination as in June '09 here in Australia)

then in 6 to 8 months time we may well see a total transition to core i-x with dedicated graphics and even a new form factor, though personally I'm still in love with the current shape.

a simplistic analysis I know, but having read all the foregoing posts we are in the realm of tech-speculation.
Apple read forums like these to gauge user sentiment and expectations and I'm sure they factor this in in a small way to their refresh plans.

ultimately though in comes down to what works, $ margins and of course the 'wow factor' at which Apple excel.

exciting time ahead boys and girls

Apple isn't going to go backwards to a "PATA" HDD. It would use SATA-II just as it has with v 2,1 MBAs.

I absolutely disagree that Apple would have two completely different chipsets. This is what you're suggesting, and that makes zero sense from a cost perspective. It costs more to keep two product run setups possible. It costs more to buy half of two different products. It costs more to integrate drivers from two different sets of hardware. It costs more to keep OS X upgraded with double the products to keep current.

If Apple has to solder RAM to the board even, it will probably just have one board with same RAM amounts in both low-end and high-end MBA.

Sorry, but we can look at how efficient Apple's MacFive is and how Apple uses one system to keep as many customers happy as possible. It actually would cost more money to make two different MBA's as you're suggesting than just to give every would be low-end MBA the same components as used in high-end model. This just isn't the way Apple does business, and we can see it with all of its Macs. Hell, Apple uses one strategy across five Macs to maximize its economies of scale advantages.

I see low-end and high-end MBAs as differing from each other by CPU clock speed with two CPUs that fit in same board, multiple drive sizes, maybe RAM if RAM slots, and other components not soldered to the logic board.

A C2D MBA means both get C2D and Nvidia GPUs. A Core i7 MBA means both get Core i-series CPUs and the same chipset. Now there could be a Core i5 in low-end and Core i7 in high-end but both would use same exact chipset.

Apple is king at ROI and that means one process and one component setup for as many Macs as possible.

ermir4444
May 24, 2010, 04:06 PM
I think the only way the MacBook Air will get updated during WWDC is a MAJOR REVISION and most likely a CASE REDESIGN. If it was to get the minor update it would have happened with the MBP update in April or with the white MacBook in May.

Apple needs to do a CASE REDESIGN, and redesign the heat-sink in order to have a Arrandale ULV or maybe LV processor and an ATI card with a bigger battery.

I think the only reason MB Air has such a bad battery life is due to ununiform thickness of the case. The battery sits on the thinnest part. In order for Apple to improve on this is to make a uniformly thick MacBook Air like the 13" MacBook Pro but with 0.5 thickness (barely bigger than a USB slot).Think a much thinner MacBook Pro 13" This case would have a lot of advantages:

1 - Better Processor i5 or i7 and dedicated ATI GPU (better heat-sink due to more volume inside the case and maybe 2 fans)
2 - Better battery life (More space inside the case for a much better battery)
3 - More ports ( Since the case is uniform you could have 2 usb ports in the side and maybe an sd card slot and battery metter)

Imagine Jobs coming on stage and saying we have a much thinner MacBook Air (0.5 vs 0.76) with a much faster processor (i5, i7) and killer graphics (ATI dedicated) with a 7 hour battery life. I mean people will sell kidneys to buy this thing. Can someone do a quick photoshop on a 0,5" thick MacBook pro with all the ports except firewire, ethernet and dvd drive.

halledise
May 24, 2010, 06:02 PM
Apple isn't going to go backwards to a "PATA" HDD. It would use SATA-II just as it has with v 2,1 MBAs.

I absolutely disagree that Apple would have two completely different chipsets. This is what you're suggesting, and that makes zero sense from a cost perspective. It costs more to keep two product run setups possible. It costs more to buy half of two different products. It costs more to integrate drivers from two different sets of hardware. It costs more to keep OS X upgraded with double the products to keep current.

If Apple has to solder RAM to the board even, it will probably just have one board with same RAM amounts in both low-end and high-end MBA.

Sorry, but we can look at how efficient Apple's MacFive is and how Apple uses one system to keep as many customers happy as possible. It actually would cost more money to make two different MBA's as you're suggesting than just to give every would be low-end MBA the same components as used in high-end model. This just isn't the way Apple does business, and we can see it with all of its Macs. Hell, Apple uses one strategy across five Macs to maximize its economies of scale advantages.

I see low-end and high-end MBAs as differing from each other by CPU clock speed with two CPUs that fit in same board, multiple drive sizes, maybe RAM if RAM slots, and other components not soldered to the logic board.

A C2D MBA means both get C2D and Nvidia GPUs. A Core i7 MBA means both get Core i-series CPUs and the same chipset. Now there could be a Core i5 in low-end and Core i7 in high-end but both would use same exact chipset.

Apple is king at ROI and that means one process and one component setup for as many Macs as possible.

point taken.

tim100
May 24, 2010, 06:11 PM
Hi there. Long time no see. Nice to see you back here.

Hey, you're thanking the wrong person for posting this thread. According to Timmy100 he or she deserves the credit for posting this as was posted with a link to a post 12 minutes before my thread creation of the topic. Nevermind that there was no information and just a link with his, he was indeed FIRST.

You should actually be thanking TimTom100 or maybe thank Engadget if you want to thank who truly posted this information FIRST.

In fact, I think MacRumors should delete this thread and credit it to Jim100.

LMAO!

Nice to see you again!

thanks.

jdechko
May 24, 2010, 06:28 PM
The lower energy requirements of the Nvidia 320m could allow Apple to de-throttle the SL9x00 OR give it same performance and permit maybe an extra 15% battery performance between charges. In addition, I was thinking what about throttling the Nvidia 320m. We don't need full performance of the 320m on the MBA. Even if it were a true 20% bump over the 9400m at full clock speed it would be a great experience for the MBA.

I view those updates to be the minimum that Apple can get away with for the Air. I think it would be a great update if they did all of that.

As an AAPL shareholder, I would be irritated to know Apple isn't updating its Macs when the tech is available just because it wants to focus its energy on the damned iPad and iPhone OS.

As an AAPL shareholder, I'd be irritated if I thought Apple wasn't making decisions to increase it's profits. Shareholders should be interested in Apple making lots of money (by staying relevant). You're both a shareholder and a very interested customer. You're speaking more as an Apple consumer (or borderline fanboy--but that isn't meant to be a slam at you).

ludavico
May 24, 2010, 06:30 PM
http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/5164/screenshot20100524at254.png



Agreed. Not earth-shattering, but good enough. Like the prices too.

Jobsian
May 24, 2010, 06:42 PM
Aaaah, yes, i saw this press release by intel earlier and immediately thought of this forum, great stuff! Excellent discussion so far


I think the only way the MacBook Air will get updated during WWDC is a MAJOR REVISION and most likely a CASE REDESIGN. If it was to get the minor update it would have happened with the MBP update in April or with the white MacBook in May.

Apple needs to do a CASE REDESIGN, and redesign the heat-sink in order to have a Arrandale ULV or maybe LV processor and an ATI card with a bigger battery.

I think the only reason MB Air has such a bad battery life is due to ununiform thickness of the case. The battery sits on the thinnest part. In order for Apple to improve on this is to make a uniformly thick MacBook Air like the 13" MacBook Pro but with 0.5 thickness (barely bigger than a USB slot).Think a much thinner MacBook Pro 13" This case would have a lot of advantages:

1 - Better Processor i5 or i7 and dedicated ATI GPU (better heat-sink due to more volume inside the case and maybe 2 fans)
2 - Better battery life (More space inside the case for a much better battery)
3 - More ports ( Since the case is uniform you could have 2 usb ports in the side and maybe an sd card slot and battery metter)

Imagine Jobs coming on stage and saying we have a much thinner MacBook Air (0.5 vs 0.76) with a much faster processor (i5, i7) and killer graphics (ATI dedicated) with a 7 hour battery life. I mean people will sell kidneys to buy this thing. Can someone do a quick photoshop on a 0,5" thick MacBook pro with all the ports except firewire, ethernet and dvd drive.This closely mirrors my thoughts.

I'll be honest, I want a major revision, but in the past I hadn't predicted one realistically lest I be disappointed, however now I truly believe it to be a more likely option than a minor revision, some of the reasons mentioned here and in other threads.

My own preference is for the strongest ultra low voltage processor Core-i7 because of it's low tdp and subsequently heat. I want to be able to use the air COMFORTABLY. I don't always have my notebooks on hard table tops. Lap surfing, bed surfing, sofa surfing, etc

Remember, these aren't only more powerful than C2Ds by the numerical clock speed but also by their 30% clock-per-clock gains.

I think we may see one. I certainly hope it!

As for an ATI card, well I would enormously desire one, I think the actual chances are somewhat low but I really, truly hope I'm wrong :)

halledise
May 24, 2010, 06:46 PM
probably a naive query, but how come everyone specifies the i7 all the time and the i5 and i3's don't even get a look-in? :confused:

tim100
May 24, 2010, 07:07 PM
i want bettet battery life 10 hrs and a glass track pad. how many think the ipad is the mba replacement?

fyrefly
May 24, 2010, 07:39 PM
probably a naive query, but how come everyone specifies the i7 all the time and the i5 and i3's don't even get a look-in? :confused:

'Cause the i3 and i5 UM processors are all clocked at ~1Ghz. And Turbo boost makes them up to 1.5-1.86Ghz, so it's hardly an upgrade (plus, with the intrgrated "Intel HD Graphics" thrown into the chip - the graphics are a DOWNgrade from the 9400M).

All this talk of a 9X00ULV update with Nvidia 320M puzzle's me. If that update was to happen - it would have happened already - IMHO. When the so-called "MacFive" went 9400M, all the Portables went at the same time.

Since Apple has not updated the MBA (when it's even updated the MacBook with the 320M) I'm hoping that they've been holding out for the 660UM-type chips to do something better with.

EDIT: I also don't this that the MBA is a competitor for the iPad. Two different interfaces and two different ways of computing. How many here have a MBA and an iPad? I do. And they're both great for DIFFERENT reasons, IMHO. The MBA is a real computer with full Mac OSX - and the iPad (which I love dearly) is still in it's infancy (at least, productivity software-wise). I'm a writer - as I suspect many who have MBAs are - and I can work for HOURS on my MBA - not on the iPad. The iPad is great, but just not "there" yet. I can definitely see the two lines merging sometime down the line - but right now they serve different niches, imho.

halledise
May 24, 2010, 10:16 PM
'New Intel ULV processors still a bad fit for MacBook Air'
By Chris Foresman

Intel finally took the wraps off its latest ULV mobile processors, aimed directly at the ultra-thin portable category. However, these new processors don't present a clear upgrade path for the MacBook Air, leaving Apple with no good choices to make when it comes to refreshing its own ultra-thin laptop.

The most likely candidate from Intel's latest Core i3, i5, and i7 mobile processors is the Core i5-540UM. Though its nominal speed rating is only 1.2GHz—much lower than the current MacBook Air's ULV Core 2 Duo at 1.86GHz or 2.13GHz—it can boost a single core up to 2GHz when conditions are right for Turbo Boost. Both cores are also hyperthreaded, so some performance advantages still exist on certain hyperthreading-friendly workloads even when running at a lower clockspeed.

However, there's a slight potential performance disadvantage to going this route compared to the Core 2 Duos currently used. According to Intel's specs for the 540UM, the processor comes with 4MB of cache, down from 6MB. This shrunken cache, when combined with hyperthreading, could be a recipe for some thrashing-induced slowdowns on more highly threaded workloads.

The cache issue is pretty trivial, though, compared to the choices Apple faces for graphics. Like the rest of Intel's Arrandale-class mobile processors, these newest ULV models are still saddled with the fair-to-middling Intel HD integrated graphics processor stuck right on the processor package. This updated IGP is certainly an improvement over previous Intel offerings, but it won't cut it as far as Apple is concerned—the IGP is roughly comparable to Apple's last-generation NVIDIA 9400M integrated graphics, and isn't compatible with OpenCL.

Apple might consider trying to jam in a discrete mobile GPU and use its automatic graphics switching technology. However, the package for the CPU alone—along with the Intel IGP that Apple doesn't even want—is twice the size of the small-outline Core 2 Duo used in current MacBook Air models. When the required small-form-factor chipset is included, that doesn't leave room on the MacBook Air's tiny logic board for a discrete GPU. And, even if Apple were to try and make space for all that, it would likely take up some of the precious space needed for battery capacity. A discrete GPU could negate a chunk of the power savings that the new processors offer, too, presenting Apple with a battery life double whammy.

Because Intel is still battling NVIDIA in court over whether it has the necessary license to make chipsets for Intel's latest processors, Apple can't pair these new Core i5 processors with the new NVIDIA 320M used in the new 13" MacBook Pro and white MacBook. That means Apple would have to stick with Core 2 Duo processors, and it doesn't appear that Intel is producing any newer small-outline versions. There would be a small performance improvement—especially paired with a likely RAM boost to 4GB—but not likely enough for current MacBook Air users to justify an upgrade.

Short of convincing Intel and NVIDIA to settle their differences, getting Intel to make a Core i5 processor without an IGP, and mating that to an NVIDIA 320M, Apple doesn't really have any options to offer a compelling upgrade to the MacBook Air. Future Intel processors in the Sandy Bridge family will have the IGP further integrated by packaging it on the same die as the CPU itself; if Intel includes OpenCL support for those IGPs, Apple might have a viable upgrade path. Then again, Apple may not be willing to wait that long; it might just pull the plug on the MacBook Air entirely.

Scottsdale
May 25, 2010, 04:44 AM
probably a naive query, but how come everyone specifies the i7 all the time and the i5 and i3's don't even get a look-in? :confused:

Until now, only the Core i7 brought two ULV CPUs. It provided a low-end and high-end MBA solution. In addition, until now there was one Core i5 ULV and there were ZERO Core i3 ULV CPUs.

The more important focus in my opinion is the Intel stated replacement CPU for the SL9x00 CPU is the Core i7-6x0LM. Apple has always used a high quality CPU in the MBA, it's just that people don't realize it. The MBA has a quick clock speed for energy used, and it has double the L2 cache that C2D CPUs have in low-end MBPs and MBs.

It would seem most likely that Apple would use the Intel replacement CPU for the MBA. These Core i7-6x0LM CPUs are fast. They run at faster clock speeds than the current 1.86 and 2.13 GHz. The Core i7-640LM runs at 2.13 GHz and boosts to 2.93 GHz.

We all should want these Core i7 CPUs. There are no Core i3/i5 CPUs that compete with these CPUs either. These are now 25W TDP chip designs. However, they include the GMA IGP. The hope by Intel is that Apple would use these chips with its own chipset and leave Nvidia out of the picture. I think that Apple is disgusted with the Intel GMA IGP as they went C2D in the 13" MBP and MB.

Plus, now we're understanding from the rumors in Asia that the MBA will use a Core i7 ULV CPU that overclocks the CPU by turning off the GMA IGP DIE. This makes sense to use a ULV CPU if the clock speed can compete with current MBA CPUs. So a 2.13 GHz Core i7 is going to provide more power than the current C2D at 2.13 GHz plus it would ideally be truly running at the clock speed full time. The current C2D CPUs used in the MBA are marketed at 1.86 and 2.13 GHz, but they rarely ever run near their stated clock speeds.

'New Intel ULV processors still a bad fit for MacBook Air'
By Chris Foresman

Intel finally took the wraps off its latest ULV mobile processors, aimed directly at the ultra-thin portable category. However, these new processors don't present a clear upgrade path for the MacBook Air, leaving Apple with no good choices to make when it comes to refreshing its own ultra-thin laptop.

The most likely candidate from Intel's latest Core i3, i5, and i7 mobile processors is the Core i5-540UM. Though its nominal speed rating is only 1.2GHz—much lower than the current MacBook Air's ULV Core 2 Duo at 1.86GHz or 2.13GHz—it can boost a single core up to 2GHz when conditions are right for Turbo Boost. Both cores are also hyperthreaded, so some performance advantages still exist on certain hyperthreading-friendly workloads even when running at a lower clockspeed.

However, there's a slight potential performance disadvantage to going this route compared to the Core 2 Duos currently used. According to Intel's specs for the 540UM, the processor comes with 4MB of cache, down from 6MB. This shrunken cache, when combined with hyperthreading, could be a recipe for some thrashing-induced slowdowns on more highly threaded workloads.

The cache issue is pretty trivial, though, compared to the choices Apple faces for graphics. Like the rest of Intel's Arrandale-class mobile processors, these newest ULV models are still saddled with the fair-to-middling Intel HD integrated graphics processor stuck right on the processor package. This updated IGP is certainly an improvement over previous Intel offerings, but it won't cut it as far as Apple is concerned—the IGP is roughly comparable to Apple's last-generation NVIDIA 9400M integrated graphics, and isn't compatible with OpenCL.

Apple might consider trying to jam in a discrete mobile GPU and use its automatic graphics switching technology. However, the package for the CPU alone—along with the Intel IGP that Apple doesn't even want—is twice the size of the small-outline Core 2 Duo used in current MacBook Air models. When the required small-form-factor chipset is included, that doesn't leave room on the MacBook Air's tiny logic board for a discrete GPU. And, even if Apple were to try and make space for all that, it would likely take up some of the precious space needed for battery capacity. A discrete GPU could negate a chunk of the power savings that the new processors offer, too, presenting Apple with a battery life double whammy.

Because Intel is still battling NVIDIA in court over whether it has the necessary license to make chipsets for Intel's latest processors, Apple can't pair these new Core i5 processors with the new NVIDIA 320M used in the new 13" MacBook Pro and white MacBook. That means Apple would have to stick with Core 2 Duo processors, and it doesn't appear that Intel is producing any newer small-outline versions. There would be a small performance improvement—especially paired with a likely RAM boost to 4GB—but not likely enough for current MacBook Air users to justify an upgrade.

Short of convincing Intel and NVIDIA to settle their differences, getting Intel to make a Core i5 processor without an IGP, and mating that to an NVIDIA 320M, Apple doesn't really have any options to offer a compelling upgrade to the MacBook Air. Future Intel processors in the Sandy Bridge family will have the IGP further integrated by packaging it on the same die as the CPU itself; if Intel includes OpenCL support for those IGPs, Apple might have a viable upgrade path. Then again, Apple may not be willing to wait that long; it might just pull the plug on the MacBook Air entirely.


The author here doesn't truly have a clue. First, Apple does have a direct upgrade path to the CPU that is meant to replace the C2D SL9x00 CPUs used in the MBA. It's called the Core i7-6x0LM. Instead of a low voltage CPU being 17W TDP as the SL9x00 it's now a 25W TDP in the Ci7 LM CPUs. However, they offer a 4W TDP savings over the 17W when adding in the 12W 9400m GPU.

What the author also doesn't realize, as apparently not able to read, is the reports coming in from those behind the rumors are the Core i7 ULV CPUs being overclocked. These privy with the information know exactly how the CPUs are being overclocked because the GMA IGP is turned OFF. When the GMA IGP is turned off, there is no need for power to be reserved for GMA IGP and therefore allow the ULV CPUs to be overclocked full time. So, now we can take the boost speed, and NOT make it the full-time overclocked speed, as that is when running one core. However, it will be faster than the 1.33 GHz the chips are currently clocked at. So we take a 1.33 GHz CPU and run it at 2+ GHz with GMA IGP DIE turned off.

Maybe this is an older article? Otherwise this author just isn't using the information behind the reports showing how a ULV is an upgrade path nor is the author looking at Intel's own stated upgrade path for the SL9x00 C2D CPUs the MBA already use.