AMD Radeon HD 6000M-series Released!

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by Hellhammer, Nov 29, 2010.

  1. Hellhammer Moderator

    Hellhammer

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Location:
    Finland
    #1
  2. Gen macrumors 6502a

    Gen

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2008
  3. Hellhammer thread starter Moderator

    Hellhammer

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Location:
    Finland
    #3
    There doesn't seem to be official TDPs from AMD but NotebookCheck is reporting 11-30W for 6570M. That should be suitable for MBP.

    6370M has 8-15W and would thus be suitable for 13" MBP if iX is used.
     
  4. emiljan macrumors 6502

    emiljan

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2010
    Location:
    Michigan
    #4
    What ever the tdp might be, i still think there is a higher chance of Apple going with an Nvidia Chip for the next upgrade. Seems they don't want to jump the Nvidia bandwagon even if it means better graphics performace for the macbook line.

    If they stay with Nvidia, chances are the MBP's will getter a descrete Nvidia 400 series chip along with an Intel IGP.
     
  5. fs454 macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2007
    Location:
    Los Angeles / Boston
    #5
    I don't understand why they're sticking with nVidia all this time. Apple and consumers literally got screwed harder than ever with the whole 8600M GT issue and I feel like if any company were to complain about another company that lacks in innovation as much as nVidia, it'd be Apple.


    Rebranded video cards over and over and over again while ATI/AMD innovates.
     
  6. Nein01 macrumors 6502

    Nein01

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2009
    Location:
    Germany
    #6
    sweet! plenty of time between now and april for apple to build the perfect line of macbook pros. i hope they don't disappoint us.
     
  7. iLog.Genius macrumors 601

    iLog.Genius

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #7
    Anybody know if there is a contract between Apple/nVidia or does Apple just pick which chip mfg. to use on their next lineup? Just from what I've read with those who follow AMD(ATI)/nVidia chips, it seems that AMD(ATI) has come a long way since Apple used the X1600 in a good way and in every way possible versus nVidia. A lot of those users also believe that AMD(ATI) would actually be better so I'm wondering what's keeping Apple from using AMD(ATI). Of course Apple is very concerned with their profit margins but from what is available to desktop users, AMD(ATI) seem to be cheaper than what nVidia is offering.
     
  8. Erasmus, Nov 29, 2010
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2010

    Erasmus macrumors 68030

    Erasmus

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Location:
    Hiding from Omnius in Australia
    #8
    According to the spec sheets, the 5830 is still faster than the 6570. Which is kind of disappointing.

    Maybe we can have two 6570's in Crossfire, and a 3D capable screen?

    (Yes, that was a joke... But also wishful thinking!)

    (EDIT: OK, maybe not a 3D screen. Unless Apple can get one with a decent resolution.)
     
  9. aimbdd macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Location:
    East Cost
    #9
    Amd processor? I would skip it. amd gpu? awesome! I hope they do go for it... Amd has really caught up gpu wise.
     
  10. mark28 macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2010
    #10
    In idle, the 6570M is pretty close to the power consumption of the 9400m if those numbers are true. I suppose you can throw in such as card in the 13"?

    ( the 9400m uses 10.8W in idle I believe )
     
  11. Erasmus macrumors 68030

    Erasmus

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Location:
    Hiding from Omnius in Australia
    #11
    Seems very high. I'd be more inclined to believe the 9400M uses 11W under full load. It is a low power integrated card, after all.
     
  12. D A macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2008
    #12
    That figure probably includes the chipset + GPU.
     
  13. mark28 macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2010
    #13
    http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/nvidia-ion-atom,2153-10.html

    I believe it's maximum is 20 Watts.

    TDP doesn't equal the maximum power a CPU or GPU consumes. We have seen that with the i5 vs i7, as both are rated with a TDP of 35W, yet the i7 consumes more energy than the i5. ( it has to do with the amounts of Watts cooling is necessary I believe, but I'll have to look it up what it means )
     
  14. Erasmus macrumors 68030

    Erasmus

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Location:
    Hiding from Omnius in Australia
    #14
    That links says the TDP of the 9400 of 12W. And TDP is the predicted real-world maximum power draw.

    And it's 11W for the entire Ion platform.
     
  15. mark28, Nov 30, 2010
    Last edited: Nov 30, 2010

    mark28 macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2010
    #15
    http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-Intel-Core-i3-i5-i7-Processors-Arrandale.25085.0.html

    Check the benchmarks here.

    The i7-620m under maximum loads uses 64.7 Watts, while it has only a TDP of 35W.

    TDP != maximum power.

    edit: I looked it up. TDP refers to the amount of heat is generated in Watts under load. It's not the same as power output.

    So the ATI 6500 might be just as energy efficient in idle as the 9400m, it could be hotter than the 9400m. We'll have to wait for more data.
     
  16. Erasmus, Nov 30, 2010
    Last edited: Nov 30, 2010

    Erasmus macrumors 68030

    Erasmus

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Location:
    Hiding from Omnius in Australia
    #16
    The i7's do fancy power management stuff, like turbo boost. If it's using 65W, and the cooling system (which is what the TDP is aimed at) only deals with 35W, then the CPU gets hotter, until assumedly something happens, like the CPU switches off turbo-boost, or the user does something less power hungry.

    The 9400M has no such technology, and if the cooling system was not capable of removing it's full TDP of heat, it would shut down.

    Heat Generated = Power Output.

    Where else does the energy go?

    Clearly, as we have no reliable TDP data at all.

    I am seriously confused as to how the points you are making are supposed to prove that the idle power draw of the 9400M is 11W. It's not 11W. It's a maximum of about 12W. You want to know how I know this? Some batteries for old 15" MBPs are 60Whr batteries. That would mean that based on just the idle draw of the GPU, the battery would be drained in 5 hrs. This is clearly not the case, as you should be able to get 5 hrs of real world usage.
     
  17. mark28 macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2010
    #17
    That is non-sense. The i3 doesn't have Turbo boost, and it gets a power output of 46.4W under maximum load. Believe me, TDP does not equal maximum power.

    The 9400m has a TDP of 12W and you're making the case that 12W is the maximum power output. That's false, because like I said, TDP != maximum power. I showed you some benchmarks, I'll let the numbers speak for itself.
     
  18. Erasmus macrumors 68030

    Erasmus

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Location:
    Hiding from Omnius in Australia
    #18
    The POINT I'm MAKING is that the idle power draw of the 9400M isn't anywhere near 11W, as you stated earlier.

    And TDP is the maximum amount of average power that a component is likely to draw in real world scenarios. Computer manufacturers use the TDP to design cooling solutions. Just because some benchmarker runs some stupid program to push components to the very edge doesn't mean that this is ever likely to happen for more than a few seconds at a time in real world scenarios.

    If computer manufacturers design cooling systems to the TDP (as they do), but the components really draw more power than this for sustained periods of time (as you seem to be suggesting) either things shut down, or things break.
     
  19. Hellhammer thread starter Moderator

    Hellhammer

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Location:
    Finland
    #19
    Remember that 9400M is the chipsets so that 12W includes the whole logic board. E.g. HM55 which is used in current 15" and 17" MBPs draws another 3.5W.

    FYI;

    http://www.cpu-world.com/Glossary/T/Thermal_Design_Power_(TDP).html

    I have no idea why are you arguing about this as it has nothing to do with the topic...
     
  20. AdamRock macrumors 6502a

    AdamRock

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2010
    Location:
    Toronto
    #20
    i dont think apple will ever put amd into there MBP line-up. but then again i dont really care.
     
  21. Erasmus macrumors 68030

    Erasmus

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Location:
    Hiding from Omnius in Australia
    #21
    I'm arguing because not having a brand new Sandy Bridge quad core MBP with a kick-arse GPU in it makes me SO MAD!

    That and the fact that I'm right.
     

Share This Page