Apple Shifting to Intel Graphics for Future MacBooks and 13-Inch MacBook Pros?

[zap2]

Comparing my 11.6" Netbook to the 11.6" MacBook Air - I'd say not worth the extra $800 (speeds seem about on-par) - a screen that small, I'm finding out, wouldn't want to do anything serious on anyways.

That's your personal preference. I've got an 11'' Air, and I love it. Serves me great out in the field(I service computers as my current job) or in class. I had a 15'' MBP, and while it was a beast of a machine, going down to the C2D Air hasn't hurt me all the much. I can still having XP, Ubuntu or Windows 7 running in a Virtual Machine without issue.

And back in my dorm, a nice 22'' monitor to hook the little guy up. Just because I need 1080p at 20''+ at times, doesn't mean I need to carry it around all the time.

Take a current 15" Macbook Pro with the dual Intel and Nvidia GPUs. Install GfxCardStatus and FORCE the machine to use the Intel GPU.

Now, fire up your favorite OpenGL (3D) game. Observe the performance.

Bang your forehead against the desk repeatedly as you realize this absolute utter crap mediocre performance (I'm being generous here) is what "Intel HD Graphics" is capable of.

Now you know why this is a horrible idea. Intel can't make GPUs.

Switch back to the 330M and watch the frame rate jump up fivefold.

Sap some sentries, yo.

You're looking at old Intel GPUs, if the new ones have performance better then the stuff in current MBP/MB why not use them?

You're saying Intel "can't build [good] GPUs"....what you should say is "Intel hasn't been able to build better GPUs then nVidia, yet.." They are a huge corporation, if you throw enough money at an issue like this, you can start to get good results. Plus from a marketing stance, Apple loses out without the i3/i5/i7 next to their laptops.

 

[Yebubbleman]

You're looking at old Intel GPUs, if the new ones have performance better then the stuff in current MBP/MB why not use them?

You're saying Intel "can't build [good] GPUs"....what you should say is "Intel hasn't been able to build better GPUs then nVidia, yet.." They are a huge corporation, if you throw enough money at an issue like this, you can start to get good results. Plus from a marketing stance, Apple loses out without the i3/i5/i7 next to their laptops.

While this is true, I'm sure that, given the track record of the GMA 950, GMA X3100, and the Intel HD Graphics used in the current 15" and 17" MacBook Pro machines, you can understand our skepticism. If they are able to blow the GeForce 320M out of the water and have on par or better hardware support for things like OpenCL, then I don't think I'm just speaking for myself when I say that'd be great. But again, I'm not holding my breath as they've NEVER been good with this sort of thing in the past.

 

[Mal]

This argument goes out the window if you simply increase the thickness of the machine so one could have their cake and eat it too. The problem with the machine is thinness, not the optical drive.

Since when? You can't increase the size of a board in thickness to add room for more chips. If it was simply a matter of cooling, perhaps you'd have a point, but of course there's far less chance that Apple would make their laptop thicker than that they'd remove the optical drive. If Apple wants to add discrete graphics, however, they're not going to be able to do so by just adding thickness. Boards don't expand in that direction.

But it's a moot argument either way; Apple isn't going to kill the optical drive on the 13" Pro, nor are they going to give those customers discrete graphics performance; though with the 320m being on par with the 9600m GT, if they kept up that trend with whatever NVIDIA were to do next IGP-wise being on par with the 330m GT, it wouldn't be so bad at all. Though even that notion stands a fair chance of going out the window with a potential switch back to Intel. :-/

I think your assertion that Apple isn't going to kill the optical drive on the 13" Pro is a bit too emphatic. I think it's entirely possible, even though I don't think it's extremely likely, not in the near future. I wouldn't be surprised, however, if it happened, even in Feb-Mar, whenever the next revision comes. I agree that if they get good enough performance from the Intel chips, they're likely to stick with them even if it's not a boost over the current NVIDIA graphics, but if they think it's going to be a downgrade, they just might do something drastic like cutting the optical drive to put better performance in that little beast.

jW

 

[Yebubbleman]

Since when? You can't increase the size of a board in thickness to add room for more chips. If it was simply a matter of cooling, perhaps you'd have a point, but of course there's far less chance that Apple would make their laptop thicker than that they'd remove the optical drive. If Apple wants to add discrete graphics, however, they're not going to be able to do so by just adding thickness. Boards don't expand in that direction.

I meant that they could make the body of the computer thicker and that'd solve their problems. Obviously, they can't make the MLB thicker. And obviously they won't make the rest of the computer thicker as that defies Steve Jobs' obsession with thinness. Though, I don't think they feel that having an IGP in a 13" Pro is all that much of a problem, certainly not enough of one to remove the optical drive. And frankly, if I can run Final Cut Studio, StarCraft II, Bioshock, and all of the Steam games on it (which I believe one can just fine on the current 13" Pro), I don't see why I really need more on a machine that size without going to the 15" model.

I think your assertion that Apple isn't going to kill the optical drive on the 13" Pro is a bit too emphatic. I think it's entirely possible, even though I don't think it's extremely likely, not in the near future. I wouldn't be surprised, however, if it happened, even in Feb-Mar, whenever the next revision comes. I agree that if they get good enough performance from the Intel chips, they're likely to stick with them even if it's not a boost over the current NVIDIA graphics, but if they think it's going to be a downgrade, they just might do something drastic like cutting the optical drive to put better performance in that little beast.

jW

It's not happening this next refresh. I'd bet serious money on it. It might in a future one, but that's not the topic at hand. I get the feeling they'll want to prove somehow that it is an upgrade before making the switch back to Intel IGPs; certainly that's why we had Macs with the GeForce 320m and Core 2 Duos instead of Core i3 with Intel HD; because it would be a clear downgrade in terms of the IGP performance. My guess is that either (a) Intel's Sandy Bridge will prove to be better or on par with the 320m, and they'll switch; (b) The same statement will be true, but Intel and NVIDIA will have resolved their issues and Apple will go with a better NVIDIA chipset/IGP combo than the 320m, if not the same 320m; or (c) Apple will wait it out. There's no reason why customers of the Mac mini, white MacBook, MacBook Air, or 13" MacBook Pro can't wait a bit longer for Intel's hissy fit with NVIDIA to die down. Obviously, it wouldn't be preferable, but Apple has made us wait longer, and sometimes, the rewards are nice.

 

[miata]

This argument goes out the window if you simply increase the thickness of the machine so one could have their cake and eat it too. The problem with the machine is thinness, not the optical drive. But it's a moot argument either way; Apple isn't going to kill the optical drive on the 13" Pro, nor are they going to give those customers discrete graphics performance; though with the 320m being on par with the 9600m GT, if they kept up that trend with whatever NVIDIA were to do next IGP-wise being on par with the 330m GT, it wouldn't be so bad at all. Though even that notion stands a fair chance of going out the window with a potential switch back to Intel. :-/

Why include a big box in a portable machine that on average is used less than 1% of the time?

 

[Yebubbleman]

Why include a big box in a portable machine that on average is used less than 1% of the time?

This thread isn't about the freakin' optical drive. Apple is either going to include it or exlude it in the next 13" MacBook Pro. I'd bank that they're gonna keep it for those of us who actually use it and rely on it on the regular, but there are clearly those (you being one of them) that disagree. Cool. That's for another thread. We're talking about the IGP and whether it'll be made by Intel or whether it'll be made by NVIDIA and whether or not it'll suck. Not whether or not they'll be giving us the superdrive again. If you want to make the discussion about whether or not the absence of the optical drive will give us the discrete GPU that only a subset of 13" MacBook Pro customers are gung-ho about, I'm going to crush your hopes now; Apple will only make the device thinner in the optical drive's absense. Clearly, they have no problem with that machine having an IGP. They figure, as I do, that those that have that problem will have no problem stepping up to a 15" MacBook Pro.

Why include a big box in a portable machine that on average is used less than 1% of the time?

Or were you referring to a discrete GPU?

 

[Erasmus]

I'm going to say HD 6600M Series.

Let's hope they get released soon. I suppose you haven't seen anything about the 6600M series? Any likely specs? Likely release date?

EDIT: Maybe the 6650M is the reason those rumours of April are going around...

 

[miata]

Or were you referring to a discrete GPU?

 

[Yebubbleman]

:ulls own head out of own ass:: Well then, we're in complete agreement then.

Still though, I'd rather something like the 320M than the Intel HD graphics currently present in the current 15" and 17" MacBook Pros. I know we all do, I'm just scared that Apple will switch to it and it'll be a downgrade, or barely even a crossgrade. :-/

 

[miata]

:ulls own head out of own ass:: Well then, we're in complete agreement then.

Still though, I'd rather something like the 320M than the Intel HD graphics currently present in the current 15" and 17" MacBook Pros. I know we all do, I'm just scared that Apple will switch to it and it'll be a downgrade, or barely even a crossgrade. :-/

I don't think we are in agreement at all.

There is a class of people like me that wants a powerful machine when connected at home or the office with external monitors, storage and optical media writers. But we want something that is also portable enough to carry to meetings. For a lot of us the 15" screen is irrelevant when connected to an external monitor, overkill for meetings and simply too big for seating in coach when traveling.

All MPBs should be power machines. The 15 and 17 inch units can add additional screen space, I/O ports and optical drives.

 

[Yebubbleman]

I don't think we are in agreement at all.

There is a class of people like me that wants a powerful machine when connected at home or the office with external monitors, storage and optical media writers. But we want something that is also portable enough to carry to meetings. For a lot of us the 15" screen is irrelevant when connected to an external monitor, overkill for meetings and simply too big for seating in coach when traveling.

All MPBs should be power machines. The 15 and 17 inch units can add additional screen space, I/O ports and optical drives.

I get the feeling you are in the minority there. Were you not, the 13" MacBook Pro would be as you say it should. Sad fact is that I think that most customers of the 13" MacBook Pro are fine with an IGP instead of a discrete GPU. Certainly those with said machine that I encounter at my workplace are. Though the same group would also be upset to part with an optical drive, and apparently that is the minority so what do I know?

 

[miata]

I get the feeling you are in the minority there. Were you not, the 13" MacBook Pro would be as you say it should. Sad fact is that I think that most customers of the 13" MacBook Pro are fine with an IGP instead of a discrete GPU. Certainly those with said machine that I encounter at my workplace are. Though the same group would also be upset to part with an optical drive, and apparently that is the minority so what do I know?

I might have agreed with you before the MBAs became available. Now, anybody that can afford something beyond the MacBook, but doesn't need the power of the MBP will get a MBA 13. The MBP is now for those who need more power and expansion than the MPA.

Right now there this a huge gap in the laptop product line in that if you want something more powerful than a MBA 13 you have to literally double the weight and get the MBP 15. That hole needs to be filled by a MPB 13 with serious processing power and portability.

 

[Yebubbleman]

I might have agreed with you before the MBAs became available. Now, anybody that can afford something beyond the MacBook, but doesn't need the power of the MBP will get a MBA 13. The MBP is now for those who need more power and expansion than the MPA.

Right now there this a huge gap in the laptop product line in that if you want something more powerful than a MBA 13 you have to literally double the weight and get the MBP 15. That hole needs to be filled by a MPB 13 with serious processing power and portability.

The 13" MacBook Pro is portable enough. Those who need more portability than that will be fine with a 13" Air. As for performance, the 13" MacBook Air is on par, if not slightly faster as they've been able to push more out of the CPU in the Air. So figure they'll either do the same in the 13" MacBook Pro to make it faster and/or go to a Core i3. They won't give us discrete graphics because (a) whether you cite the optical drive or the laptop's thinness, there's not enough room and (b) they deem that 13" customers really don't need more than what a 320m-calibur IGP can offer, the target market seems to agree, and I'm sure Apple has the marketing data to back that claim up. Unless you are doing pro-gaming, or high-end editing/compositing that should best be reserved for something hefty like a Mac Pro anyway, a 320m is sufficient for most tasks. The question at hand isn't "why don't they make the 13" MacBook Pro more portable or more powerful", it's "what are they going to do regarding its IGP and will it be an improvement or a downgrade?"

 

[gkarris]

That's your personal preference. I've got an 11'' Air, and I love it. Serves me great out in the field(I service computers as my current job) or in class. I had a 15'' MBP, and while it was a beast of a machine, going down to the C2D Air hasn't hurt me all the much. I can still having XP, Ubuntu or Windows 7 running in a Virtual Machine without issue.

And back in my dorm, a nice 22'' monitor to hook the little guy up. Just because I need 1080p at 20''+ at times, doesn't mean I need to carry it around all the time.

...and my $200 Netbook is equal to it, if not better, performance wise...

Okay, Windows... but this thread shows that Apple will continue charge more and use hardware with lower specs compared to Windows machines...

 

[macintoshtoffy]

Intel doesn't play well with others. Even if the FTC would allow an Intel takeover of Nvidia, I'm not sure the EU would approve it.

Well, that too, but the hypotheticals were based on both sides approving it and the focus being the technical challenges rather than the politics.

 

[KnightWRX]

...and my $200 Netbook is equal to it, if not better, performance wise...

Your 200$ netbook probably has a Athlon Neo processor, which I'm sorry to say, is not even in the same league as the C2D in the MBA. It doesn't have a SSD, forget about performance there and the ATI graphics are not what you think they are.

Basically, you're living with your head in the sand if you think brand names are specs. AMD/ATI produces low-end components for netbooks that are power efficient, but not high on performance.

Post the model info so we can enlighten you (or better yet, just run geekbench on it just to see the processor's score).

 

[iEdd]

I have a $300 netbook. It's a complete POS compared to my MBA.

Build quality is what hits you first. Trackpad, keyboard, screen and tacky aesthetics come to mind before you even start on the fact that the Atom CPU is dog slow compared to C2D. I could go on about the lack of SSD and any sort of decent graphics...

Point is, if you think a $200 netbook is better than the MBA, you obviously haven't taken one out of the box, let alone used one. (Or even looked at the box for that matter. )

 

[Wicked1]

I think using Intel's GPU would be crippling any Apple device. Intel has for years tried to enter the GPU market only to fail by offering sub par products in base model Notebooks, let the real GPU experts Nvidia and ATI deal with the GPU's in the Apple products of the future.

The only ones that suffer from sure Corporate Greed is the consumer for lack of options as they hash out their differences. I have a Mid 2009 uMB with the 9400M and it works just fine, however I have tried MB's with the older Intel GPU and they are really bad.

It would be like Seagate who makes Hard Drives and storage devices entering the RAM market, sure they can do it, but why would you?

I hope Apple really thinks this one thru, otherwise I may be with my Intel Mac with Nvidia for some time.

 

[cathyy]

The amount of people bashing Intel graphic cards based on their past reputation made me stop reading this thread after the second page. Yes, they did absolutely suck, but if you guys too just one minute to read the articles posted, you'd realize the latest IGPs are actually pretty damn decent. It's slightly better than a 5450, which is almost on par to a 320M.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/3871/the-sandy-bridge-preview-three-wins-in-a-row/7

 

[KnightWRX]

The amount of people bashing Intel graphic cards based on their past reputation made me stop reading this thread after the second page. Yes, they did absolutely suck, but if you guys too just one minute to read the articles posted, you'd realize the latest IGPs are actually pretty damn decent. It's slightly better than a 5450, which is almost on par to a 320M.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/3871/the-sandy-bridge-preview-three-wins-in-a-row/7

Unreleased graphics being almost on par with now 2 year old GPUs ? Wow, I'm sooooooo impressed.

How is this any different than any of their other offerings ? Intel has failed to offer competitive GPUs since the i740, 10 years ago. From all the preliminary tests, Sandy Bridges doesn't seem to be any different.

The amount of people defending sub-par graphics in this thread is astounding.

 

[Erasmus]

Unreleased graphics being almost on par with now 2 year old GPUs ? Wow, I'm sooooooo impressed.

It's cheaper, much smaller, and more power efficient. How is that not an improvement?

 

[KnightWRX]

It's cheaper, much smaller, and more power efficient. How is that not an improvement?

Because it's not as performant and it's much newer, I sure hope it's cheaper, smaller and more power efficient. Seriously, what's impressive about a lower end product coming to market 2 years later ? nVidia could've produced a cheaper, smaller and more power efficient 320M, it would have been on par with this POS and would be 2 years old today. If they were to do it today, it would trounce the 320M in performance on top of being cheaper, smaller and more power efficient.

Color me impressed.

 

[Mal]

I meant that they could make the body of the computer thicker and that'd solve their problems. Obviously, they can't make the MLB thicker. And obviously they won't make the rest of the computer thicker as that defies Steve Jobs' obsession with thinness. Though, I don't think they feel that having an IGP in a 13" Pro is all that much of a problem, certainly not enough of one to remove the optical drive. And frankly, if I can run Final Cut Studio, StarCraft II, Bioshock, and all of the Steam games on it (which I believe one can just fine on the current 13" Pro), I don't see why I really need more on a machine that size without going to the 15" model.

I don't think you really understood me. Making the overall computer thicker doesn't solve all their problems. They can't add a dedicated GPU right now because there's no room, in addition to the cooling issues that would arise. There's no space left on the board for another major component like that. They would have to increase the area taken up by the board somehow.

I agree that I don't think it's really necessary, but like I said, I wouldn't be surprised (and certainly would never try to argue that I was sure that Apple would or wouldn't do something like that, they've already shown themselves to be making decisions in a different way than at times in the past, so I am refusing to make any absolute statements about what they will do).

jW

 

[junkster]

Secondary benefits matter than raw speed

If an Intel GPU uses less power or generates less heat, then I'm all for it.

I have a second generation x86 MacBook that I bought right when it was released in November 2006. And to be perfectly honest, it still feels like a brand new machine. It's very snappy, both in terms of CPU and video. I love it, and haven't had a reason to upgrade. And this was the older generation of Intel GPUs, not the flashy new ones being discussed.

(Do I play high-end 3D game on it? No. That's mostly because high-end 3D games are a bad match for notebooks. They chew through the battery and cause the fan to roar.)

Bottom line: even four years ago, what Apple was using for graphics processing was plenty fast for everything I do. I don't care what they use in the future as long as they aren't increasing power consumption while chasing some nebulous definition of performance.

 

[Ubuntu]

...and my $200 Netbook is equal to it, if not better, performance wise...

Okay, Windows... but this thread shows that Apple will continue charge more and use hardware with lower specs compared to Windows machines...

As much as I love my netbook I must question this. How many $200 netbooks use Core Duo processors? Do any non-Apple netbooks even use them?