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

[wjlafrance]

Actually, that brings up a great point. In what way, excluding practically worthless things like brand-name and style is a Mercedes NOT overpriced for what it is. Save for its ability to run OS X without extensive patching a la Hackintoshing, how are Macs not overpriced as far as computers go? In what way, excluding the aforementioned, style and brand name are Macs not overpriced? Sure Unibody engineering and 10-hour battery lives are incredible, but worth the premium? No way.

Finally, someone sees my point!

The unibody engineering is necessary for my computing lifestyle. I'm a college student. The daily life of my computer is waking up, being used for a half hour, shoved into a bag, tossed in a car, transported a hour down the highway, and then spending the day being shuffled in and out of a bag repeatedly throughout the day, then to make the reverse journey home and be used for a few hours. I destroyed my Dell through this process, and I'd say I handle my computer pretty nicely. Most "business" machines are built for the business place, on a desk, and never moving.

My school wasn't built for IT students. It was built in the 70's, when nobody could have the knowledge that in 2010, every student would have a laptop and need an outlet. The 7-hour battery life is very handy, even though I only get 4 hours max the way I packrat my apps.

The last, and killer feature, is absolutely OS X. One of my programming teachers is a contract negotiator between the school and Apple. If they found out one of his students uses a hackintosh, they'd be very pissed, so he strictly forbids anyone to use one in his classroom. On top of this, the class he teaches is iPhone Applications Development. I'm sure you can put 2+2 together.

Likewise, if I put all that use into a car, I'd get a Mercedes.

 

[Yebubbleman]

Finally, someone sees my point!

The unibody engineering is necessary for my computing lifestyle. I'm a college student. The daily life of my computer is waking up, being used for a half hour, shoved into a bag, tossed in a car, transported a mile down the highway, and then spending the day being shuffled in and out of a bag repeatedly throughout the day, then to make the reverse journey home and be used for a few hours. I destroyed my Dell through this process, and I'd say I handle my computer pretty nicely. Most "business" machines are built for the business place, on a desk, and never moving.

My school wasn't built for IT students. It was built in the 70's, when nobody could have the knowledge that in 2010, every student would have a laptop and need an outlet. The 7-hour battery life is very handy, even though I only get 4 hours max the way I packrat my apps.

The last, and killer feature, is absolutely OS X. One of my programming teachers is a contract negotiator between the school and Apple. If they found out one of his students uses a hackintosh, they'd be very pissed, so he strictly forbids anyone to use one in his classroom. On top of this, the class he teaches is iPhone Applications Development. I'm sure you can put 2+2 together.

Likewise, if I put all that use into a car, I'd get a Mercedes.

Well no, because buying a Mercedes doesn't afford you that much more utility than an accord. Also, you could beat up a Toshiba in the same fashion and it'd take it just as well, if not better than your Unibody MacBook. But to be an iPhone dev, you HAVE to have a Mac, so there goes that argument.

Though I don't think you're seeing mine if you're "agreeing" with it in that fashion. I'm saying that for the hardware within, Macs cost more than they should.

Actually, since you mention it, I find that Apple is right -- battery life makes a huge difference in the usability of iPods, iPhones, and Macs. Lucky for Apple that the competition took so long to get this. (And, in many cases, still doesn't.)

Even with their batteries being what they now are, they still shouldn't cost so damn much.

 

[pr5owner]

Just a quick note here. You can in fact use a headset with a mic. I used to have a telecommunications job, and they actually required us to use a USB headset with mic, not the ones that use audio jacks. There are some very good noise cancelling USB headsets out there.

EDIT: Looks like Yebubbleman beat me to this...

straight from the article posted

The problem with external USB audio devices, is that there is a high latency between the input and the output.
Because I'm using a guitar as my input, I need a minimum latency which the Core Audio of the Mac gives me, this is why I'm trying to use Mac's Core Audio.

also you only have 2 usb ports they are most likely already full

 

[KnightWRX]

A Mercedes is more than you need for going from A to B, and therefore overpriced for that specific purpose.

Why did you post just to reiterate my point ? Apple doesn't make computers for point A to point B people. Just like Mercedes doesn't make a car for them. It doesn't make that stuff overpriced, just not what you're looking for.

People, overpriced is very simple to define : 2 identical products, in every way, that do the same exact things, no extras, no frills to any of them. One is 10$, the other is 15$. The 15$ is overpriced.

If the 15$ comes with something extra, it's not overpriced anymore, it's just different. If all you need is the stuff in the 10$ one, then the 15$ is not overpriced either, it's just more than what you need.

 

[Blondie :)]

x2 on this.

I personally think Apple needs to just design its own processor and call it a day.

Honestly my friend I agree with you. They design everything else on their own and it seems to work alright, why not design their own graphics card? I agree with this mostly because all the other companies can't quite seem to figure out that apple and windows are simply different in the way they operate. So, if apple designed their own chipsets, we might not have the lagging problems we do now during 3D games and the like

 

[435713]

Why did you post just to reiterate my point ? Apple doesn't make computers for point A to point B people. Just like Mercedes doesn't make a car for them. It doesn't make that stuff overpriced, just not what you're looking for.

Knight,

Do you think it would be wise for Apple to start diversifying a little more in their laptop lines? I personally was thinking it would be a good idea if they could find sweet spots in between what they already have. Possibly call the current line 'Macbooks' and redo the MBP line for more horsepower but still with good battery, 5-7 hrs. Macbooks probably could bump up to 12-15 hours.

O and Merry Christmas everyone.

 

[AidenShaw]

Do you think it would be wise for Apple to start diversifying a little more in their laptop lines? I personally was thinking it would be a good idea if they could find sweet spots in between what they already have. Possibly call the current line 'Macbooks' and redo the MBP line for more horsepower but still with good battery, 5-7 hrs.

Agree that something more powerful than the current top-of-the-line is needed - but I'd suggest the "MacBook Workstation" with options to quad and hex cores, dual spindles, a non-embarrassing graphics chip, ... (and of course BD).

IMO it would be fine with 3-5 hours of battery in "power-saving" mode (shut off several cores, maybe half the RAM active, IGP instead of the real GPU) - this machine is for professional photo/video/audio people who need power (and they're not worried about being far from AC). Keep the MBP as is for people who want modest power, thin, and battery life.

Diversity is a good thing.

 

[435713]

Agree that something more powerful than the current top-of-the-line is needed - but I'd suggest the "MacBook Workstation" with options to quad and hex cores, dual spindles, a non-embarrassing graphics chip, ... (and of course BD).

IMO it would be fine with 3-5 hours of battery in "power-saving" mode (shut off several cores, maybe half the RAM active, IGP instead of the real GPU) - this machine is for professional photo/video/audio people who need power (and they're not worried about being far from AC). Keep the MBP as is for people who want modest power, thin, and battery life.

Diversity is a good thing.

That would work. I think they really need something like that, currently looking over laptop prices and specs etc.. they are getting blown out of the water. Maybe the 2nd campus they bought is to pay more attention to their Mac line.

I got this damned gut feeling though that the 13 inch will be gimped hard, and the other 2 sizes will get modest updates at best. The 17' at this time should be no more than 1799 maybe lower IMO. They just never seem interested in selling at a larger volume. I look at most other makers and they have laptops of all kinds of configs, apple could do that and sell every one of them with the brand name they have.

 

[Klick55]

Do I buy a 13" MacBook Pros now or wait

I have decided I want to go Mac, have had HP, Gateway and Acer in the past.

I use my computer for Photagraphy editing, social networking, email, youtube and a bit of surfing the net. I am not a gamer: I'm a "gramer" (grandmother).

I have decided to move to the Mac because I'm tired of the updates, the crashes and virus programs. I was going to buy this week and noticed the comments about changes probably coming in the spring.

Question..... is this really going to make a difference to me since I don't do gaming and more than likely won't start now at my age Should I go ahead and buy now??????

Would like your opinion, thanks
Klick55....

 

[435713]

I have decided I want to go Mac, have had HP, Gateway and Acer in the past.

I use my computer for Photagraphy editing, social networking, email, youtube and a bit of surfing the net. I am not a gamer: I'm a "gramer" (grandmother).

I have decided to move to the Mac because I'm tired of the updates, the crashes and virus programs. I was going to buy this week and noticed the comments about changes probably coming in the spring.

Question..... is this really going to make a difference to me since I don't do gaming and more than likely won't start now at my age Should I go ahead and buy now??????

Would like your opinion, thanks
Klick55....

I don't think anyone can get a gauge on what changes might or might not be made. Depends on what you will be doing with the Mac, not sure if you want a MBP or an iMac. iMac's IMO are extremely solid machines, only update you might miss on that is USB 3.0. You can get the 13' MBP for 1,000 new if a microcenter is close to you. I went for that and it has been a very solid machine for me.

That said they might refresh really early next year so if you want to wait a little more it shouldn't be too long. If ones out there that fits your needs now go ahead and nab it.

 

[Yebubbleman]

Why did you post just to reiterate my point ? Apple doesn't make computers for point A to point B people. Just like Mercedes doesn't make a car for them. It doesn't make that stuff overpriced, just not what you're looking for.

People, overpriced is very simple to define : 2 identical products, in every way, that do the same exact things, no extras, no frills to any of them. One is 10$, the other is 15$. The 15$ is overpriced.

If the 15$ comes with something extra, it's not overpriced anymore, it's just different. If all you need is the stuff in the 10$ one, then the 15$ is not overpriced either, it's just more than what you need.

An Acura with similar configuration to a Mercedes with the same options IS cheaper. Certainly you don't have Apple specific things in other products, making them unique. Though, place a value on that innovation. Hell, even look at the manufacturing costs and you'll be shocked at how much more that difference is than it is worth. Though, they are THE ONLY MANUFACTURER out there that does what they do, so I suppose that you can't say that they're not overpriced any more than we can't say that they are.

 

[KnightWRX]

An Acura with similar configuration to a Mercedes with the same options IS cheaper.

Of course it is, it's an Acura, it's built cheap compared to a Mercedes. Build quality is a feature. I say that and I owned an Acura for 8 years, loved that car to death, but a Mercedes it wasn't.

 

[pr5owner]

Of course it is, it's an Acura, it's built cheap compared to a Mercedes. Build quality is a feature. I say that and I owned an Acura for 8 years, loved that car to death, but a Mercedes it wasn't.

of course it really depends on WHICH Mercedes your talking about, the ones that are actually made in Germany? or the ones that are made in Alabama

then we have the POS pictured above, if thats what we are talking about i would much rather drive a civic/CSX

 

[tigress666]

An Acura with similar configuration to a Mercedes with the same options IS cheaper. Certainly you don't have Apple specific things in other products, making them unique. Though, place a value on that innovation. Hell, even look at the manufacturing costs and you'll be shocked at how much more that difference is than it is worth. Though, they are THE ONLY MANUFACTURER out there that does what they do, so I suppose that you can't say that they're not overpriced any more than we can't say that they are.

And quality of materials can vary. The leather in the Acura can very well not be as good quality as the materials in the Mercedes.

I know that my car was offered with leather. Of which several people say the leather they uses scratches easily and tears easily. My BMW's leather was so good with some polishing it cleaned right up and it had a muddy dog with no protector on it and until I sold it I never treated the leather. It still looked non dry and uncracked when I did after all that. And not a scratch despite dog claws. And I really do love my Toyota. But I also realize they did use some cheap materials (I find that sad but on the other hand I probably couldn't afford the car if they had used better materials as they offered it for that cheap cause they found ways to make it cheaply).

Just cause it has the same thing doesn't mean it's the same quality thing. Now, I will put the disclaimer I can't say for those specific models as I've never had an Acura or Mercedes. Just using the examples of what I have.

 

[Galatian]

Honestly my friend I agree with you. They design everything else on their own and it seems to work alright, why not design their own graphics card? I agree with this mostly because all the other companies can't quite seem to figure out that apple and windows are simply different in the way they operate. So, if apple designed their own chipsets, we might not have the lagging problems we do now during 3D games and the like

[sarcasm] Yeah that's a great idea! Just like Nintendo develops own chipsets or Nintendo for the Playstation or Microsoft for their XBox or Intel with the super good running Larrabee... [/sarcasm]

Do you have any clue what it takes to design your own graphics chipset? That does not even include all the driver coding so it runs smoothly.

Oh an the A4 chip is not something completely designed from ground up by Apple. Don't always eat what Apple marketing serves you.
They already used existing design like the ARM 8 Cortex and the PowerVR. Of course designing this already was a very large effort, but definitely not as much as design everything from ground up

 

[alent1234]

And quality of materials can vary. The leather in the Acura can very well not be as good quality as the materials in the Mercedes.

I know that my car was offered with leather. Of which several people say the leather they uses scratches easily and tears easily. My BMW's leather was so good with some polishing it cleaned right up and it had a muddy dog with no protector on it and until I sold it I never treated the leather. It still looked non dry and uncracked when I did after all that. And not a scratch despite dog claws. And I really do love my Toyota. But I also realize they did use some cheap materials (I find that sad but on the other hand I probably couldn't afford the car if they had used better materials as they offered it for that cheap cause they found ways to make it cheaply).

Just cause it has the same thing doesn't mean it's the same quality thing. Now, I will put the disclaimer I can't say for those specific models as I've never had an Acura or Mercedes. Just using the examples of what I have.

years ago i was shopping for a leather couch and the sales person said that the cheaper leather grades tend to last longer and resist scratching.

i ended up going to seaman's

 

[wannamacpro]

4 thoughts as to why this is bad for the 13" pro

1. Price. Something that seems to have been overlooked in all of this is that the SB GPU is essentially a "free" offering. SB + i3 will quickly become the stuff of sub-$400 notebooks, if not sub-$300 netbooks. Apple will have a hard time justifying a $600-$700 price premium for this kind of hardware package. Apple could make this pill slightly easier to swallow by offering the i5 or equivalent in the 13-inch model.

2. Product cycles. GPU manufacturers have lived in a world of grueling product cycles for years. Chip revisions have come as often as every six months to answer the ever-increasing needs of games, HD video, and now, multi-processing apps. How willing will Intel be to retool a CPU plant just for the sake of increasing the performance of the on-die GPU?

3. Ditto software cycles. nVidia and AMD are used to shipping drivers at regular intervals to address rendering artifacts in new or previously untested applications, and to improve performance. I have seen performance increase by as much as 25% over the lifecycle of a GPU, owing to driver updates. Is Intel going to be this responsive to what will have to be perceived as the demands of "casual gamers?"

4. Questionable OpenCL performance. So far the language surrounding OpenCL performance in SB has been evasive, in my book. Is OpenCL going to be supported by the GPU, as well as the CPU? If so, it would appear that Sandy Bridge has 12 shader cores vs. 44 for the current nVidia IGP. Undoubdtedly they are faster, but are they 4x as fast?

IMHO, if this is the direction the 13-inch MBP is going, Apple would do better to kill it in favor of the MBA and focus on the 15 and 17-inch offerings (presumably with Sandy Bridge and actually "killer" discrete graphics).

 

[KnightWRX]

1. Price. Something that seems to have been overlooked in all of this is that the SB GPU is essentially a "free" offering. SB + i3 will quickly become the stuff of sub-$400 notebooks, if not sub-$300 netbooks. Apple will have a hard time justifying a $600-$700 price premium for this kind of hardware package. Apple could make this pill slightly easier to swallow by offering the i5 or equivalent in the 13-inch model.

Uh... the 320M's GPU is also essentially a "free" offering since it's part of the chipset that's required to have a PCI bus, Memory controller, SATA controller, etc...

Not much of a price difference here...

 

[wannamacpro]

Uh... the 320M's GPU is also essentially a "free" offering since it's part of the chipset that's required to have a PCI bus, Memory controller, SATA controller, etc...

Not much of a price difference here...

Uh.. not really. Apple could have gone with an Intel chipset / GPU for cheaper in 2010 - but they didn't because performance was crappy and Apple (rightly) believed the outcry against the current Intel IGP would be greater than the outcry against C2D (check the other forum responses about a potential Intel IGP-only offering). Yes, the nVidia is an IGP, but Apple had to make a conscious decision to go with the nVidia chipset / GPU - probably at at least slightly higher cost per unit than an Intel chipset offering.

 

[Yebubbleman]

1. Price. Something that seems to have been overlooked in all of this is that the SB GPU is essentially a "free" offering. SB + i3 will quickly become the stuff of sub-$400 notebooks, if not sub-$300 netbooks. Apple will have a hard time justifying a $600-$700 price premium for this kind of hardware package. Apple could make this pill slightly easier to swallow by offering the i5 or equivalent in the 13-inch model.

2. Product cycles. GPU manufacturers have lived in a world of grueling product cycles for years. Chip revisions have come as often as every six months to answer the ever-increasing needs of games, HD video, and now, multi-processing apps. How willing will Intel be to retool a CPU plant just for the sake of increasing the performance of the on-die GPU?

3. Ditto software cycles. nVidia and AMD are used to shipping drivers at regular intervals to address rendering artifacts in new or previously untested applications, and to improve performance. I have seen performance increase by as much as 25% over the lifecycle of a GPU, owing to driver updates. Is Intel going to be this responsive to what will have to be perceived as the demands of "casual gamers?"

4. Questionable OpenCL performance. So far the language surrounding OpenCL performance in SB has been evasive, in my book. Is OpenCL going to be supported by the GPU, as well as the CPU? If so, it would appear that Sandy Bridge has 12 shader cores vs. 44 for the current nVidia IGP. Undoubdtely they are faster, but are they 4x as fast?

IMHO, if this is the direction the 13-inch MBP is going, Apple would do better to kill it in favor of the MBA and focus on the 15 and 17-inch offerings (presumably with Sandy Bridge and actually "killer" discrete graphics).

The 13" MacBook Pro is my favorite currently shipping Apple Mac, and I couldn't agree with you more, it needs to go if they can't at least maintain their current graphics power in that machine while making the CPUs faster. I'm glad to see someone else coming to the exact same conclusion that I've been arguing for the last week now. You should repost all of that here: https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=11629182#post11629182
(unless it violates rules of some sort) because I'm trying to make that same argument and everyone's too damn sentimental over the damn thing to even consider that it has a limited future.

Uh.. not really. Apple could have gone with an Intel chipset / GPU for cheaper in 2010 - but they didn't because performance was crappy and Apple (rightly) believed the outcry against the current Intel IGP would be greater than the outcry against C2D (check the other forum responses about a potential Intel IGP-only offering). Yes, the nVidia is an IGP, but Apple had to make a conscious decision to go with the nVidia chipset / GPU - probably at at least slightly higher cost per unit than an Intel chipset offering.

This was probably offset by using a Core 2 Duo which is less expensive than the Core i3, which is less expensive than the Core i5 and so forth.

The seemingly unavoidable dilemma/trade-off they face here definitely doesn't bode well for the 13" MacBook Pro.

 

[wannamacpro]

This was probably offset by using a Core 2 Duo which is less expensive than the Core i3, which is less expensive than the Core i5 and so forth.

The seemingly unavoidable dilemma/trade-off they face here definitely doesn't bode well for the 13" MacBook Pro.

That's possible. Regarding the MBP 13-inch, I agree with you wholeheartedly. It is my favorite form-factor, and while I'm not a huge gamer, I do play sometimes - and I'd like to have the option to play something other than "Bejeweled" with reasonable frame rates and at least some eye-candy turned on. I'd gladly sacrifice the internal optical drive for a GPU manufactured by a company that knows and cares about graphics performance - even in their low-end offerings.

 

[KnightWRX]

Uh.. not really. Apple could have gone with an Intel chipset / GPU for cheaper in 2010 - but they didn't because performance was crappy and Apple (rightly) believed the outcry against the current Intel IGP would be greater than the outcry against C2D (check the other forum responses about a potential Intel IGP-only offering). Yes, the nVidia is an IGP, but Apple had to make a conscious decision to go with the nVidia chipset / GPU - probably at at least slightly higher cost per unit than an Intel chipset offering.

Why would it be more expensive than the Intel offering ? C2D + 320M vs Core iX + HM55/HM57/QM57/QS57, what makes you think the first is more expensive ? Do you have pricelists for each ?

The fact is, the 320M has no real redundant parts with the C2D processor, you're not paying twice for the same thing. For all we know, it's the same price but comes with much better graphics performance.

I know all about the IGP performance issue, check my post history on this subject tyvm.

 

[wannamacpro]

Why would it be more expensive than the Intel offering ? C2D + 320M vs Core iX + HM55/HM57/QM57/QS57, what makes you think the first is more expensive ? Do you have pricelists for each ?

The fact is, the 320M has no real redundant parts with the C2D processor, you're not paying twice for the same thing. For all we know, it's the same price but comes with much better graphics performance.

I know all about the IGP performance issue, check my post history on this subject tyvm.

Even if I were to concede your point, which I don't (the fact that a new Core iX MIGHT be as expensive as a C2D + nForce doesn't invalidate my original argument that the "free" Intel IGP should be considered a seriously low-end offering), what about the rest of the arguments against Intel IGP? I mean, do you have a point here? If you're trying to say the 320m is too low-end for a "pro" model as well, then I am in complete agreement with you. The 320m wasn't great, but it showed that Apple was at least paying lip service to graphics performance.

 

[KnightWRX]

Even if I were to concede your point, which I don't (the fact that a new Core iX MIGHT be as expensive as a C2D + nForce doesn't invalidate my original argument that the "free" Intel IGP should be considered a seriously low-end offering), what about the rest of the arguments against Intel IGP? I mean, do you have a point here? If you're trying to say the 320m is too low-end for a "pro" model as well, then I am in complete agreement with you. The 320m wasn't great, but it showed that Apple was at least paying lip service to graphics performance.

Uh ? I've been arguing against Intel IGPs because of their low performance all this time (again, check my post history on this very subject), where did you think I was arguing that they offer performance improvements ?

My only gripe with your post was with the quoted part. Price.

You say the Intel IGP is "free". I retorted that the 320M's IGP is also free. C2D + 320M or Core iX + HM55. Take your pick, both are 2 chips solutions, both require the purchase of a CPU die/South bridge die. What again makes the Intel IGP "free" and thus cheaper than the 320M's IGP ?

Do you or do you not have price lists ? If you don't, please stop claiming that there's some kind of saving here for Apple in terms of price. For all we know, the C2D + 320M solution is the cheapest option. There's no "Free IGP", you pay for it in the CPU's price for the Core iX line instead of paying for it in the Chipset's price.

 

[nick9191]

1. Get rid of the Superdrive.
2. Put epic ATI card in its place.
3. ?????
4. Profit