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

[Stvwndr219]

Biting my lip. Biting my lip.

How the heck did you get burnt by using AMD parts in your computer? I'm not an AMD fanboy by any stretch of the word but AMD has been largely competitive over the past 15 years. They arguably won the battle with Intel during the Pentium 4 era. Without AMD, I believe Intel would not be as competitive as it is today. And if you hate AMD parts so much then do you hate Macs with ATI videocards in them? ATI/AMD make really good videocards.

I agree with this. It's because of the innovation of the Athlon FX and X2 series that we've begun to shift towards multiple cores - without them we'd be stuck with a 10 GHZ ridiculously hard to cool single core P4 variant still... Not to mention they first introduced the integrated memory controller to the consumer space.

 

[Erasmus]

Intel's own latest X58 based motherboards have USB 3.0 now.

Erm, is X58 the mobile Sandy Bridge motherboard we're likely to see in MBPs?

Oh, and to everyone else, the bitching and moaning about going to Intel iGPUs is getting rather grating. There's nothing wrong with Apple going to Intel iGPUs over NVIDIA crap dGPUs. It's a GPU ON THE CPU DIE!!! That means ridiculously low latency, and as I'm assuming it uses QPI to connect to the CPU, ridiculously high bandwidth.

Although the graphics core is obviously not very powerful, it will be perfect for doing small OpenCL tasks in OSX Lion and some apps. Due to the low latency, it will likely be better at some OpenCL tasks than a dedicated GPU. And all while no doubt using far less power than a 320M, or even a 9400M.

And of course, if you want to play games, or otherwise have use of a decent GPU, chances are you should get a decent dedicated GPU in a more capable MBP than the entry level 13".

Finally, I would like to add that this cnet rumour does not eliminate the possibility that all the MBPs will have discrete GPUs in them. Although the article says "Sandy Bridge only graphics", I wouldn't be surprised if Apple puts in a low-powered AMD graphics chip in there too with graphics switching, especially if the smaller models lose either the HDD or ODD. The rumour is just the result that Apple is obviously going to ditch C2D in favour of SB across the board.

 

[tigress666]

And of course, if you want to play games, or otherwise have use of a decent GPU, chances are you should get a decent dedicated GPU in a more capable MBP than the entry level 13".

Well, what about you want it to play some games but you don't play games near enough to justify buying the computer for the games?

That was a big disappointment in my 2007 MB... it didn't even do games well unless they were pretty old.

Just cause I want it to do some games doesn't mean I should have to buy the latest/greatest. Is it really too much to ask to have a small laptop (without having to sacrifice size) and have it at least be moderately good at games? You know, like my current 13" MBP (this year's)?

 

[murdercitydevil]

this is bad. if true I may stick with my 2010 330m MBP

 

[Erasmus]

this is bad. if true I may stick with my 2010 330m MBP

Erm, the "SB only graphics" part of this rumour is only really relevant to the 13" MBPs, and even that isn't certain.

The "graphics from Advanced Micro Devices" bit of the rumour is more relevant to the 15" and 17", and is a GOOD THING. AMD's graphics are presently annihilating NVIDIA in terms of performance per watt. And as Apple is only concerned about the "Watt", that likely means more "Performance" for us.

Is it really too much to ask to have a small laptop (without having to sacrifice size) and have it at least be moderately good at games?

Clearly

Although I still maintain a reasonable likelihood of the 13" MBPs getting a half-decent dedicated GPU as well. That would mean Apple could release a 13" MacBook with "SB-only graphics", no SSD, and an ODD for like 800 bucks, and it would still have a place in the market.

 

[ohbrilliance]

and using 2 1gb chips to do it.

Using two chips allows Mabcooks to take advantage of dual-channel memory, which is especially advantageous for integrated graphics that uses shared memory

this is bad. if true I may stick with my 2010 330m MBP

And why would you want to upgrade a new MBP? Personally, I plan to get at least 5 years out of my 2007 MBP.

 

[John.B]

How the heck did you get burnt by using AMD parts in your computer? I'm not an AMD fanboy by any stretch of the word but AMD has been largely competitive over the past 15 years. They arguably won the battle with Intel during the Pentium 4 era. Without AMD, I believe Intel would not be as competitive as it is today.

Without AMD, Intel wouldn't have had any pressure to go back and actually deliver on the x64 platform. Anyone remember Intel/HP/Microsoft predicting the Itanium as the future of 64-bit computing?

 

[Eidorian]

Erm, is X58 the mobile Sandy Bridge motherboard we're likely to see in MBPs?

That's not the point. Even Intel is adding USB 3.0 support on its own lineup of motherboards.

Remember, it's dead for Light Peak?

 

[Erasmus]

That's not the point. Even Intel is adding USB 3.0 support on its own lineup of motherboards.

Remember, it's dead for Light Peak?

Indeed. USB will be around for a long time yet.

Especially as USB and Light Peak have different device targets in mind.

So, as I see rumours of USB 3 being supported in Sandy Bridge, it seems safe to say that SB MBPs will have USB 3 ports. If it's already in the chipset, why would Apple NOT use it?

 

[Eidorian]

Indeed. USB will be around for a long time yet.

Especially as USB and Light Peak have different device targets in mind.

So, as I see rumours of USB 3 being supported in Sandy Bridge, it seems safe to say that SB MBPs will have USB 3 ports.

X58 (ICH10R) doesn't have an onboard controller for USB 3.0. They're using a third party one. The same will be necessary for Sandy Bridge.

The midrange LGA 1156 platform and its mobile sibling are going to have many more PCIe lanes and greater DMI bandwidth to avoid the bottlenecks that plague P55(M) when running a dedicated GPU, USB 3.0, and SATA 6 Gbps.

 

[Erasmus]

X58 (ICH10R) doesn't have an onboard controller for USB 3.0. They're using a third party one. The same will be necessary for Sandy Bridge.

The midrange LGA 1156 platform and its mobile sibling are going to have many more PCIe lanes and greater DMI bandwidth to avoid the bottlenecks that plague P55(M) when running a dedicated GPU, USB 3.0, and SATA 6 Gbps.

...

So, after a little not-understood wiki-ing, LGA 1156 is the platform that will come with Sandy Bridge CPUs? And the X58 is a chip that goes in the LGA 1156 board, connecting via QPI to the CPU, and adapting this bandwidth into PCIe connectors supporting 40 lanes? And USB 3 would have to come from PCIe cards?

I don't really get chipsets. But if my info is right, each lane should be able to support 4 Gbit/s, so that's 16 lanes for the GPU, and say overkill of 8 lanes for 2-4 SATA ports, another 8 for 4 USB 3 ports (some internal), which still leaves another 8.

 

[John.B]

Anything official from Intel has only said that that the Sandy Bridge processor core will support OpenCL 1.1. I have yet to see where they officially claim OpenCL support in the IGP.

Given that Apple seems intent on kowtowing to Intel, I'd be happy to be corrected.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13924_3-20016302-64.html

do you want me to google for you some more?

Even the Ars article is using weasel words when quoting the CNET article, like supporting OpenCL "in some form":

Apple plans to drop NVIDIA in favor of Intel's integrated graphics in its upcoming Sandy Bridge processors for use in Apple's 13" laptops, according to a report from CNET. Apple has so far resisted using Intel's current-generation processors in its smallest notebooks due to inferior graphics performance, lack of OpenCL support, and engineering constraints. CNET's sources claim, however, that Apple is impressed with the performance of Sandy Bridge's IGP, and that Intel plans to support OpenCL in some form, which would allow Apple to maintain OpenCL support across its entire computer line.

... and then coming right out in saying the Sandy Bridge IGP is incapable of OpenCL support because it's "based on an archaic, specialized design that doesn't do GPGPU":

In addition, Intel reportedly plans to support OpenCL on Sandy Bridge, in a roundabout way. Apple has embraced OpenCL by integrating support in to Mac OS X 10.6, and using NVIDIA controllers in its lower-end systems meant that all of Apple's shipping computers were compatible with the standard. The basic architecture of Intel's Sandy Bridge IGP can't support OpenCL functions at all—it's based on an archaic, specialized design that doesn't do GPGPU and will be replaced in Ivy Bridge later in 2011. But, Intel has been working on supporting OpenCL on its CPUs—with four simultaneous threads available on dual-core chips, it may be possible to execute OpenCL code acceptably fast on the CPU itself.

I might not have been so far off the mark after all...

 

[Eidorian]

...

So, after a little not-understood wiki-ing, LGA 1156 is the platform that will come with Sandy Bridge CPUs? And the X58 is a chip that goes in the LGA 1156 board, connecting via QPI to the CPU, and adapting this bandwidth into PCIe connectors supporting 40 lanes? And USB 3 would have to come from PCIe cards?

I don't really get chipsets. But if my info is right, each lane should be able to support 4 Gbit/s, so that's 16 lanes for the GPU, and say overkill of 8 lanes for 2-4 SATA ports, another 8 for 4 USB 3 ports (some internal), which still leaves another 8.

Minor typo on my part there.

LGA 1155 - Sandy Bridge, midrange and platform scaled down for mobile

LGA 1156 - Current desktop Lynnfield/Clarkdale platform (PM/HM55 mobile)

The midrange desktop is what you get on the mobile side as well since Intel moved to two distinct platforms under Nehalem/Westmere (X58 and P55). P55 became PM55 and HM55 for Clarksfield and Arrandale on laptops. It's the same P55/H57 PCH at a lower wattage.

LGA 1366 (X58) is 36 PCIe 2.0 lanes galore compared to 16 PCIe 2.0 lanes + DMI on P55 and its derivatives.

The DMI lanes under P55 are listed as 2.0 but they're run at 1.1 speeds. They're actually going to be 2.0 under P65/67 for Sandy Bridge. The bottleneck is running USB 3.0 and SATA 6 Gbps over 2GB/s (x4 1.1) of bandwidth. On some premium P55 based motherboards you get fancy PLX PCIe switches when running a dual GPU setup when compared to X58.

On X58 you can dedicate 32 lanes to dual GPUs and then the remaining 4 to I/O. It's noticeable on the latest revision X58 boards when a PCIe x4 slot is replaced with a x1 one. The lanes are going to USB and SATA controllers instead of the expansion slots.

 

[gkarris]

Cost and moving forward are issues...

Apple wants to use the newer processors, which means that it can afford the CPU itself to take over some of the graphics routines normally handled by nVidia chips.

The new Intel IGP's are supposed to be decent enough for the basic MacBooks and Minis anyways...

is that really what it's come to?

'Decent enough' for twice the price?

hmmm...

what happened to 'skating to where the puck will be'

Welcome to Apple...

Yes, let's go back to the 90s and software rendering. Seriously, anyone who used computers back in those days were shown the way by 3Dfx. Graphics should not be rendered by your central processing unit.

I'm just conveying Apple's thoughts...

I just got one of those Netbook specials at the Microsoft Store - AMD x64 Dual Core and ATI graphics for $199 - and that will be as almost as good as Apple's next Macbook with Intel Graphics at $999...

LOL...

 

[herro]

I just got one of those Netbook specials at the Microsoft Store - AMD x64 Dual Core and ATI graphics for $199 - and that will be as almost as good as Apple's next Macbook with Intel Graphics at $999...

LOL...

The Apple logo alone is worth the $800 difference... Silly goose.

Plus, no one at Starbucks will think you're cool on that $200 hunk of junk.

 

[gkarris]

The Apple logo alone is worth the $800 difference... Silly goose.

Plus, no one at Starbucks will think you're cool on that $200 hunk of junk.

LOL...

Everyone's too busy texting on their Smartphones to even notice...

 

[Erasmus]

<A whole lot of complicated technical stuff that makes my head hurt>

So, in summary, we won't get X58, we'll get P67, with one x16 PCIe slot taken up with the graphics card, and the 2 GB/s DMI thing used for everything else. Now, I'm not sure, but 10 Git/s bi-directional should be sufficient for proper use of USB 3, ie. 5 Gbit/s transferred from SATA SSD to USB device would use half the bandwidth.

Although if Apple does put LP in there as well, which could eat through the entire DMI bandwidth, that could cause problems. Although considering devices that can use the full 10 Gbit/s bi-directional of LP won't be around for a while, it's a bit irrelevant.

I just got one of those Netbook specials at the Microsoft Store - AMD x64 Dual Core and ATI graphics for $199 - and that will be as almost as good as Apple's next Macbook with Intel Graphics at $999...

You're funny. Or a troll. Or an idiot. Not sure which.

 

[commander.data]

... and then coming right out in saying the Sandy Bridge IGP is incapable of OpenCL support because it's "based on an archaic, specialized design that doesn't do GPGPU":

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2010/01/04/intel-core-i5-661-core-i3-530-cpu-review/2

Intel does have a DirectCompute driver for Windows 7 and its GMA graphics in development, but it won't be available until later this year.

And yet it's been previously reported that Intel is actively working on DirectCompute drivers for Arrandale, which is of course a GPGPU standard. So the archaic design they are referring to, Arrandale's IGP, just doesn't do GPGPU yet. Granted there aren't many days left in this year.

 

[KnightWRX]

Oh, and to everyone else, the bitching and moaning about going to Intel iGPUs is getting rather grating. There's nothing wrong with Apple going to Intel iGPUs over NVIDIA crap dGPUs. It's a GPU ON THE CPU DIE!!! That means ridiculously low latency, and as I'm assuming it uses QPI to connect to the CPU, ridiculously high bandwidth.

Slow down with the nerd porn there. Who cares about the QPI to connect to the CPU if the graphics performance just isn't there ? Seriously, high bandwidth isn't going to magically make this thing good if it gets 320m levels of performance. The 320m is old already, nVidia has much better stuff out and AMD is leagues ahead of it.

Intel is again late to the party.

And of course, if you want to play games, or otherwise have use of a decent GPU, chances are you should get a decent dedicated GPU in a more capable MBP than the entry level 13".

The problem is some people like the 13"'s portability. Not everyone wants a hulking 15" or 17" behemoth. The current situation was ideal. nVidia made great graphics for the lower Apple packages. Going back to Intel graphics is a step backwards, especially if what Apple is shipping now with the 320m offers more performance. Who cares about a 15% CPU bump ? It's quite rare to be CPU bound nowadays anyway. The GPU is a much bigger factor in performance.

 

[Erasmus]

Slow down with the nerd porn there. Who cares about the QPI to connect to the CPU if the graphics performance just isn't there ? Seriously, high bandwidth isn't going to magically make this thing good if it gets 320m levels of performance. The 320m is old already, nVidia has much better stuff out and AMD is leagues ahead of it.

I thought we had already established that the intel GPU will likely be at least almost as good as the 320M.

And bandwidth/latency does matter. It's the main disadvantage of GPGPU. And GPGPU will be a big thing very soon. I've already learned some CUDA programming, but I wish I knew much more. GPGPU is amazing. On the chance that this is irrelevant if OpenCL is not supported, please see paragraphs 1 and 3.

So, basically, you're complaining that a computer that was never made for gaming, which is sold alongside computers that are far more capable for gaming, but can game pretty well on its own anyway, MIGHT become slightly worse for gaming, but much better at everything else.

 

[Srirama]

I for one am glad i got the Nvidia 320m 13" MBP.
If apple goes intel GPU again,i think its going to be the GMA 950 and GMA X3100 Saga all over again.
Anyway,Lets see what this new Sandy Bridge offering does.

 

[ftonello]

INTEL Video card on macbook

Historicaly, intel and AMD makes processors and NVIDIA,ATI makes video cards . Why are they mixing the things up? Basicaly, industrial comercial policy in my "poor" opinion.
My black (late 2006) macbook with intel video card GMA is far away form many newers "ching-ling" net notebook.
It dont´play hd videos
it don´t handle 3d simple games.
it don´t work very well with keynote sparkle transintions
I can enumerate several applications that doesn´t work well, and not because the core 2 duo 2,1 GHZ and 3GB Ram...but because the poor intel GMA video CARD!
Is this acceptable for a HI-END, Piece of art, revolutionary,apple product?
A macbook is supposed to be usable for many years before upgrade. In my case 4.
Recently the autodesk announced the autocad native for mac...But just those who have nvidia mac´s are able to run it.
Will these video cards able to play FULL HD videos, handle 3d applications from almost every software house even native apple software (open CL, open this , opne that, it doesn´t matter)??????

I have my doubts...

 

[PlipPlop]

Go with AMD , I love my HD5970

 

[asdf542]

Even the Ars article is using weasel words when quoting the CNET article, like supporting OpenCL "in some form":

... and then coming right out in saying the Sandy Bridge IGP is incapable of OpenCL support because it's "based on an archaic, specialized design that doesn't do GPGPU":

I might not have been so far off the mark after all...

Quit wasting my time, kid. The CNET article I linked to was clearly talking about OpenCL in the IGP.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13924_3-20016302-64.html
When you are talking about DirectX, when the article is talking about a graphics director that means one thing. They are talking about the IGP.

Anandtech posts no source of where they heard that OpenCL will not be available in Sandy Bridge. And when CNET recently asked Intel to comment they said they wouldn't say anything. CNET actually has a source for their information which is Thomas Piazza. Stop scraping the bottom of the barrel to try and prolong an argument you've already lost.

 

[jnpy!$4g3cwk]

Go with AMD , I love my HD5970

How is the driver treating you? Crashes? OpenCL support? etc.