Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple to Skip Intel Arrandale? Demands Alternative Chip?

anthonybsd said:
http://gizmodo.com/5065133/the-truth-about-the-apple-tax

Actually it's the complete opposite. Apple's best value is the 17'' Macbook Pro.
Click to expand...
I knew before I clicked the link it would be an old article. Do you have anything newer?

wizard said:
I realize you are likely limited by agreement in what you can say about AMD but frankly I've never had huge issues with their CPU's Rather the problem I ran into was the quality of the supporting chipsets.

If you can do enlighten us about these AMD issues. Because frankly they might not have many suitable chip combos for Apple hardware but I do see the possibility of building one very nice Mini out of AMD hardware. It would be a machine that performs better than the current and a great deal cheaper to make.

Dave
Click to expand...
Now that AMD is almost the sole vendor of chipsets for their processors the quality and feature set has improved greatly. The 785G isn't half bad either and it overclocks like a champ. So does my 760G. I have that running at a meager 550 MHz vs. 350 MHz stock.
 
"Intel Integrated Graphics" sends shivers down my spine.
Dear Apple, please don't go down that road again.

UNLESS... does anyone know what the actual performance is like on the latest or coming versions of IIG (bwaarh, shivers again...)?
 
macduke said:
I would like a 13" MBP with discrete graphics please. None of this integrated crap!!
Click to expand...

Same here! But I doubt thats going to happen for a while since the MBP 13.3'' were just introduced. I could see HDD upgrades or processor upgrades, very little improvements.
You never know with Apple, they can release anything anytime...
 
it looks like when I read this thread, intel wants to push the Integrated Graphics but the truth is Apple wants Integrated Graphics but a good Integrated Graphics... and apple very adamant not putting a good discrete graphics near $999 machines

we should blame Apple not intel. (I am assuming here you can disable the IGP in arrandale chips )

for us we all want better discrete Graphics card :rolleyes:

what they will do with Dual Core i5 Desktop Clarkdale CPUs?
 
Currently Apple uses 25-35 W CPU and 12 W (9400) or 23 W (9600) GPU. No data is available for ATI 5x00 series cards. ATI 46x0 series is 35 W. Putting a high power GPU would make the cooling quite problematic.
 
There goes my brilliant plan of buying the refreshed MBP while I'm in New York next month.

It'll be interesting to see what happens with this.
 
Ever thought of Battery Life?

I used Coolbook to reduce my V-core to ,875V (lowest possible) and my processing power while on Battery to max 1,5GHz which is enough for everyday computing on the go. I don't want my battery to be leeched by a discrete GPU what is way to much for my needs. I don't need a macbook pro for gaming or heavy Fourier Transformation Sequences. And Steve neither. Only Spec Nerds want to have the best possible. Most just want something that fit their needs. And for me a GPU like the 9400m is ok.

Integrated Graphics are a must in every Macbook Pro and they have to be moderate powerful and power saving. Best what can happen is Intel to take over nVidia to integrate their knowledge into new CPU/GPU generations.
 
D A said:
Currently Apple uses 25-35 W CPU and 12 W (9400) or 23 W (9600) GPU. No data is available for ATI 5x00 series cards. ATI 46x0 series is 35 W. Putting a high power GPU would make the cooling quite problematic.
Click to expand...
Where are you getting that? ATI says 30W for the 4670, but if you've got another source there's certainly motive for them to be fudging that number.

Like you say, there are no hard numbers, but all leaks point to the 5X00 series being around the same TDP as their 4X00 counterparts--slightly higher with the low-end Park series (X300).

Anyway, with the IGP disabled, Arrandale's TDP should shrink to be much closer to 25W. Calpella is an additional 3.5W, but obviously the ION chipset still consumes power even with the 9400 disabled. I don't think either a 4600 or 5600 card would be a major problem.
 
He said that she said that they did this and that and the other, but -- that's not what the other people said...

Who the hell is Theo Valich and/or brightsideofnews.com??

We'll see when we see -- who knows WHERE this info came from? Possible out of someone's butt to drive traffic.
 
whoami said:
i'm sure apple has it's ace with PA semi building something that would complement the Intel chips, not replace them! ;)
Click to expand...

Very highly probable that PA Semi is working on something for the iPhone OS line of products. There are no (or exceedingly little and no CPUs ) Intel products in those devices now. So there is nothing to replace.

It is an ARM chip ( which Intel exited that business years ago at this point. )
 
Simplicity

Spandexman said:
What would be the point of disabling the IGP? I mean, I thought that the point of graphics switching was to use the IGP for normal tasks, and then employ the discrete part for more graphics intensive activities to save battery and lower heat? What possible advantage could there be to anyone to disable the IGP? It wouldn't be cheaper, it wouldn't be more efficient, it wouldn't improve graphics (you'd use the NVIDIA card for heavy lifting in either scenario). Am I missing something?
Click to expand...

Remember that Apple's motto is "simplicity". Switchable graphics? That's for PC geeks :D
 
wizard said:
I realize you are likely limited by agreement in what you can say about AMD but frankly I've never had huge issues with their CPU's Rather the problem I ran into was the quality of the supporting chipsets.

If you can do enlighten us about these AMD issues. Because frankly they might not have many suitable chip combos for Apple hardware but I do see the possibility of building one very nice Mini out of AMD hardware. It would be a machine that performs better than the current and a great deal cheaper to make.

Dave
Click to expand...

I worked for amd plant that was sold to sony, we made a ton of amd chipset chips. It was an old( in 2000)fab that we used to jokingly call "the jurassic fab".It was an old 5 inch fab, many of the manufacturing machines companies had been out of semiconductor business since Reagan was pres.
 
iPhysicist said:
I used Coolbook to reduce my V-core to ,875V (lowest possible) and my processing power while on Battery to max 1,5GHz which is enough for everyday computing on the go. I don't want my battery to be leeched by a discrete GPU what is way to much for my needs. I don't need a macbook pro for gaming or heavy Fourier Transformation Sequences. And Steve neither. Only Spec Nerds want to have the best possible. Most just want something that fit their needs. And for me a GPU like the 9400m is ok.

Integrated Graphics are a must in every Macbook Pro and they have to be moderate powerful and power saving. Best what can happen is Intel to take over nVidia to integrate their knowledge into new CPU/GPU generations.
Click to expand...

yes mate, but I think to be fair, when I think Macbook Pro, like roughly 8/10 others on this thread, I think of the 15"/17" ones, but not the 13" Juniors....

and you sound to me as though you would be more comfortable with a standard macbook, you'll get more value for money mate!!
 
wizard said:
Nothing gets freed up as they just delete a chip off the MCM. There is not change to the Arrandale die at all. If Apple is lucky all they need to do is to add a buffer chip to bring the interface lines out to the real world. If they are real lucky maybe they don't even need that. It all depends upon how that GPU is interfaced to the CPU, if a fully buffered DMI of PCI-Express port is used they just need to have the pads connected up to real world pins.

Dave
Click to expand...

Fair enough. Then a second 32nm Westmere. :)

Rocketman
 

Attachments

  • intel_32nm_Westmere_IGP.PNG
    intel_32nm_Westmere_IGP.PNG
    148.3 KB · Views: 77
surferfromuk said:
Let's not forget that Apple is 90% of the $1000 plus laptop market.
Click to expand...

Not sure why should remember something that is not true.

Apple has a high percentage of the retail market sales. Not the market as a whole. Few large and medium sized businesses now buy their work laptops retail if they buy in any significant numbers. Dell/HP/Tosihba all will happily shave the middle man retailer cost off the price of the computers for customers who buy direct in volume. All these NPD studies used to spin Apple with high percentages increasingly measure less and less of the over $1000 overall market. It is a shrinking market that is increasingly shifting to non retail transactions.

Nevermind the substantive gaming rigs that are sold in that zone that don't have the "less than a inch" and thermal restrictions that Macs have and can take the other "extreme" processors that Intel has and don't require custom runs.
 
benedetti said:
Apple & PA Semi have managed to build their own chip already :eek::eek::eek:
Click to expand...

They don't need to build a whole processor just the second module to be packaged in the with CPU module instead of the Intels IGP module.

Ok so the module needs to have a memory controller as part of it but I'm sure Apple can put their hands on the needed IP to make that happen.
So the question is what do they do with all that space, bandwidth, heat that they would have to work with.

Could they get functions of the southbridge in there as well?
Do away with DMI interface and another chip altogether.
Or is there just no where enough pins to interface with all the things that need to interface with such a system on package.
 
deconstruct60 said:
Not sure why should remember something that is not true.

Apple has a high percentage of the retail market sales. Not the market as a whole. Few large and medium sized businesses now buy their work laptops retail if they buy in any significant numbers. Dell/HP/Tosihba all will happily shave the middle man retailer cost off the price of the computers for customers who buy direct in volume. All these NPD studies used to spin Apple with high percentages increasingly measure less and less of the over $1000 overall market. It is a shrinking market that is increasingly shifting to non retail transactions.

Nevermind the substantive gaming rigs that are sold in that zone that don't have the "less than a inch" and thermal restrictions that Macs have and can take the other "extreme" processors that Intel has and don't require custom runs.
Click to expand...

Really?

http://www.betanews.com/joewilcox/article/Apple-has-91-of-market-for-1000-PCs-says-NPD/1248313624
 
deconstruct60 said:
Not sure why should remember something that is not true.

Apple has a high percentage of the retail market sales. Not the market as a whole. Few large and medium sized businesses now buy their work laptops retail if they buy in any significant numbers. Dell/HP/Tosihba all will happily shave the middle man retailer cost off the price of the computers for customers who buy direct in volume. All these NPD studies used to spin Apple with high percentages increasingly measure less and less of the over $1000 overall market. It is a shrinking market that is increasingly shifting to non retail transactions.

Nevermind the substantive gaming rigs that are sold in that zone that don't have the "less than a inch" and thermal restrictions that Macs have and can take the other "extreme" processors that Intel has and don't require custom runs.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's the consumer market.

For what it's worth . . .

http://www.betanews.com/joewilcox/article/Apple-has-91-of-market-for-1000-PCs-says-NPD/1248313624

According to NPD, in June, nine out of 10 dollars spent on computers costing $1,000 or more went to Apple. Mac revenue market share in the "premium" price segment was 91 percent, up from 88 percent in May.

By the way, Apple's command of the premium market is way up from first quarter 2008, when, according to NPD, Mac revenue share was 66 percent. Gee, and it seemed so high when I broke that story.

Microsoft executives had better study Apple's success -- and well -- as they prepare to bring Windows 7 to market. The new operating system released to manufacturing today and launches on Oct. 22. But some people will get Windows 7 sooner. Microsoft might want to reconsider its marketing, too. Apple's premium sales success means that from one perspective, Microsoft's "Laptop Hunters" commercials are a failure.

Market Share 101

Microsoft and OEMs measure success in unit market share, which for combined Windows PC shipments is over 90 percent, according to Gartner and IDC. In the United States, Mac market share was a paltry 8.7 percent in second quarter, according to Gartner. The bulk of PCs sell for less than $1,000.

According to NPD, in June, average selling prices for all PCs sold at US retail was $701, or $690 for desktops and $703 for notebooks. But the ASPs get more interesting when comparing Macs to Windows PCs. For all Windows PCs, ASP was $515 in June. For Macs: $1,400. Desktop Windows PC ASP: $489. Mac desktops: $1,398. Windows notebook ASP was $520, or $569 when removing all those nasty, margin-sucking netbooks. Mac laptops: $1,400.

Mac ASPs have been higher for a long time, because Apple chooses not to compete at lower prices. The real entry price for Apple computers is $999 for the white MacBook and $1,199 for either the low-end iMac or MacBook Pro. By comparison, Windows netbooks sell for as little as $199, unsubsidized, and even some fuller-sized laptops don't cost much more. For example, HP laptops start at $349.99 after rebate.

Apple's starting prices put nearly all Macs in the premium category -- but A (higher pricing) doesn't necessarily lead to B (greater sales). All major Windows OEMs sell PCs in the premium category, too. Apple's charging more isn't necessarily recipe for people paying more for Macs, or their capturing big revenue share.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back