From what I am reading the version of the 320m being used in the MBP is actually integrated solution because if it was dedicated it would be more like most of the nvidia gt3x0m line in windows machines with 1gb of dedicated ram instead of 256mb or so of shared ram. I know ram is one part of performance of the gpu, but at that low of a ram and with Apple typically down-clocking the gpu, it maybe an improvement over previous 9400, but still a bit away from the PC counterparts, which makes it a shame. Also, depending on where you look the new intel HD is said to perform equally to the 9400m. I don't really believe it until I see it, but yeah.
I agree we all wanted dedicated graphics and they seemed obvious with Intel's knock out punch to Nvidia concerning Arrandale not licensed with Nvidia chipsets. However, would you agree that Apple would use one GPU/chipset across its entire lineup of 13" Macs and those that use the Nvidia chipsets in Mac mini and 21.5" iMac? Since Apple will use one chipset/GPU (it has in the past), would the MBA really accept a dedicated solution without lowering the CPU all the way down to an ultra low voltage to do it? Since the MBA, MB, 13" MBP, iMac 21.5" and Mac mini all use the same GPU/chipset, all products have to fit this one strategy. How does Apple make it work, use the Nvidia GPU/chipset in all of them to save money via economies of scale strategies. In addition, save costs in development of software production costs for drivers and also OpenCL and h.264 acceleration using this one GPU/chipset across all five devices.
It seems obvious to me that we will get an MBA update with the 320m and C2D CPUs. Apple will use the marketing of the new MBA as 80% better graphics and will relieve some of the CPU throttling to say 30% faster CPUs via the same C2D offering the same benefits as an Arrandale CPU.
It also seems obvious that Apple used the 320m because of the desire to use the Nvidia chipset in the MBA, Mac mini, MB, MBP (edited), and iMac 21.5." It would cost a lot of money to rework the 13" MBP to make the Intel chipset work with it, when Apple already is working out the Nvidia chipset for its 13" Mac notebooks.
The bottom line is Apple sees huge advantages in sticking with C2D because it can provide us greater GPU/chipset performance from Nvidia than it can by sticking us with Intel's GMA IGP and Intel's chipset.
We are going to get better overall performance from the 13" Macs, and Macs that use the same chipset as the 13" Macs (Mac mini and iMac 21.5") with the C2D CPU and Nvidia GPU/chipset. This was all about what the costs were for dedicated graphics, not just financial costs but energy costs in terms of heat and removing heat inside of these Macs... and the costs of losing out so much graphics performance by solely using Intel's GMA IGP with Arrandale CPUs. The end user of all of these Mac products is getting a much better all around Mac with a C2D CPU and Nvidia 320m GPU/chipset than they would get with an Arrandale CPU and sole use of Intel's GMA IGP for graphics. Now, could we get more performance from an Arrandale CPU and 330 GT dedicated graphics, but probably both the financial costs, and the problem of reducing heat within the confined space of 13" Mac notebooks and Mac mini wouldn't allow the use of a dedicated card. I could even see the MBA as being the single hold-out costing the others the loss of the dedicated graphics, because Apple wants to use one solution GPU/chipset across its entire lineup of 13" Mac notebooks and those that use that one chipset (Mac mini and 21.5" iMac).
This all makes a hell of a lot of sense if we look at Apple's history and the history of one GPU/chipset being used across all 13" Macs, iMac 21.5," and the Mac mini. It is unfortunate that dedicated graphics aren't coming, but this is a hell of a lot better solution than sticking us with an Arrandale CPU and sole use of Intel's GMA IGP graphics.
This also shows us that the other Macs will be updated soon. Apple delivered the 13" MBP first because it's their biggest seller. We will get a 13" MB with a C2D CPU and Nvidia 320m. We will get an MBA with the SL9x00 and the Nvidia 320m. We will get a Mac mini with a C2D and Nvidia 320m. We will get an iMac 21.5" with a C2D and Nvidia 320m. These will all come out as soon as Apple can get the new chipsets/GPUs integrated and ready to send down the assembly lines.
Also, I read one article that said the Nvidia 320m is using about 35% less TDP than the 9400m. Now, we're going to get an 80% boost in graphics performance over the 9400m, and we're going to use about 35% less TDP. What that means for the MBA. Apple can remove some of the throttling on the MBA's CPU and give us the same energy output or even less. So we're going to have an MBA that uses a 17W TDP CPU and an 8W TDP GPU/chipset. That is the exact same number as the 25W TDP Core i7-6x0LM low voltage Intel solution with Intel chipset. At the same time, the user gets a 30% boost in CPU by de-throttling the CPU somewhat, and an 80% boost in GPU performance. This is a much better solution than Intel's Arrandale with Intel chipset.
I really am changing tune on how I feel about this 320m, after I have thought about the Apple strategy with 13" Mac notebooks and the 21.5" iMac and Mac mini. I also feel that the 80% boost in performance for 35% savings in energy is an amazing boost. I also feel that Apple can boost the CPU clock speed of the non-MBA Macs, while with the MBA it can give us the same advantage of the Arrandale just by reducing the throttling. How about a 2.13 GHz SL9600 CPU that runs at or near 2.13 GHz most of the time? Would that be a bad thing over the current throttled solution that runs at 1.6 or 1.2 GHz a lot of the time?
