Intel Announces 'Sandy Bridge' Core Processors

[vipergts2207]

Did you read the article? The guy I was responding to was making the claim that the IGP was gonna suck yet the article clearly stated otherwise.

Low setting overall differences from the 320M to SB IGP:
+3.47

Medium setting overall differences from the 320M to SB IGP:
-1.7

Net result in favor of SB IGP over 320M:
+1.77

I'd like to point out that not only was the SB IGP backed up by a quad core processor in those tests but the clock speed of the SB IGP in that model is clocked at 650 MHz while the one that would go into the 13" MBP would only be clocked at 500 MHz. You're leaving out a lot of important details.

 

[res1233]

I'm betting that if you included Nvidia graphics so tightly integrated into the processor as SB's IGP is, Intel would lose out, by a landslide, as usual.

 

[asdf542]

I'd like to point out that not only was the SB IGP backed up by a quad core processor in those tests but the clock speed of the SB IGP in that model is clocked at 650 MHz while the one that would go into the 13" MBP would only be clocked at 500 MHz. You're leaving out a lot of important details.

Doesn't matter if it was backed by a better processor, the overall performance is what matters as you can't get a 320M on anything better than a C2D. Also an 150MHz difference won't matter much. The fact still stands that it goes toe to toe with the 320M making it not suck which is again, what the guy I was responding to was stating.

I'm betting that if you included Nvidia graphics so tightly integrated into the processor as SB's IGP is, Intel would lose out, by a landslide, as usual.

No one is arguing that a new NVIDIA IGP wouldn't be better. But that's not possible so this is good enough for Apple to actually use modern processors in all of their machines.

 

[Yebubbleman]

Doesn't matter if it was backed by a better processor, the overall performance is what matters as you can't get a 320M on anything better than a C2D. Also an 150MHz difference won't matter much. The fact still stands that it goes toe to toe with the 320M making it not suck which is again, what the guy I was responding to was stating.

Being better on low-settings seems to speak better for the CPU portion of the pair than it does the IGP portion; the fact that the 320M still bests Medium settings doesn't have me all that impressed, nor stoked for this PoS taking the graphical helm of a future 13" MacBook Pro, assuming that thing even makes it to another rev.

 

[Val-kyrie]

OpenCL support in the IGP? Color me skeptical...

OpenCL support is in the CPU only, according to anandtech.com.

Did you read the article? Intel's IGP beats out the 320M in 5 of the 6 games they tested....

Only on low settings; on medium settings, NVidia 320M outperforms Intel in 5 of the 6 games.

does it support USB3?

Not without a 3rd party chip, according to anandtech.com.

 

[asdf542]

Being better on low-settings seems to speak better for the CPU portion of the pair than it does the IGP portion; the fact that the 320M still bests Medium settings doesn't have me all that impressed, nor stoked for this PoS taking the graphical helm of a future 13" MacBook Pro, assuming that thing even makes it to another rev.

Oh hey, if it isn't the man himself who tried to defend his claim by saying that you were waiting for the Mac OS X benchmarks.

Again, the processor performance doesn't matter. It's the overall performance because you can't get a 320M on anything better than a C2D. Oh and the 320M BARELY beat out the SB IGP on the medium settings in most games where the SB IGP was in one game had a 15 frame increase. Calling it a PoS when it stacks up to the 320M quite favorably (which Apple is still selling in some capacity in 4 of their 6 computer models) is hilarious. So are you now calling the 320M a PoS? The fact is that you said that the SB IGP was gonna suck and it doesn't so now you're biting your tongue and trying to dig yourself out of the whole you dug yourself in.

Only on low settings; on medium settings, NVidia 320M outperforms Intel in 5 of the 6 games.

Read the thread. The difference in the medium games were all either a 1 frame difference or much lower than the difference in frames on the low setting.

 

[Val-kyrie]

No USB3 support from Intel, and all the quad cores are 45W parts. Unless Apple redesign the 15/17" MacBook Pros, it looks like we're going to be stuck with dual core systems again. (the current design uses 35W chips)

I really hope that we either get Light Peak (seems like we would have heard something about it by now though…) or that Apple uses a separate USB controller to get USB3 support.

Considering that Steve said they don't plan on supporting USB3 at the end of October, it looks like we might be stuck with USB2. It was bad enough with last year's upgrade not supporting USB3.

Looks like the 13" MBP will have 2.1/2.3GHz low voltage options. (I think the 13" is limited to 25W TDP chips) At least they should finally be moving away from Core2.


The boost in performance and efficiency seems great, but it looks like the next MBP refresh is probably going to disappoint a lot of people. (myself included)

Unless Apple surprises me, I think I will plan to purchase my next Mac when Ivy Bridge comes out at the end of 2011. Hopefully then there will be USB 3 support, Blu Ray support, and 35W quad-cores at the new 22nm process. [edit: oh, and OpenCL support in the Intel IGP]

Has anyone heard Anandtech say something negative about a new Intel release?

Nope. When I read the article, I wondered to myself if there isn't some kind of funding/perks they receive for their overwhelmingly positive press statements on behalf of Intel, especially when anandtech touts the Intel 3000 IGP despite its poor showing in games on anything above minimum settings. This may be progress for Intel, but it is barely enough for anything other than basic word documents, internet surfing, and watching videos.

Mac users will have their GPU working on h.264 acceleration and full OpenGL 3.x support under bootcamp(windows).

Interestingly, it was an OpenGL game (Stalker 2, IIRC) that the Intel 3000 IGP was unable to run. I am not optimistic about Intel's IGP with regard to OpenGL support.

Intel's Sandy Bridge does not support OpenCL in their integrated GPU. It's GPU is not programmable like the discrete GPUs in the nVidia GeForce 9400M and GeForce 320M.

Intel still hasn't been able to develop programmable GPUs - which are required to run OpenCL.

Instead, and very disappointingly, the Sandy Bridge Processors will use drivers which will allow the CPU to run OpenCL.

OpenCL is suppose to run on BOTH the CPU and GPU, allowing both to multitask. This allows significant acceleration of certain tasks such as video processing. This allows significant acceleration of tasks since it can utilize the multiple processing units of modern GPUs.

Sandy Bridge Processors will only have the CPU running OpenCL tasks. The Sandy Bridge GPUs will be idle.

This means they are going to be MUCH SLOWER running OpenCL dependent applications than a combination of Intel Processor PLUS discrete GPU - such as the nVidia GeForce 320M.

This is one reason Apple decided to stick with the older Core2Duo processors plus GeForce 320M in the MacBook rather than stick an i3 CPU with integrated graphics like other PC makers. The discrete graphics - plus OpenCL capabilities - just blasted the newer processors with integrated graphics - such as the i3 line.

I am sorely disappointed in Intel. They are sorely lagging in GPU technology.

Sure, some sites are happy that OpenCL just runs on the Sandy Bridge processors. But they miss the point that if Intel's GPU was programmable, the Sandy Bridge processors would be so much faster than they are now.

We're still waiting for an Intel Processor with an integrated programmable GPU that can run OpenCL in the GPU.

Disappointing.

Well spoken. Thanks.

 

[vipergts2207]

Doesn't matter if it was backed by a better processor, the overall performance is what matters as you can't get a 320M on anything better than a C2D. Also an 150MHz difference won't matter much. The fact still stands that it goes toe to toe with the 320M making it not suck which is again, what the guy I was responding to was stating.

Yes overall performance is what matters. Just changing the CPU portion of the processor to a much lower performing 25W TDP dual core will lower the overall performance of SB in the 13" MBP. Then you also have to factor in a 150 MHz loss in the graphics part of the chip as well from what was shown in those tests. Losing 150 MHz is also a ~23% decrease in graphics performance. Since when is that not a lot? Taking both of these things into account, (and neither of us having hard numbers on this right now) I wouldn't be surprised if C2D + 320M still outperformed SB for the 13" MBP.

tl;dr
SB in the 13" MBP will not, under any circumstance, perform as well as shown in those tests. Where it will actually fall in performance, we cannot tell at this point.

Thankfully I don't have to worry about the 13" MBP situation because I'll be in the market for a 15" MBP.

 

[res1233]

Doesn't matter if it was backed by a better processor, the overall performance is what matters as you can't get a 320M on anything better than a C2D. Also an 150MHz difference won't matter much. The fact still stands that it goes toe to toe with the 320M making it not suck which is again, what the guy I was responding to was stating.



No one is arguing that a new NVIDIA IGP wouldn't be better. But that's not possible so this is good enough for Apple to actually use modern processors in all of their machines.

I know, but what i mean is that most likely not much has actually changed inside the IGP. The only other option would be ATI IGPs at this point, but they're under the same restrictions Nvidia was, so that would have to come with AMD processors.

 

[kukrisna]

hi all

first time poster...

been following the thread - my MBP is ancient - one of the first (a 2006 "Core Duo" - pre-2, that survived a half a bottle of wine post Apple Care expiration) and i almost bought a new 15" this past december but opted to wait

in all honesty, as Sandy is 45W, i wouldnt mind seeing the chip in a new Mini, then i would buy an Air on the side as i hate lugging my current 15" around - it wouldnt really cost that much more than a 15"

but i am avoiding that purchase right now as i wouldnt really want a C2D mini...

here's to the future!

 

[Val-kyrie]

Read the thread. The difference in the medium games were all either a 1 frame difference or much lower than the difference in frames on the low setting.

I read the thread. You are also failing to listen to others on this forum. The fact that anandtech is using the second highest frequency quad-core SB processor is also a factor that affects the graphics performance. Others have also pointed out that the Intel 3000 HD likely only outperforms the C2D + 320M in low game settings because the latter is bottle-necked at the CPU's frequency. Likewise, the Intel 3000 HD is outperformed in medium game settings where the GPU performance is the critical factor.

 

[asdf542]

Yes overall performance is what matters. Just changing the CPU portion of the processor to a much lower performing 25W TDP dual core will lower the overall performance of SB in the 13" MBP. Then you also have to factor in a 150 MHz loss in the graphics part of the chip as well from what was shown in those tests. Losing 150 MHz is also a ~23% decrease in graphics performance. Since when is that not a lot? Taking both of these things into account, (and neither of us having hard numbers on this right now) I wouldn't be surprised if C2D + 320M still outperformed SB for the 13" MBP.

tl;dr
SB in the 13" MBP will not, under any circumstance, perform as well as shown in those tests. Where it will actually fall in performance, we cannot tell at this point.

Thankfully I don't have to worry about the 13" MBP situation because I'll be in the market for a 15" MBP.

The SB IGP for any given model will be good enough to replace the 320m. Clock speed alone does not affect in game performance that much. Also C2D is a dinosaur at this point. All Intel had to do was come close to the performance of the 320M and they did. Now Apple can use modern processors in all of their machines. Won't be any different than when the processor got the shaft last refresh. Did the 2010 13" MBP out perform the 2009 model in CPU intensive tasks? Hardly noticeable. The GPU was better though. So now it will be the processor that gets the boost while also increasing battery life even more than what it was before.

Although at this point we don't even know what Apple could do if they removed the optical drive. We could see discrete graphics in 13" MB and or MBP then leave the SB IGP by itself in the Air..

I read the thread. You are also failing to listen to others on this forum. The fact that anandtech is using the second highest frequency quad-core SB processor is also a factor that affects the graphics performance. Others have also pointed out that the Intel 3000 HD likely only outperforms the C2D + 320M in low game settings because the latter is bottle-necked at the CPU's frequency. Likewise, the Intel 3000 HD is outperformed in medium game settings where the GPU performance is the critical factor.

It beat it by about 1 framerate in the majority of the tests and even with that they were playing at 25 FPS for both the 320M and SB IGP making low settings the optimal choice. The processor is going to be better no matter what, nothing you can do to twist that.

 

[macintoshtoffy]

OpenCL support is in the CPU only, according to anandtech.com.

IIRC OpenCL will be sitting on top of AVX which hopefully will mean those applications already taking advantage of OpenCL will yield benefits.

Only on low settings; on medium settings, NVidia 320M outperforms Intel in 5 of the 6 games.

Which kind of makes me wonder where it sits - whether it becomes the new MacBook GPU and the Pro range become dual GPU's that switch between the two.

 

[ScholarsInk]

I think the people who are claiming no one games on MacBooks is ignoring the fact that the 13" MacBook Pro is probably the single most popular notebook model among students, many of whom play games, whether through Boot Camp or natively on OS X. My 2009 model runs Mass Effect 2 and a number of other games quite well, none of which support Intel IGPs.

 

[thunng8]

Doesn't matter if it was backed by a better processor, the overall performance is what matters as you can't get a 320M on anything better than a C2D. Also an 150MHz difference won't matter much. The fact still stands that it goes toe to toe with the 320M making it not suck which is again, what the guy I was responding to was stating.

The frequency difference makes a large difference. All the games tests are likely GPU bound. Therefore a drop of 20% in GPU frequency will likely drop frame rates by a similar amount.

 

[asdf542]

I think the people who are claiming no one games on MacBooks is ignoring the fact that the 13" MacBook Pro is probably the single most popular notebook model among students, many of whom play games, whether through Boot Camp or natively on OS X. My 2009 model runs Mass Effect 2 and a number of other games quite well, none of which support Intel IGPs.

Mass Effect 2 ran fine in the benchmarks shown.

The frequency difference makes a large difference. All the games tests are likely GPU bound. Therefore a drop of 20% in GPU frequency will likely drop frame rates by a similar amount.

This is only clock speed we are talking here. That single percentage in no way shape or form relevant to how to the GPU will perform as a whole. Is a 2.4 GHz C2D technically faster than a 2.0 GHz C2D. Yes, but is it noticeable in usage? Hardly, if at all.

 

[MattInOz]

Earlier in the thread, someone mentioned ARM as a threat... Here's some baseless speculation:

If Apple used their iPad SSD experience to come up with the new MB Air with it's non-2.5" SSD storage... And Lion is bringing lessons from iOS back to the Mac... What's stopping them from doing something genius/crazy like adding an A4 processor to each laptop, providing (a) iOS compatibility in OS X, and (b) a chip which can take some of the heavy lifting away from the Intel IGP and CPU. Kind of like Altivec for the PPC, I guess.

My iPad decodes H.264 without getting hot or sluggish and the code has already been written for a lot of this stuff.

I just think that the Intel parts will be downgraded to being a (large) piece of the Mac platform at some point in the future, and everything I see regarding their huge leaps forward (sarcasm intended) says to me that they will only last so long, just like 680x0 and PPC.

Indeed plus the A5 should be a boast on that again so it's not at all strange to think of it driving full screen Safari, Mail, iTunes, iPhoto without ever firing up the CPU, then only kicking in the CPU as needed by code or demand. The big issue here is that it would probably need a whole lot of OS support to do it and these machines are pre Lion. I think this is what Lion is going to make possible.

So maybe the Air3 will be a combo A5+i5ulv at the end of the year. While it would be cool I can't see it this round.

Still other stuff from the iPad and ARM systems is you get an thumb nail sized CPU package jam packed on to a tiny motherboard. Compare that to the current MacbookPro motherboards and each of the chips has this massive carrier around it for the 1000+ pins. I mean Nvidia 320m and 330m have carriers the same size yet the 320m is a whole IO hub with pins with all the different IO devices. Does a GPU really need all that space?

Couldn't nVidia or ATI/AMD sell a GPU packaged with RAM like the A4 and most ARM systems are. Same with Intels IO hub surely it has a lot of pins that just aren't going to used in a laptop, and some that are going to used to connect to others chips on the board which could be packed in to save space.

Yes i know it all really comes down to heat but if you free up space you should be able to deal with more heat.

 

[thunng8]

Mass Effect 2 ran fine in the benchmarks shown.



This is only clock speed we are talking here. That single percentage in no way shape or form relevant to how to the GPU will perform as a whole. Is a 2.4 GHz C2D technically faster than a 2.0 GHz C2D. Yes, but is it noticeable in usage? Hardly, if at all.

We are talking about the GPU, not CPU. 20% frame rate drop is critical for games. Could be the difference between a game being playable or not.

 

[asdf542]

We are talking about the GPU, not CPU. 20% frame rate drop is critical for games. Could be the difference between a game being playable or not.

Do you not know how to comprehend? Guess I'll have to repeat myself... a 20% drop in clock speed alone does not correlate to a 20% drop in overall performance. It just doesn't.

The CPU and GPU aren't as different as you may think. Do a little research.

 

[CmdrLaForge]

If Apple can fit in the 45W quad core in the next revision which is not entirely out of range because the chipset is integrated in the CPU and was around 10W as well I will get one of those. In addition I would like to see USB3 and IPS Panels. Important for me is to keep the FW 800.

I like to add that I fully expect Apple to have a dedicated graphics card on the 15" and 17" as today.

 

[Eidorian]

If Apple can fit in the 45W quad core in the next revision which is not entirely out of range because the chipset is integrated in the CPU and was around 10W as well I will get one of those. In addition I would like to see USB3 and IPS Panels. Important for me is to keep the FW 800.

You'd be better off getting an external IPS display for what it costs to get one on your notebook.

 

[CmdrLaForge]

You'd be better off getting an external IPS display for what it costs to get one on your notebook.

I have an external IPS panel on my Cinema Display

 

[Eidorian]

I have an external IPS panel on my Cinema Display

I expect Apple to stick with TN panels for their notebooks.

 

[CmdrLaForge]

I expect Apple to stick with TN panels for their notebooks.

Why can they use it on iMacs, Cinema Displays, iPads but not on Macbook Pros?

 

[Eidorian]

Why can they use it on iMacs, Cinema Displays, iPads but not on Macbook Pros?

Because Apple can and people will still buy it.