Maybe I should drop the argument but why did they put it then in all the other products? Are you saying that people wouldn't buy those if they wouldn't have the IPS panels?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Intel Announces 'Sandy Bridge' Core Processors
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Maybe I should drop the argument but why did they put it then in all the other products? Are you saying that people wouldn't buy those if they wouldn't have the IPS panels?
My opinion is worth about US$9.60 to Apple right now. Frankly, I want my money back now.Maybe I should drop the argument but why did they put it then in all the other products? Are you saying that people wouldn't buy those if they wouldn't have the IPS panels?
Costs. Notebook IPS displays are just expensive.
If you really want one, HP makes one as an option for some Elitebook models.
Anandtech did a review of that machine along with a near ancient IBM ThinkPad with a PVA based panel. It's a $550 option on the Elitebook.
People are forgetting that the Quad-Core CPU's 45W TDP includes both the CPU AND the GPU. What's more, the 45W TDP is the MAX on the thermal envelope. We're also hearing countless reports about how energy-efficient the Sandy Bridge Quad-Cores are, and combined with Turboboost 2.0's race to idle, battery life and heat production is not going to be as much of a problem as people are thinking it is.
Also, considering Quad-Cores are the only CPUs in the new line currently available in the laptop market, in other words, the standard in all Sandy Bridge laptops, if Apple refreshes sooner than later, the likelihood that they use Quad-Cores in their 15" and 17" Pros is pretty high.
Also, considering Quad-Cores are the only CPUs in the new line currently available in the laptop market, in other words, the standard in all Sandy Bridge laptops, if Apple refreshes sooner than later, the likelihood that they use Quad-Cores in their 15" and 17" Pros is pretty high.
But it's still 45W, the cooling system must be able to dissipate that much heat. In most cases, it won't achieve that but when under full load, it might. The current CPUs Apple uses are 35W and AFAIK Apple has always used 35W CPUs. It's likely that Apple would have to improve the cooling system in order to dissipate 45W from the CPU.
Dual cores will be available early next month so IMO your point about availability is nonsense, it doesn't make it more likely that Apple will use quad. Quad core would be high-end only anyway due to price so Apple will have to wait for the dual core CPUs before they can refresh the MBP.
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.
First and foremost, "Hole" and "Whole", though one has a "W" in front of it, the two have entirely different meanings. I'd tell you to look it up, but I think I've been mean enough about it.
Secondly, I'm digging myself out of no such HOLE. I don't know how many computers (not just Macs) that you've used with any sort of Intel based graphics. I, myself have had the pleasure (torture) of using four of them, one Intel Mac mini, one MacBook, a Toshiba Satellite, and an Asus Eee PC NetBook. For the Netbook, I can justify use of those graphics, for the other three machines, performance IS pitiful. This is why when reading this announcement cold (i.e. not looking up benchmarks) I'm skeptical that any IGP from Intel is going to be even remotely passable as an IGP. Having seen the 9400M and then 320M from NVIDIA, I'm actually confident that while still paling in comparison to a dedicated GPU, IGPs don't have to suck THAT hard. This is why I'm skeptical and still reserve final judgement until I see a Mac model with one with which to compare the difference. From the sounds of it, there is no OpenCL on the IGP half of Sandy Bridge yet, so I doubt it'll end up in a shipping Mac without a dedicated GPU ANYWAY, given Apple's vested interest in it.
Regardless, the fact that the Sandy Bridge IGP only came close to beating the 320M on the medium settings of the games is rad. Though, you're still telling me that it's a step backwards, albeit a small one. You're also telling me that Sandy Bridge's IGP needed its CPU half to best the GeForce 320M running on a Core 2 Duo. I'm assuming that Sandy Bridge's IGP beats the living crap out of the GeForce 9400M (regardless of what CPU is running in tow) and if Apple had never gone with the 320M, I'd have no qualms about transitioning to this clearly better IGP and finally moving away from the already older-than-needed mobile Core 2 Duo CPUs. However, it's sounding like if I'm to have Sandy Bridge at all, it's to be on a 15" MacBook Pro where I won't have to rely on (once again) sub-par Intel graphics.
Woo Hoo, they came ALMOST close to beating it on the settings that count! It should be blowing the GeForce 320M clear out of the water in every setting; it should be as radical of a jump in performance as going from the GMA X3100 to the GeForce 9400M was or as radical as the jump from the GeForce 9400M to the GeForce 320M. To Intel's credit, that is further than they've ever come before in terms of IGP performance, but that's still pitiful, I'm sorry.
Last edited:
But the whole point of OpenCL is to be able to offload certain types of processing to the GPU. To emulate that in the CPU (instead of just processing those tasks the "normal" way) shows how completely backward the graphics team at Intel is. They are designing to a checklist, vs. designing what would actually be useful. Their "new, improved IGP" still can't do what modern GPUs are doing...
What are the sizes of the laptops that have IPS displays? Everyone thinks IPS displays should go into everything, but the technology just isn't there yet. If you don't believe me, go buy one of the pioneering "laptops" where they are attempting it.
How much of a decrease do you expect? From your post it seems you expect no decrease at all.
I think you should do some research. I said if the bottleneck if of the game is GPU speed, then a 20% decrease in GPU speed will likely decrease a similar amount in frame rate.
Check the desktop review where they review the IGP with different frequencies. There are quite a few games in there that decrease their frame rate by over 15%.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4083/...-i5-2600k-i5-2500k-and-core-i3-2100-tested/11
So what is the conclusion?
320M+core 2 duo is approx 5% faster than highly clock Intel IGP in i7 Quad mobile (medium settings). This result is not relevant since the macbook Pro 13" will not get a i7 quad core chip.
320M+core 2 duo would be around 15-20% faster than lower clocked Intel IGP in i3 Dual core mobile which the 13" macbook pro will likely get.
320M+ core 2 duo > 20% faster than even lower clocked Intel IGP in i5/i7 ULV Dual core mobile in Macbook Air.
Last edited:
Well, there are 3.5" and 9.7" IPS panels for iPhone and iPad plus 21.5" and 27" IPS panels for iMac so why couldn't there be 13-17" panels for laptops? Makes no sense that smaller and bigger displays can be made but not something between them
Hear hear! New 17" MBPs should have: quad SBs, usb 3.0, ati disreet gpu, blade ssd & ips displays.
What they shouldn't have: odd & hdd.
What they shouldn't have: odd & hdd.
Yea and worth every penny.
My now dead 6 year old IBM (real IBM not Lenovo) Thinkpad had an IPS screen, it was beautiful.
If Apple do put Quad Cores in the MBP 15", I'll definitely jump on that
An upgrade to Sandy Bridge dual cores is meh .. only about 15% CPU speed increase. I'm also hoping they put in an AMD GPU as well since right now, they are much faster than Nvidia's mobile solution.people still playing games on PC's or doing heavy photoshop word that require a decent graphics chip are going to buy discrete. the 95% of other PC users will buy Intel graphics because the performance is more than enough for what they want to do
for the $300 it costs to get a decent graphics chip in a laptop i just bought an x-box
Dream on. Optical drives (as well as hard drives on the 15" and 17" models) are sticking around in the "MacBook Pro" line, Quad Core chips require way more room for venting than Apple allows for in their 17" MacBook Pro computers, and Apple's not adopting USB 3.0 until Intel natively adopts it into their chipsets (which is still a ways off from happening, sadly). Discreet GPUs, Blade SSDs, and IPS displays are all fair game though.
For the White MacBook, MacBook Air, and Mac mini, I agree with you. I couldn't disagree more with regards to the 13" MacBook Pro, though it is my theory that it will be discontinued for this very reason.
The HP Elitebook 8740w is not a "pioneering" laptop and the DreamColor display option is great.
My MBA didn't cost 300$ to give me the ability to play games on my 320M card. I don't see why I'd have to praise Intel for forcing me to settle for a downgrade next time I do choose to change my laptop.
the 320M is pretty crappy compared to what i can get in the same price range for a wintel laptop. and Civ4 is pretty old.
if it played something like Red Dead Redemption at high settings and high resolutions then it would be OK, but it doesn't.
SC2 on a 13" MBP will give you FPS rates in the 20's on medium to high settings which is pretty bad. according to anandtech the intel graphics even come close at medium settings. but laptops with intel graphics will cost 1/3 as much as a 15" MBP with close to Apple's battery life
if it played something like Red Dead Redemption at high settings and high resolutions then it would be OK, but it doesn't.
SC2 on a 13" MBP will give you FPS rates in the 20's on medium to high settings which is pretty bad. according to anandtech the intel graphics even come close at medium settings. but laptops with intel graphics will cost 1/3 as much as a 15" MBP with close to Apple's battery life
Last edited:
The MBP does not need blade SSD's. The reason the MBA uses blade SSD's is because of how thin it is. A standard SSD would not fit inside. The MBP can easily fit a standard SSD in the chassis. If anything using blade SSD's would have a negative impact on the MBP because it would decrease the maximum potential storage space. Intel will be releasing 600GB SSD's this quarter.
An IGP isn't designed for performance, it's designed for power efficiency, and space conservation. You could never play any high-end game on full settings with any IGP. You would need a dedicated graphics card to be able to do that, so I don't think those are reasonable expectations.
I tend to agree with you that the MBP13's days are numbered because they'll still have:
- an entry level mac for da kiddies
- the 13" travel-friendly MBA
- 2 MBP's with some "oomph" and larger displays
All macbooks will then be clearly segregated with distinct selling points.
And now with this SB+Intel Graphics "is just as good" nonsense the 13" MBP has become a logistical pain in the ass. It's just too small to beef up in order to maintain "pro" status.
Too bad because I was hoping to pick one up in the Spring. 13" is the right form factor for me.
I must be daft today, but I can't find where the Elitebook 8740w has a standard or configurable IPS display, but it's possible given that it's half again the thickness of a 17" MBP. I think IPS mobile displays are going to have to be a good bit thinner than that before you'll see Apple putting them in their MBP line. (Look how long it took the lower end iMacs to get IPS, for example.)
mostly cost
1990's dell and others would have to buy up parts for every part of a computer from different companies and put it all together
2011 everything is on the motherboard except for discrete graphics, RAM and hard drive
Intel's biggest customers are Acer, foxconn, Lenovo, Dell and HP. Most of the laptops they sell aren't used to play games. Intel is always looking to find ways for their customers to cut costs
foxconn's net profits are 4% or so. something like sandy bridge will go a long way in cutting their costs
The advantages of the 13" MBP to me would be the aluminum exterior, FireWire 800, and 10 hour battery life. The MB has the plastic exterior and no FireWire, while the MBA doesn't have either FireWire or the 10 hour battery life. As it stands now, the 13" MBP is the perfect platform to throw a 240GB OWC SSD into.
Question?
I was just about to buy a Mac Pro desktop:
A 3.2GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon Nehalem (ATI Radeon HD 5870), which i'll be using for video editing with Avid Media Composer software.
So now my question is, will there be a Sandy Bridge quad-core Mac Pro desktop?
And is it worth me waiting for a Sandy Bridge quad-core / any ideas when it will be available?
Thanks for any replies
I was just about to buy a Mac Pro desktop:
A 3.2GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon Nehalem (ATI Radeon HD 5870), which i'll be using for video editing with Avid Media Composer software.
So now my question is, will there be a Sandy Bridge quad-core Mac Pro desktop?
And is it worth me waiting for a Sandy Bridge quad-core / any ideas when it will be available?
Thanks for any replies
I'm not going to call you daft, but from your link click on Configure your model (the tab on the right), select Configure PC, select Customize under the right most model (the quad core). Under display, you have 2 DreamColor options (the IPS panels) for either 550 or 570$ extra.
Probably, the Xeon Sandy Bridge chips are coming Q1 2011 according to Wikipedia, so Apple might just update the Mac Pro, though they have unusually long cycles for it.