Intel Announces 'Sandy Bridge' Core Processors

[Red33m]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148a Safari/6533.18.5)

Since though NVidia and Intel are into a "fight"..if Apple chooses to use SB..then they won't be able to stick NVidia in the MBP..only ATI

I don't think that Apple is going to use AMD though..

 

[Hellhammer]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148a Safari/6533.18.5)

Since though NVidia and Intel are into a "fight"..if Apple chooses to use SB..then they won't be able to stick NVidia in the MBP..only ATI

I don't think that Apple is going to use AMD though..

Apple can still use discrete Nvidia GPUs, as well as discrete AMD GPUs. The fight is about Intel not letting Nvidia to make chipsets for iX CPUs, thus Nvidia can't make chipset with their IGP for iX CPUs.

 

[vipergts2207]

Sure, but some suck and with something like WoW providing consistent CPU usage and therefore heat, that shows much more easily with WoW. Again, yours doesn't. The MacBook I had definitely has ****** heating as does my ex-girlfriend's MacBook Pro.

My SR MBP doesn't like WoW either. I have to turn my fans to 6k rpm and use my laptop cooling pad to play. If I don't it will overheat and shutdown.

 

[AidenShaw]

Then that begs the question, why haven't they done it yet, especially if the current 13" MacBook Pro stuck with a Core 2 Duo on grounds that it had to in order to have better graphics (which ended up being an IGP [a decent IGP, mind you, but still an IGP])?

Sorry, but who are "they" and what is "it". You've used two pronouns where the antecedent is ambiguous.

If "they" is "Intel" and "it" is a better integrated GPU - they just did! Now the onus is on Apple to use Sandy Bridge and either show that the new integrated GPU is adequate, or pair Sandy Bridge with a discrete GPU.

My SR MBP doesn't like WoW either. I have to turn my fans to 6k rpm and use my laptop cooling pad to play. If I don't it will overheat and shutdown.

That seems to imply that Apple's engineering team needs to buttress their talent in the thermodynamics area. If they're shipping a product that shuts down when running standard applications, their thermal design team is a failure.

 

[vipergts2207]

That seems to imply that Apple's engineering team needs to buttress their talent in the thermodynamics area. If they're shipping a product that shuts down when running standard applications, their thermal design team is a failure.

You may very well be right. Although, this may also be nVidia's fault, as my MBP has an 8600GT, the chips known for being faulty. I've had mine replaced once.

 

[alent1234]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148a Safari/6533.18.5)

Since though NVidia and Intel are into a "fight"..if Apple chooses to use SB..then they won't be able to stick NVidia in the MBP..only ATI

I don't think that Apple is going to use AMD though..

after today's CES speech nvidia said good bye to PC chipsets

 

[Yebubbleman]

13in Aluminum MacBook, and a 15in i5, both have played Wo for me very well over the years.

I'm planning to replace them with a Envy14 Beats though this month.

The 15" i5 hasn't even existed for even a full year. The kind of degradation I'm talking about takes place over multiple years. Also, the Unibody case on the Aluminum 13" MacBook was definitely better engineered than that of the white MacBook before and during its reign. I'm not saying you can't play WoW on a laptop. I'm just saying it's not an optimal type of computer to do it on.

Hellhammer & Yebubbleman, thanks a lot for your advice - i'll go for the current MP as you suggest.

Cheers

Any time. I love it when people buy the right computer for them.

Sorry, but who are "they" and what is "it". You've used two pronouns where the antecedent is ambiguous.

My apologies then, "they" is Apple and "it" is the engineering task of doing ::insert name of engineering task needed for a discrete GPU on the 13" MBP here::.

 

[Red33m]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148a Safari/6533.18.5)

What?! Could you be a bit more specific? I didn't quite catch that..

 

[Yebubbleman]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148a Safari/6533.18.5)

What?! Could you be a bit more specific? I didn't quite catch that..

You didn't quite catch what?

 

[Red33m]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148a Safari/6533.18.5)

I dont understand..nVidia says goodbye to chipsets?

I am not the most acknowledged man around tech so..

 

[Yebubbleman]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148a Safari/6533.18.5)

I dont understand..nVidia says goodbye to chipsets?

I am not the most acknowledged man around tech so..

Intel was preventing NVIDIA from making chipsets based on the Core i3/i5/i7 processors. This is why Apple maintained the use of the Core 2 Duo and went with the GeForce 320M IGP (which also served as a power-efficient chipset, hence the higher rated battery lives on 13" MacBook Pros and white MacBooks of the Mid-2010 generation). However, with Intel processor based chipsets being a majority of NVIDIA's chipset business and with Intel preventing NVIDIA from developing more, NVIDIA gave up and left the chipset business altogether.

Kind of a shame really, they weren't half bad at it. Oh well, RIP nForce.

 

[AidenShaw]

I dont understand..nVidia says goodbye to chipsets?

I am not the most acknowledged man around tech so..

It means that Apple made a big mistake in trash-talking Intel integrated graphics and hyping the NVIDIA 320M and other integrated graphics chipsets.

It means that Apple is stuck using Core 2 Duo CPUs and NVIDIA chipsets for as long as they are manufactured (which won't be for very much longer) - or Apple goes back to using Intel integrated solutions (and the big PR problem that that entails) or moves to discrete graphics across the board (a big problem for smaller form factor systems).

It's a problem caused not by technology, but by bad decisions at 1 Infinite Loop.

 

[Yebubbleman]

It means that Apple made a big mistake in trash-talking Intel integrated graphics and hyping the NVIDIA 320M and other integrated graphics chipsets.

It means that Apple is stuck using Core 2 Duo CPUs and NVIDIA chipsets for as long as they are manufactured (which won't be for very much longer) - or Apple goes back to using Intel integrated solutions (and the big PR problem that that entails) or moves to discrete graphics across the board (a big problem for smaller form factor systems).

It's a problem caused not by technology, but by bad decisions at 1 Infinite Loop.

Technically they didn't trash-talk against Intel's graphics, they tactfully chose their words in saying that with the 13" MacBook Pro they were given the dilema of faster processors or faster graphics and that they went with the latter. And again, they still have a way out of the PR nightmare. Two of them actually. (1) If they kill the 2.5" drive bay on the 13" and use the MacBook Air mSATA blade SSDs, the reclaimed room would be enough for a discrete GPU. Or (2) they could discontinue the 13" MacBook Pro altogether. PR would have far less clean-up work to do (if any at all) with the white MacBook, MacBook Air (which has some time before it's even due for a refresh anyway), and the Mac mini as most of the customer base for those machines don't really care about continued use of a Core 2 Duo or alternatively, the possibility of returning to Intel graphics that are barely as good as the 320M.

 

[Hellhammer]

Steve can talk his way out of the IGP issue. He can simply say that the IGP in Sandy Bridge is so much better which is why Apple chose it. Or just talk about the new ultra-fast CPU and ignore the graphics. I don't think PR will be an issue or matter when it comes to what Apple chooses. Their PR is fine with offering 2006 technology in 2010 so they will be fine with Intel IGP

 

[Erasmus]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148a Safari/6533.18.5)

Since though NVidia and Intel are into a "fight"..if Apple chooses to use SB..then they won't be able to stick NVidia in the MBP..only ATI

I don't think that Apple is going to use AMD though..

As others have said, this only apples to integrated GPUs.

Furthermore, I believe it also applies to AMD integrated GPUs, but as AMD generally make them for their own CPU chipsets, they don't care, and you don't hear about it.

I think all the Pro's need a discrete GPU. If I designed for Apple, I'd scrap the MacBook (its existence only lead to confusion, as it also means the whole MB/MBP/MBA family). Then have 2 13" MBP options, one with SB integrated (Priced the same as the old MB), and one with a consumer level GPU, like an NVIDIA 420M or AMD 6400/6500M.

I'd then put the same GPU in the first 15" MBP, and then have two more 15" and a 17" with performance level GPUs, ie. >> AMD 6600M.

Sound good?

 

[Yebubbleman]

Steve can talk his way out of the IGP issue. He can simply say that the IGP in Sandy Bridge is so much better which is why Apple chose it. Or just talk about the new ultra-fast CPU and ignore the graphics. I don't think PR will be an issue or matter when it comes to what Apple chooses. Their PR is fine with offering 2006 technology in 2010 so they will be fine with Intel IGP

I'd agree with you were it not for (a) the fact that if Jobs were to say that the IGP is better than the 320M, it'd be a lie and (b) Sandy Bridge's IGP doesn't yet support OpenCL. Apple gives a massive pile of steaming excrement about OpenCL. I'll agree, they have no problems going backwards a step, but THAT far back, when it's a key technology that they're banking heavily on?

 

[reticulate]

I think all the Pro's need a discrete GPU. If I designed for Apple, I'd scrap the MacBook (its existence only lead to confusion, as it also means the whole MB/MBP/MBA family). Then have 2 13" MBP options, one with SB integrated (Priced the same as the old MB), and one with a consumer level GPU, like an NVIDIA 420M or AMD 6400/6500M.

I'd then put the same GPU in the first 15" MBP, and then have two more 15" and a 17" with performance level GPUs, ie. >> AMD 6600M.

Sound good?

This seems like a decent bet as long as Apple can wring some OpenCL support out of the SB IGP. Unless they do away with that particular requirement, which I find pretty unlikely.

I'd even suggest a similar idea with the 21.5" iMac - you could conceivably see an IGP-only base model, with the upgraded models offering a discrete GPU. They could knock a hundred or more off the price, still have high margins and have a very tempting model for the average internet+email consumer. A quality AIO desktop priced around base MB territory would probably make a lot of people look twice.

 

[Yebubbleman]

As others have said, this only apples to integrated GPUs.

Furthermore, I believe it also applies to AMD integrated GPUs, but as AMD generally make them for their own CPU chipsets, they don't care, and you don't hear about it.

I think all the Pro's need a discrete GPU. If I designed for Apple, I'd scrap the MacBook (its existence only lead to confusion, as it also means the whole MB/MBP/MBA family). Then have 2 13" MBP options, one with SB integrated (Priced the same as the old MB), and one with a consumer level GPU, like an NVIDIA 420M or AMD 6400/6500M.

I'd then put the same GPU in the first 15" MBP, and then have two more 15" and a 17" with performance level GPUs, ie. >> AMD 6600M.

Sound good?

1. You contradict yourself. If all MBPs should have discrete graphics, then so be it! I for one agree with you. But to make a low-end 13" MBP that uses Sandy Bridge's IGP? That contradicts the initial point. If they don't have to have an IGP, then for the love of 1s and 0s, don't put one there.

2. No one is confused about the MacBook. It's white, it has more or less the same internal features of the 13" MacBook Pro. It's also the ONLY model in the more durable polycarbonate material. It costs a grand new, $950 with educational discounts, and $850 refurbished. What's there to be confused about?

3. All 15" and 17" MBPs will get the same GPU as they always have (save for the 2.53 GHz Mid-2009 model), where they'll vary is in how much VRAM Apple gives us. Pay the premium get 512MB or 1GB, otherwise stick with 256MB or 512MB. Radeon HD 6600M or 6700M sounds likely if it's an AMD Radeon GPU, the equivalent NVIDIA-wise is also suspect.

 

[Erasmus]

1. You contradict yourself. If all MBPs should have discrete graphics, then so be it! I for one agree with you. But to make a low-end 13" MBP that uses Sandy Bridge's IGP? That contradicts the initial point. If they don't have to have an IGP, then for the love of 1s and 0s, don't put one there.

I didn't contradict myself, I just failed to clarify. I meant that Apple should sell MBPs with discrete graphics at all size points. But many people won't need a decent graphics card, and would just be wasting money. Which is why I think Apple will release at least one 13" MBP model (and maybe a 15") with only integrated graphics.

2. No one is confused about the MacBook. It's white, it has more or less the same internal features of the 13" MacBook Pro. It's also the ONLY model in the more durable polycarbonate material. It costs a grand new, $950 with educational discounts, and $850 refurbished. What's there to be confused about?

I think it's silly to have a single model and a large family of notebooks having the same name. If Apple were to update MBPs and MBAs at the same time, they would probably say something like "The fastest MacBooks yet", which would be misleading at first glance. Or when SJ said "This is the future of MacBooks", that was a source of confusion for many as well.

I don't think it makes sense for Apple to have a single notebook with a completely different case to the rest. Apple have spent so much money developing the aluminium machined case, why not use it for all their models?

I expect Apple have just been getting rid of old white MacBook shells for a while now.

3. All 15" and 17" MBPs will get the same GPU as they always have (save for the 2.53 GHz Mid-2009 model), where they'll vary is in how much VRAM Apple gives us. Pay the premium get 512MB or 1GB, otherwise stick with 256MB or 512MB. Radeon HD 6600M or 6700M sounds likely if it's an AMD Radeon GPU, the equivalent NVIDIA-wise is also suspect.

Same thing as before. Some people don't want a high performance graphics card. Maybe all the 15" will have discrete graphics, but I wouldn't be surprised if Apple puts in a lower performance and cheaper card into one of the models.

 

[KnightWRX]

The iBook 12" laptop had a discrete GPU and a CD-ROM. Let's leave it at that.

 

[Yebubbleman]

I didn't contradict myself, I just failed to clarify. I meant that Apple should sell MBPs with discrete graphics at all size points. But many people won't need a decent graphics card, and would just be wasting money. Which is why I think Apple will release at least one 13" MBP model (and maybe a 15") with only integrated graphics.

Historically, this has been the function of the white MacBook. I see no reason why it shouldn't stay this way, save for similarity to the already extraneous 13" MacBook Pro which has failed to be worthy of the name "MacBook Pro". Apple has a chance to correct this flaw by introducing, in the next MacBook Pro line-up, a 13" model with MacBook Air SSDs in place of the hard drive bay (and therefore room for a discrete GPU). This would satisfy at least some of the Jobsian prophecy of the MacBook Air being the future of MacBooks.

I think it's silly to have a single model and a large family of notebooks having the same name. If Apple were to update MBPs and MBAs at the same time, they would probably say something like "The fastest MacBooks yet", which would be misleading at first glance. Or when SJ said "This is the future of MacBooks", that was a source of confusion for many as well.

For them to say that the "MacBook Air is the future of MacBooks" sounds pretty cut and dried to me. It's the trend-setter of how they're going to design their laptops in the same way that integrated battery and Unibody enclosures were before. In what way? That's where speculation comes in, and really, I don't think Apple necessarily wants us to be that far ahead.

I don't think it makes sense for Apple to have a single notebook with a completely different case to the rest. Apple have spent so much money developing the aluminium machined case, why not use it for all their models?

I expect Apple have just been getting rid of old white MacBook shells for a while now.

They would've were it not for the plain and simple fact that the polycarbonate material is MORE durable than the aluminum, making it perfect for the education market. That's why you STILL see a white polycarbonate Mac laptop in Apple's line. Period. Given that, the white MacBook might get thinner and drop the optical drive, thereby supplanting the MacBook Air, or it might just replace its hard drive bay with the MacBook Air's SSDs allowing for better battery life and instant-on. Who knows? Only time will tell. Either way, I'd say that it's a safe bet that whitey isn't going anywhere.

Same thing as before. Some people don't want a high performance graphics card. Maybe all the 15" will have discrete graphics, but I wouldn't be surprised if Apple puts in a lower performance and cheaper card into one of the models.

That's where the cheaper VRAM option (as exists currently on the 15" MBP models) comes in. Not everyone needs 512MB of VRAM on their GeForce GT 330M, so for those customers a 256MB VRAM option exists.

 

[Yebubbleman]

The iBook 12" laptop had a discrete GPU and a CD-ROM. Let's leave it at that.

It was also thicker. You want to tell Steve Jobs to make something THICKER?

Though, it's not like they can't keep the current thinness, an optical drive, and have a discrete GPU, and if that's your point, then fine, I agree.

 

[KnightWRX]

It was also thicker. You want to tell Steve Jobs to make something THICKER?

Though, it's not like they can't keep the current thinness, an optical drive, and have a discrete GPU, and if that's your point, then fine, I agree.

Seeing how it's also years old, yes, I think your second paragraph is more the point I was making.

 

[vipergts2207]

Historically, this has been the function of the white MacBook. I see no reason why it shouldn't stay this way, save for similarity to the already extraneous 13" MacBook Pro which has failed to be worthy of the name "MacBook Pro". Apple has a chance to correct this flaw by introducing, in the next MacBook Pro line-up, a 13" model with MacBook Air SSDs in place of the hard drive bay (and therefore room for a discrete GPU). This would satisfy at least some of the Jobsian prophecy of the MacBook Air being the future of MacBooks.

If one of the drives are to be nixed the optical drive would be the better option. The blade SSD's can't hold as much data as a standard sized HDD or SSD, so some functionality is lost. You can easily plug in an external optical drive to retain optical disk functionality. Not to mention people usually access the data on their hard drive more often than they use their optical drive.

 

[KnightWRX]

The blade SSD's can't hold as much data as a standard sized SSD

What makes you say that ? The Blade SSDs are the same as the standard sized SSDs (what's standard anyhow ? You have 3.5" and 2.5" SSD drives), they are the same chips on a PCB instead of on a PCB in a casing.

Looking at newegg right now, in a 2.5" format, there's exactly 4 drives that have more than 256 GB, they are all over 1000$. The reason Apple doesn't ship a blade SSD larger than 256GB is probably more related to costs than actual manufacturing problems.