Intel Announces 'Sandy Bridge' Core Processors

[vipergts2207]

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.

Well since we're talking about the MBP I figured it was pretty obvious "standard sized" HDD meant 2.5". I didn't know I needed to spell that out for you.

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=5975116&CatId=5300

Look harder next time. 256GB for $550. From one of the higher end brands too.

And that's last generation. Intel's G3 SSD and Crucial's C400 will be launching soon, offering the same storage for roughly half the price. We're getting mighty close the all important $1/GB mark.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4086/microns-realssd-c400-uses-25nm-nand-at-161gb-offers-415mbs-reads

 

[Yebubbleman]

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

Which? Oh well.

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.

The same can be said about an external hard drive. The only difference is that by nixing the optical drive, you're forcing that function to be external, whereas by nixing the hard drive bay, you're only limiting the size of what's internal. Also, in the larger non-Air 13" (and definitely 15" and 17") machines you can probably add a second blade SSD with no problem. Problem solved.

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.

Yeah, it's about $2 per GB with SSDs. The fact that the 13" MacBook Air costs what it does given the SSDs sizes inside is kind of remarkable seeing as the 13" Pro with the same size SSD costs more and the Air generally costs more to produce than the 13" MBP.

 

[vipergts2207]

Which? Oh well.



The same can be said about an external hard drive. The only difference is that by nixing the optical drive, you're forcing that function to be external, whereas by nixing the hard drive bay, you're only limiting the size of what's internal. Also, in the larger non-Air 13" (and definitely 15" and 17") machines you can probably add a second blade SSD with no problem. Problem solved.



Yeah, it's about $2 per GB with SSDs. The fact that the 13" MacBook Air costs what it does given the SSDs sizes inside is kind of remarkable seeing as the 13" Pro with the same size SSD costs more and the Air generally costs more to produce than the 13" MBP.

You also have to consider that Apple will lose more money by replacing the HDD rather than the optical drive. The optical drive easily costs a fraction of the cost it would be for Apple to even include a 256 GB blade SSD. Apple hates making less money.

 

[AidenShaw]

Not everyone needs 512MB of VRAM...

Most people need 512 MiB or more.... Have you noticed that 1 GiB NVIDIA cards are $35 at Newegg? There's a reason for that .

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

Apple customers need to tell the turtlenecked overlord that they'd like a little more "function" in their Apples - even if it means a few mm extra thickness.

Want a quad MBP - can't because of "thin". Want a better GPU - can't because of "thin". Want an actual "pro" laptop - can't because of "thin".

Apple has diluted the adjective "Pro" to mean little more than "something shiny to show off at Starbucks". Meanwhile, other vendors are selling quad core laptops with 1 GiB of VRAM, dual spindles + optical, 16 GiB of RAM capacity for less than most MacBook Pros.

The MacBook Pros are nice machines, Apple should keep them but add a "MacBook Workstation" line above them - where performance is more important than "thin" and "battery life".

 

[lPHONE]

I liked things better when motherboards, video cards and sounds cards were all seperate. That way when one broke you could replace it. Now it's all about integration and when something breaks, you throw it away and buy another.

 

[Mal67]

Most people need 512 MiB or more.... Have you noticed that 1 GiB NVIDIA cards are $35 at Newegg? There's a reason for that .




Apple customers need to tell the turtlenecked overlord that they'd like a little more "function" in their Apples - even if it means a few mm extra thickness.

Want a quad MBP - can't because of "thin". Want a better GPU - can't because of "thin". Want an actual "pro" laptop - can't because of "thin".

Apple has diluted the adjective "Pro" to mean little more than "something shiny to show off at Starbucks". Meanwhile, other vendors are selling quad core laptops with 1 GiB of VRAM, dual spindles + optical, 16 GiB of RAM capacity for less than most MacBook Pros.

The MacBook Pros are nice machines, Apple should keep them but add a "MacBook Workstation" line above them - where performance is more important than "thin" and "battery life".

+1 Be lucky if they don't get any thinner

 

[lPHONE]

Want a quad MBP - can't because of "thin". Want a better GPU - can't because of "thin". Want an actual "pro" laptop - can't because of "thin".

Apple has diluted the adjective "Pro" to mean little more than "something shiny to show off at Starbucks".

You are my hero.
What's "pro" about lugging around a USB hub?

 

[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)

Yes I agree..that's a shame..

 

[Yebubbleman]

You also have to consider that Apple will lose more money by replacing the HDD rather than the optical drive. The optical drive easily costs a fraction of the cost it would be for Apple to even include a 256 GB blade SSD. Apple hates making less money.

Apple is going to include the blade SSD one way or the other. So, if it's nixing anything, the ODD is cheaper than the HDD, therefore losing the HDD in that case is far more cost-effective; it also makes sense.

Most people need 512 MiB or more.... Have you noticed that 1 GiB NVIDIA cards are $35 at Newegg? There's a reason for that .

Yes, it's because they are cheaper to produce. A vast majority of Mac users couldn't give a damn about how much VRAM they have, hell a vast majority of all computer users don't even know what VRAM is! You tell a computer illiterate person buying a 15" MacBook Pro that they're buying a graphics card with less VRAM, than the next one up, they'll say either one of two things; (a) "What's that" or, assuming after you've explained to them what VRAM is, (b) "Oh, I don't do much with graphics." My point is that whether you give them a weaker GPU or less VRAM, it doesn't matter, Apple already has a weaker video option on the lower-end 15" MacBook Pros and a better one on the higher-end one (as well as the 17" MacBook Pro).

Apple customers need to tell the turtlenecked overlord that they'd like a little more "function" in their Apples - even if it means a few mm extra thickness.

Like it'd make a difference. Sadly, there are still far more Apple customers that care about form than function and even if there weren't, Steve-o's ego isn't easily reckoned with. Being in the minority that want the opposite sucks.

Want a quad MBP - can't because of "thin". Want a better GPU - can't because of "thin". Want an actual "pro" laptop - can't because of "thin".

That's basically true of every Mac save for the Mac Pro, which is way more money than I want to spend on my personal computer. Even the iMac is becoming too thin to accommodate as good of a GPU as it should. The best you can do in that thing is an ATI Radeon HD 5750?! Come on! At least a 5770!

Apple has diluted the adjective "Pro" to mean little more than "something shiny to show off at Starbucks". Meanwhile, other vendors are selling quad core laptops with 1 GiB of VRAM, dual spindles + optical, 16 GiB of RAM capacity for less than most MacBook Pros.

Oh sure; Apple is kind of a joke in that regard. Luckily, programs designed to run on Macs still somehow run well on them; the platform isn't so behind its own technology that software is too advanced to run on it. Though it does beg the notion that if you have work programs that are native on Windows and Mac, you'll get a much faster workhorse of a computer with that software for the dollar with a PC.

The MacBook Pros are nice machines, Apple should keep them but add a "MacBook Workstation" line above them - where performance is more important than "thin" and "battery life".

That's essentially what the 17" MacBook Pro is currently, though even those machines are a joke when compared to 17" PC notebooks, that are able to have two hard drives AND a quad-core CPU AND a decent discrete GPU. The 17" MacBook Pro only has half of that at double the cost.

You are my hero.
What's "pro" about lugging around a USB hub?

Trick question! Yeah, there really is no excuse for there to only be two USB ports on the 11" to 15" machines and three on the 17". THINNOVATION! Haha, thinnovation my arse!

+1 Be lucky if they don't get any thinner

It'd be extremely lucky if they didn't. They inevitably will. The MacBook Air being "The Future of MacBooks" has already dictated us our mobile fate, sadly.

I liked things better when motherboards, video cards and sounds cards were all seperate. That way when one broke you could replace it. Now it's all about integration and when something breaks, you throw it away and buy another.

Ah, the good old days...though the Mac was never stellar about that. Luckily the build-it-yourself PC towers still are, and by that token, so is the Hackintosh as well.

 

[MICK.BUDDY]

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.

 

[vipergts2207]

Apple is going to include the blade SSD one way or the other. So, if it's nixing anything, the ODD is cheaper than the HDD, therefore losing the HDD in that case is far more cost-effective; it also makes sense.

I'm pretty sure the SSD cost - HDD cost is still greater than the cost of a DVD drive. Those DVD drives probably cost Apple around $10.

 

[Yebubbleman]

I'm pretty sure the SSD cost - HDD cost is still greater than the cost of a DVD drive. Those DVD drives probably cost Apple around $10.

You're proving my point. They're going to use SSDs regardless. Hard drives cost more than DVD drives. Therefore, if they're going to nix one of those two, then nixing the hard drive saves Apple and (to a lesser extent) the customers more money than nixing the cheaper optical drive.

 

[vipergts2207]

You're proving my point. They're going to use SSDs regardless. Hard drives cost more than DVD drives. Therefore, if they're going to nix one of those two, then nixing the hard drive saves Apple and (to a lesser extent) the customers more money than nixing the cheaper optical drive.

I'm not proving your point because, unlike you, I don't think Apple will include SSD as standard. It will cut into their margins too much to do that. Not only that, but Apple happily charges $200-$350 to switch out the HDD for the smallest SSD. That would be another large hit to their profit margin.

 

[Yebubbleman]

I'm not proving your point because, unlike you, I don't think Apple will include SSD as standard. It will cut into their margins too much to do that. Not only that, but Apple happily charges $200-$350 to switch out the HDD for the smallest SSD. That would be another large hit to their profit margin.

At $1300 for the 13" model with a 128GB SSD, it's definitely cutting into their profit margins. That must be why they to call it "The Future of MacBooks". COME ON!!!

that blade SSD stuff is CLEARLY affordable. Probably not enough for the 13" MacBook, but definitely for the MacBook Pro line.

 

[vipergts2207]

At $1300 for the 13" model with a 128GB SSD, it's definitely cutting into their profit margins. That must be why they to call it "The Future of MacBooks". COME ON!!!

that blade SSD stuff is CLEARLY affordable. Probably not enough for the 13" MacBook, but definitely for the MacBook Pro line.

The future of macbooks means slimmer profit margins for Apple? That's hilarious.

Clearly affordable? Adding 128GB more to the 13" MBA adds $300 to the price. I wouldn't call that affordable. Not only that, but most MBP users would find 128GB of storage inadequate. This means it would essentially raise the price of the MBP's by around $300 just to get 256GB of storage. I'd feel really sorry for anyone who needs over 500GB, which the power user MBP's already come with. A 15" MBP with 512GB of storage would cost around $2400+. And that's for the base 15".

 

[Hellhammer]

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.

The just announced Crucial C400 (25nm) brings 512GB down to ~800$, ~1.6$/GB. Crucial drives cost like 25% more than others so I think we are going to see nice price cuts with 25nm SSDs

 

[Spor]

My thoughts about the new Macbook pro line:

I am new here, but I am following this forum for some time now. I did some research using sites like: anandtech; wikipedia and other sites.

So my thoughts: I think the line-up will be more or less the same as last year. I expect the same number of laptops as now. I know some sites say there will only be 4, but Apple has choosing these before with a reason and think they will keep it. Also on the forum you read a lot of people buying BTO’s and these come with some good margin.

So:13 inch and a 13 inch BTO, 3 times a 15 inch and of course the 17 inch.

Old 13 Inch 13 inch 15 inch 15 inch 15 inch 17 inch
Processor P8600 P8800 I5-520M I5-540M I7-620M I7-620M
Speed 2.4 GHz 2.67GHz 2.4Ghz 2.53GHz 2.66Ghz 2.66GHz
TDP 25W 25W 35W 35W 35W 35W
Price ($) 241 241 225 257 332 332
New
Processor I7-2629M I7-2649M I5-2520M I5-2540M I7-2620M I7-2620M
Speed 2.1GHz 2.3GHZ 2.5GHz 2.6GHz 2.7GHz 2.7GHz
TDP 25W 25W 35W 35W 35W 35W
Price 311 346 225 266 346 346

So except the 13 inch the new version of the old chip will be used. Same TDP and prices more or less the same. Quad core uses to much power and therefore will not be used. The speed indication which apple uses is in line. Starting at 2,1 GHz till 2,7 GHz for the fastest with this line up. The i3 chip for the 13 inch (only i3-2310M) uses to much power: TDP 35 W instead of 25 W like it uses now) so this one will not be used

The 13 inch is a problem, but that was also last year the case. I think the main problem is the price of the chip. It is much more expansive then the old processor at introduction. This is probably because the IGP is included in this chip, but last year it was not good enough the leave the 320M out of the 13 inch. So Apple decided to keep the old chip with the 320M. This year with the better IGP there is the possibility they leave the graphics card out on the “standard” 13 inch.. The new Nvidia 520M will probably be the new card for the BTO and maybe the normal one.

So margin is under pressure (especially for the 13 inch) because of the higher price of the chip, so some possibilities. Higher price point, but think they will try to keep the price stable as much as they can. Use another chip, maybe an old Arrendale chip, but it will be much more favourable to have the same chips so you can also use the same memory and get purchase advantage. So the price needs to come from other parts and therefore the super drive (SD) needs to go. If it will on all formats? I am not sure, but it is a opportunity to sell the laptop for same price and sell an add-on (like screen, SD box like air etc.) separately. This parts generate a lot of margin. Chance to include more battery, save weight and you nearly never you have to use it. I would leave it out.

For the other formats, the Nvidia 525M will probably the choice, because it is the updated 4 series, which was the updated 3 series of Nvidia (Which was used 330M). The 5 series uses most of the parts of the 4 series according to Anand and so TDP will probably be the same. No battery loss for Apple which is very important.

Casing will keep as it is, but SSD’s are used. Some say it is hard to make it work with two parts (SSD and HDD), but this is a computer manufacturing and software developing company so they will make it work. There are some sites who did also make it work (using Unix methods for instance), so I expect no problems. It is the way it will go, like Jobs said.

Screens no updates.

One more thing and that is also which will decide the introduction date: Light Peak. It is so quiet about the technology from Intel. Normally, like the new SNB chips, the reviews and other stuff is already on the net before they introduce it. So two possibilities: A) it is far from ready B) Apple will use it first. I hope option B.

If this is the case then it depends when LP and the SNB dual core chips are available.

1: LP and SNB are available next month, then it will be end feb.
2: LP not yet ready and apple will introduce it then maybe march/April. But no later because then option 3 will (and needs to be) chosen.
3: LP not ready then depends SNB and Nvidia are ready for mass production which is probably end feb.

What do you think? Some strong points or not?

 

[Yebubbleman]

The future of macbooks means slimmer profit margins for Apple? That's hilarious.

Clearly affordable? Adding 128GB more to the 13" MBA adds $300 to the price. I wouldn't call that affordable. Not only that, but most MBP users would find 128GB of storage inadequate. This means it would essentially raise the price of the MBP's by around $300 just to get 256GB of storage. I'd feel really sorry for anyone who needs over 500GB, which the power user MBP's already come with. A 15" MBP with 512GB of storage would cost around $2400+. And that's for the base 15".

Where $300 buys 128GB of additional MacBook Air SSD space, $550 currently buys you the same in the 2.5" form factor on the current 13" MacBook Pro. Who is to say that neither the $300 cost of the SSD nor the cost of some other component isn't going to go down between last rev and this next one?

I'm pretty confident that it will be standard, though I'll grant you that it may not be standard, but it will be optional on every model if it isn't.

 

[KnightWRX]

Well since we're talking about the MBP I figured it was pretty obvious "standard sized" HDD meant 2.5". I didn't know I needed to spell that out for you.

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=5975116&CatId=5300

Look harder next time. 256GB for $550. From one of the higher end brands too.

How is that larger than the Blade SSDs ? The MBA has a 256 GB option. So my point stands, the Blade SSDs are not necessarily offered in lesser capacity than standard sized SSDs something you were trying to say. There's nothing different about the Blade SSDs except the fact they aren't in a 2.5" casing.

 

[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 think the big question for Apple is this:

"Should the ODD be ditched out or not?"

If yes a whole lot of free space will have to be filled with goodies.

If not then they'll have to stick with something slower.

I hope SuperDrive will be tossed to the garbage..

 

[AidenShaw]

Only some blade SSDs are just "caseless"

How is that larger than the Blade SSDs ? The MBA has a 256 GB option. So my point stands, the Blade SSDs are not necessarily offered in lesser capacity than standard sized SSDs something you were trying to say. There's nothing different about the Blade SSDs except the fact they aren't in a 2.5" casing.

For a couple of years Dell has used microSATA SSD blades in the Latitude XT2. This fits your decription - it's a drive with a standard µSATA connector, just minus the casing.

Other blade SSDs, like the ones used for years in the Asus eeePC and some other netbooks, connect through PCIe - rather than SATA. (The connector is a PCIe card like blade, rather than SATA "L" or "µ" connectors.)

The Toshiba "Blade X-gale" in the MBA looks like a stretched version of the Asus netbook blade. It appears to use a PCIe-like connector as well, but it looks like an mSATA connector rather than the µSATA connector on the Dell.

Here's a picture showing a "half-slim" blade SSD with a µSATA connector beside a blade SSD with the PCIe-like mini-SATA (mSATA) connector.

Yes, "mini-SATA" connectors are smaller than "micro-SATA" connectors.

 

[Hellhammer]

For a couple of years Dell has used microSATA SSD blades in the Latitude XT2. This fits your decription - it's a drive with a standard µSATA connector, just minus the casing.

Half-slim SATA appears to be µSATA

Anand said it pretty well. mSATA looks like Mini PCIe but is electronically SATA.
mSATA seems to be getting more popular all the time as even Intel released their mSATA SSDs

http://www.intel.com/design/flash/nand/310series/overview.htm

Not a surprise though, why waste space with a casing while you can make it much, much smaller and still retain the same performance and capacity. I would say mSATA/caseless SSDs are the future, we'll be seeing more of them

 

[pr5owner]

+1 Be lucky if they don't get any thinner

thinner with less functionality? like the MBA? oh wait........

 

[AidenShaw]

Anand said it pretty well. mSATA looks like Mini PCIe but is electronically SATA.

Half-slim SATA appears to be µSATA

LOL - collision. I added the half-slim/mini-SATA image before I saw that you clarified that point as well.

The Intel link that you gave says that the connector is literally a mini-PCIe connector, but with SATA signals on the pins - "Supporting SATA signals over a PCI Express* (PCIe) mini-connector".

By the way, has anyone seen confirmation that the Toshiba Blade X-gale is using the mSATA connector? Toshiba's website has little more than a press release on it.

 

[Hellhammer]

By the way, has anyone seen confirmation that the Toshiba Blade X-gale is using the mSATA connector? Toshiba's website has little more than a press release on it.

What else would it be? It's not Mini PCIe if that's what you want to know (the SSD is reported under Serial-ATA section in my MBA). Compare the Toshiba SSD with the mSATA SSD in the µSATA vs mSATA pic, they have the same mount of pins.