As far as processing power is concerned, it is supposed to be a pretty big increase. As far as the integrated processor, it's still supposed to be a pretty big increase as the last (current) Intel IGP doesn't even touch the last generation NVIDIA GeForce 9400M IGP, whereas the IGP on Sandy Bridge is slightly less powerful than the NVIDIA GeForce 320M IGP (The generation of NVIDIA IGPs after the 9400m; currently the best IGP you can get on the older Core 2 laptops), which leads me to believe that, like the 320M, it's significantly more powerful than the 9400M. So while Intel's next IGP (in Sandy Bridge) is not as good as the incumbant NVIDIA IGP (on the lower-end Macs with NVIDIA IGPs), it is still going to be a vast improvement over its predecessor in the current Core i3/i5/i7 processors. Though, leave it to Intel to leave us underwhelmed in terms of integrated graphics performance.
Thanks for the info.
It sounds like integrated graphics have made a jump (maybe even a big one), but are still a long ways away from the superiority of a dedicated graphics processor.
You are in my neck of the woods. I took the prereqs (most of them) for a computer engineering PhD at UCSC and it's amazing how academia doesn't give a person any idea what the end product (or applicable product) is or can be. I may go up to Baskin Engineering up there and ask around about Sandy Bridge but I suspect many won't know what it is, even though processors is what they study in theory. Sometimes, rarely though, you can find an engineering student who both uses computers for gaming and business applications, and can explain engineering theory as it relates to a product release right now, or coming up shortly. It's fairly rare though as many get relegated to a tiny corner of their field if they embark on graduate education.
That being said, a processor takes so much information from so many disciplines that it's very hard to find a person who has an eagle's eye view of what goes on.
A friend of mine is working on a type of computer language which he estimated a decade ago would take 200 years to develop. Now with inroads made from colleagues he didn't know about, the prospect of a self-replicating code may be seen in the next century, not two centuries from now. He based his models on current technology of the time without even seeing how massive the bump in speed and storage would change the outlook of his field of AI. He was one of the first in AI to actually use a mouse, so being merely human that was a giant thing to wrap one's head around when he started with vacuum tubes and doing the math before the invention of math co-processors. His head is so in the theoretical and academic research that he has no idea nor interest where current technology stands. He can't load a driver from a CD nor does he know, or care, how to use a PDA, cell, or anything electronic. But what he discovers and works on will be just a brick in a step in a long stairway which will get us where his field wants to be. When his group of scientists come up with a concept, the engineers take what is good and toss out what is rubbish, and make something out of it.
But many cutting edge corporate engineers (who work a little more in the practical) who sweated blood to get where they are working on a decade or decades long project sometimes fall into the mold that what they are doing is THE most important project in technology and the last of its kind. If I had a penny for every engineer or scientist who said computers would stop going down in price or that processor technology will eventually cease to improve, I would be very rich.
My guess is that it's a long time before integrated graphics will satisfy the average gamer. From what reviews I have read, the current (pre-Sandy Bridge) "i" processors can handle a CS Suite for most tasks, but not all of them in satisfactory manner. For video within CS, a dedicated GPU with Core 2 Duo still seems more the thing than an i5 by itself in many forums about this kind of stuff. The same is said for many games from gamers like me who don't do well enough to know the difference. If ever I get good enough to that point, which many youth are at right now, I may see how Sandy Bridge is a big step up in the "i" series chips, but still a far cry from dedicated graphics processors. I don't think Intel bashing is all about going after the big guy.
I suspect that there's merit to the still unsatisfied hard core gamers towards integrated graphics.
