I love how all of this FUD is coming from someone who purchased a machine with a 2 going on 3 year old processor in it.
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
I love how all of this FUD is coming from someone who purchased a machine with a 2 going on 3 year old processor in it.
I love how this comment has not even a minor relation to the discussion. If you wanted your analogy to stand, it would be require the MBA to have a processor that was released in October 2010, brand spanking new architecture, yet that would have been as fast as processor from 2007.
The fact is, the MBA's processor is not a new design, it's not touted as the "next generation". These SB graphics are.
And I'm quite happy with my 2 going on 3 year old processor that can still lay the smack down on a part released in January 2011 for gaming performance.
I lol'dI love how this comment has not even a minor relation to the discussion. If you wanted your analogy to stand, it would be require the MBA to have a processor that was released in October 2010, brand spanking new architecture, yet that would have been as fast as processor from 2007.
The fact is, the MBA's processor is not a new design, it's not touted as the "next generation". These SB graphics are.
And I'm quite happy with my 2 going on 3 year old processor that can still lay the smack down on a part released in January 2011 for gaming performance.
Still lay down the smack down? Face it bro, you bought a machine that will get outclassed within months of its release and trounced processor wise. The fact still stands, here you are bitching about the fact that SB matches that of the 320M but you don't care about the processor performance. What about those people that need to video edit? You know, one of the primary reasons people buy Macs? Are they supposed to do that on a ULV 1.4 Ghz C2d with a "super fancy" 320m? Give me a break dude. You may say who the hell buys a MBA for video editing... Well who the hell buys a MBA for gaming?
Every Mac has a 320M and C2D ? I bought the machine that was good for me. I wanted a decent GPU and didn't really care about the CPU. SB is the opposite of what I wanted and where Apple was going in the last few years. I don't like this new direction that is being forced upon us consumers by Intel's greed (why not let nVidia make the graphics parts ? Jealous much Intel ?)
I didn't buy the MBA for gaming, I don't game much. I do play a few games here and there though, so I like having a decent GPU. My MBA is mostly used for coding.
I never said every Mac has a 320M and a C2D? The things that might be good enough for you aren't good enough for others and some people need more than a 1.4 GHz ULV C2D. People bitched when Apple stuck with C2D and now they're bitching about the fact that Apple is using Intel's graphics. Well ****, how long do you expect them to use C2D? I'll agree that Intel shouldn't have forced their graphics on everyone but that doesn't change the fact that they've now at least caught up to the performance of the 320M allowing Apple to use them with the new processors which is a good thing.
The fact remains that you could be doing "coding" without the 320M just as easily on SB graphics. Only it would be faster because of the better processor. You complain about the fact that we are comparing it to a 1 year old 320M, well you bought the MBA two to three months before Sandy Bridge was out so I don't see what the issue is? It's a three month difference of similar performance that you purchased. If you bought it because it meets your needs then that's fine and dandy but don't rag on Intel's IGP just to justify your purchase when in reality Intel has actually done a pretty good job here. Apple can now finally use modern CPU's in all of their machines.
No, it wouldn't. Coding is a keyboard bound task. It can't really go faster than the speed at which I type it in.
So I'm glad for my 320M for that occasional game of Civ 4/Portal/whatever else.
The occasional game here and there. That was in the last line of the post you quoted. Might want to read it next time.
No, it wouldn't. Coding is a keyboard bound task. It can't really go faster than the speed at which I type it in.
So I'm glad for my 320M for that occasional game of Civ 4/Portal/whatever else.
The occasional game here and there. That was in the last line of the post you quoted. Might want to read it next time.
intel SB will be fine for the small screen of the MBA. the resolutions that all the reviews tested were higher
i play civ4 on the 2010 version of intel graphics at a higher resolution and it plays very well with all settings maxed out
Hilarious. Ignore the rest of my post because you know I'm right. You enjoy the 320M for the occasional game, well guess what... the three month difference of Sandy Bridge can game just as well as the 320M, and now that you say that you game there is a need for a better processor, ex, the Source engine is optimized for multi-threading and stronger processors. So either way you try to spin it, it still remains that SB can game just as well as your current machine with a two to three month difference.No, it wouldn't. Coding is a keyboard bound task. It can't really go faster than the speed at which I type it in.
So I'm glad for my 320M for that occasional game of Civ 4/Portal/whatever else.
The IGP will be enough to game on, the majority of people on Macs who game are using a 9400M, which Intel's IGP easily beats out. Also, yes it would bring in new customers because people wouldn't but the 13" MBP when it still had a Core 2 Duo no matter how great the graphics were. All they wanted was a new Intel I-Series processor for the most part.
Maybe, but there's no Macs with Sandy Bridge yet and when there are, we'll have that much better hardware available on the market and games that demand even more from machines. For all I know, I might have to ditch the Air for Diablo 3 as it stands if I want to play it.
So no, I'm not happy that a 13" portable machine from Apple might not be in my future. In the past, what they shipped was adequate. I don't find this Sandy Bridge stuff adequate for what is coming ahead.
Clearer for you now ?
I play Civ 4 at 2048x1156 on my MBA. Colonization tends to be a bit choppy graphics wise. Of course, I need to set it to low details.
Maybe, but there's no Macs with Sandy Bridge yet and when there are, we'll have that much better hardware available on the market and games that demand even more from machines. For all I know, I might have to ditch the Air for Diablo 3 as it stands if I want to play it.
So no, I'm not happy that a 13" portable machine from Apple might not be in my future. In the past, what they shipped was adequate. I don't find this Sandy Bridge stuff adequate for what is coming ahead.
Clearer for you now ?
So you don't find this Sandy Bridge performance adequate for what's ahead yet you found the 320M you purchased two to three months ago adequate for what's ahead? You bought it, bro, so clearly you bought the machine that's "right for you" and will last with what you need it to do. If SB isn't adequate for you then neither is that 320M.
Also how do you know that Apple won't put a discrete GPU in the 13" MBP or even the 13" MB? If they remove the optical drive then they could easily fit a discrete GPU in there. As for the "what they shipped in the past was adequate" quote, what they shipped in the past was a GMA 950, an X3100, a 9400M and a 320M, all of which were not the greatest options they could have gone with at the time.
Last edited:
e.
The IGP will be enough to game on, the majority of people on Macs who game are using a 9400M, which Intel's IGP easily beats out. Also, yes it would bring in new customers because people wouldn't but the 13" MBP when it still had a Core 2 Duo no matter how great the graphics were. All they wanted was a new Intel I-Series processor for the most part.[/QUOTE]
i agree a lot of people were put off by the c2d and the i series will appeal but the IGP will then put them off. though till we see what apple actually does and what they adopt guess we are all jumping the gun.
The IGP will be enough to game on, the majority of people on Macs who game are using a 9400M, which Intel's IGP easily beats out. Also, yes it would bring in new customers because people wouldn't but the 13" MBP when it still had a Core 2 Duo no matter how great the graphics were. All they wanted was a new Intel I-Series processor for the most part.[/QUOTE]
i agree a lot of people were put off by the c2d and the i series will appeal but the IGP will then put them off. though till we see what apple actually does and what they adopt guess we are all jumping the gun.
Last edited:
15" Macbook
a decent 15" Macbook would be nice for $1199 - laptop are winning out on desktops slowly and surely.
Other than these CPU upgrades, i think the real upgrade for Macbook Pros are adding decent size SSDs.
quad core being 45watts, it is not going to be in Macbook Pro;
who knows if apple interested in Desktop Replacement laptops. other than that segment this 45watts quad core is waste of money in a laptop.
someone asked about LV/ULV it looks like it gonna be released as well from the engadget link http://www.engadget.com/photos/intel-core-2011-processor-details/#3731548
at least, next revision Macbook Air will be fast thanks to the turbo boost frequencies.
11" MacbookAir
13" Macbook/Macbook Air
these three products might be the target for intel IGP
and 13" Macbook Pro will carry either nVidia integrated/dedicated GPU.
a decent 15" Macbook would be nice for $1199 - laptop are winning out on desktops slowly and surely.
Other than these CPU upgrades, i think the real upgrade for Macbook Pros are adding decent size SSDs.
quad core being 45watts, it is not going to be in Macbook Pro;
who knows if apple interested in Desktop Replacement laptops. other than that segment this 45watts quad core is waste of money in a laptop.
someone asked about LV/ULV it looks like it gonna be released as well from the engadget link http://www.engadget.com/photos/intel-core-2011-processor-details/#3731548
at least, next revision Macbook Air will be fast thanks to the turbo boost frequencies.
11" MacbookAir
13" Macbook/Macbook Air
these three products might be the target for intel IGP
and 13" Macbook Pro will carry either nVidia integrated/dedicated GPU.
Last edited:
Well, as someone who owns a '06 MacBook with the magnificent Intel GMA950 (I think), I can tell you that playing at low settings is a lot better than not playing at any settings.
Very true. LOL
Personally I m more concerned about CPU performance rather than GPU performance. Being a GMA950 user, any GPU will be an upgrade for me.
Here is another benchmark of SB graphics:
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-Intel-HD-Graphics-3000-graphics-solution.43710.0.html
The results definitely aren't rosy. They look at screen resolutions closer to the new Airs and 13" Macbooks and find performance generally falls between the 310M and the 320M.
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-Intel-HD-Graphics-3000-graphics-solution.43710.0.html
The results definitely aren't rosy. They look at screen resolutions closer to the new Airs and 13" Macbooks and find performance generally falls between the 310M and the 320M.
so it will give more battery life with performance of *say* 90% of 320M?
i believe, at least in 11"/13" MBA and 13" MacBook will go with Intel IGP, (if it really can give boost to battery performance)
13" MBP - Apple gotta include dedicated GPU with switching Intel IGP - it is Apple responsibility.
That is about right. The battery life on the quad core Core i7 2820M is impressive enough. Expect more so on the dual core and lower voltage parts.
Most people don't buy a Mac specifically for gaming, however that doesn't mean people don't use them for gaming. Calling MBP's internet browsing and office task machines is a bit of a stretch. Especially the 15" and 17" models, as they come with dedicated graphics and handle gaming quite well.
thanks eidorian, then at the low end configuration 13" MB and entire MBA - we will see intel IGP.
for 13" MBP, ball is on the apple's court, where by apple can use intel IGP and dedicated GPU and switch based on the need like 15"/17" MBP.
at least on the MBA - it is definite upgrade - turbo boost and better battery life.
OR wait till 22nm Ivy bridge to lower the power consumption and more possibility to include dedicate graphic solution.