i do believe putting in intel HD (even though its comparable to the 9400M ) is a step backwards.
i will have to call it quits on the air if they throw in intel video.
i will have to call it quits on the air if they throw in intel video.
You keep missing my point, don't you? Which is: Would you critically analyze performance figures (or other types of reports) no matter what their conclusions were?
Don't bother replying as you'll miss the point of this post too.
Do I have to reply to every point in your whole post? No. Your whole point is the loss of graphics power. My whole point is that Apple has downgraded components in the past.
But then again, nothing in your last post refutes my point.
And no, my 4 GB of RAM comment has nothing to do with your quote, if you even read my post.
i do believe putting in intel HD (even though its comparable to the 9400M ) is a step backwards.
i will have to call it quits on the air if they throw in intel video.
Neither. Maybe you guys are just bitter that you can't refute my arguments and instead make other comments that have no relation to my points (or yours).
I said "neither."Honestly now, tell me if you own some Intel stock??? LMAO!!!
- 1 MILLION... I am speaking for the fans who don't know any better here... those who haven't read about this... those who don't want to accept what Intel says as gospel... those who want someone to stand up for their MBA's future and are too busy to do it for themselves.
If Apple goes with this in the MBA, there better be a BTO option allowing a real graphics solution to be in the higher end MBA.
I can just see it now... going back to the same thing we had with the original MBA... and all the hours I preached for people to not fall into the same trap as I did. The hours spent explaining why NOT to buy the original MBA and to instead spend a little more and get the machine that was 5x as capable
Apple will not do this. It makes no sense. Sticking with Penryn and Nvidia makes far more sense for this last update... until it gives Apple ample time to figure out how to move forward with the next update.
Yeah, I thought the original MBA was a polarizing machine. It seems the NEXT one thats not announced or specced is even more controversial.
Even more ironic the few benchmarks/tests available that all show pretty good performance from the Intel GPU are considered evidence that its a poor performer.
Supposition posing as fact, opinion posing as analysis, ad homonym and intellectually dishonest attacks on the reasonable posts, and complete illogic. What a thread. Must be a full moon or something.
1) Where are the benchmarks that suggest a 60% loss in performance, or even some antidotal evidence?
2) As to long and naive posts, isn't that the pot calling the kettle black ;-)
3) My RevA was a great machine that never had any over heating or core shutdown issues and I never had any performance issues with it in daily business use for about a year. The new chipset is two generations beyond that so its hardly "back to the same thing" even if you were not happy with the original. And the RevC MBA is not 5x as capable as the RevA even if you only consider Video - which was by far the largest increase and is only 4x.
4) The new Intel GPU is OpenCL compliant and the few numbers I've seen indicate it produces about the same performance as what we have today and uses less power. Yes they could be lying.
5) I would expect a current cpu speed bump rather than a migration to Airedale this year on the MBA but other features are more important to me so it won't bother me one way or another as long as what I've read so far about it turns out to be anywhere close to true.
Yeah, I thought the original MBA was a polarizing machine. It seems the NEXT one thats not announced or specced is even more controversial.
Even more ironic the few benchmarks/tests available that all show pretty good performance from the Intel GPU are considered evidence that its a poor performer.
Supposition posing as fact, opinion posing as analysis, ad homonym and intellectually dishonest attacks on the reasonable posts, and complete illogic. What a thread. Must be a full moon or something.
The main tests referenced in the first page of this thread indicated that the Intel GMA was a clear measure slower than the 9400, and on the one test where it was faster, that was because it lacked a bunch of the graphic detail that the 9400 produced.
There are plenty of people who only look at CPU performance and don't really care all that much about GPU performance, and that's fine. It's just that some of us here were hoping for an actual ADVANCE in GPU performance as well.
I bought the rev. B MBA because of the jump in graphics power. I would buy a newer model for the same reason.
So, all that some of us are saying is that a step back in graphics performance (or sideways if you're being really really generous with the Intel GMA) would be a deal killer for some of us who otherwise would be interested in buying the next model of the MBA.
wow...you guys got your mac's in a twist....and right before a huge media event....
im very disappointed.
Your reply is quite unnecessarily accusatory and insulting... I am not going to reply to that anymore, as to say I hope I don't have to prove anyone right after tomorrow. Let's hope Apple is smarter than the consortium in this thread (myself included).
Sorry for that. We got our mac signals crossed, but some people are getting overly defensive of intel without bothering to reply to some valid points, and just muck about.
Ignore him buddy.
Your reply is quite unnecessarily accusatory and insulting... I am not going to reply to that anymore, as to say I hope I don't have to prove anyone right after tomorrow. Let's hope Apple is smarter than the consortium in this thread (myself included).
Translation: I disagree with those points, but can't refute them. But they're still wrong!Your reply is quite unnecessarily accusatory and insulting... I am not going to reply to that anymore, as to say I hope I don't have to prove anyone right after tomorrow. Let's hope Apple is smarter than the consortium in this thread (myself included).
What? I addressed and refuted each and every one of your points (and Scottsdale's that I chose to address), you refuted none of my points, and started accusing me of ridiculous things!Sorry for that. We got our mac signals crossed, but some people are getting overly defensive of intel without bothering to reply to some valid points, and just muck about.
Don't forget the huge conspiracy involving anyone who favors Intel in any way. The only fanboys in this thread are applesupergeek and Scottsdale, and their posts prove that.Funny, I'm seeing the exact opposite. People going "INTEL GRAPHICS SUCKED THREE YEARS AGO, THEREFORE THEY SUCK NOW, BENCHMARKS ARE FAKED, APPLE WOULD BE STUPID BEYOND BELIEF TO GO WITH INTEL GRAPHICS! SHUT UP -- YOU ALL SUCK!"
Do you remember that time when he said he had "sources" that claimed a MacBook Air revamp in September 2009 or so, and when people doubted his source, he got mad and threw all kinds of accusations at them. Well we know how reliable that source was.When you frequently make extreme or controversial posts, stating suppositions, opinions and gross exaggerations as fact, without offering any proof and which available sources of facts seem to dispute, you should expect to be asked questions or corrected.
I made no accusations. I asked you for a data source for your claim of a 60% performance loss when the only common sources (even those in this thread) imply a vastly smaller performance difference.
You made a number of factual errors that are clearly disputed by Apples own specifications and I pointed those out.
I'm sorry if you don't like it or found it accusatory. I was merely questioning what appeared to be disinformation or correct facts that appeared to be in error. If I get a fact wrong (and have) I would expect someone to correct me (and they have) and if I make exaggerations or state opinions or suppositions as fact I would hope someone would call me on that as well.
Ok, I am throwing this out there and it no doubt could be turned into confetti within 2 posts buttttt. I was reading from my iPhone an article at tuaw.com that Jobs raved about how the processor screamed and the graphics were incredible...ok i only remember the screamed part but something was said about the graphics and it left me with an impression that maybe the air line could get a beefed up integrated chip from PMI Semi rather than do the Intel w/ integrated graphics. If the ipad is supposed to run an HD movie without a prob imagine what a beefier chip could do for the air...
Even the highest-end 'integrated device' GPU pales in comparison to even the lowest-end 'integrated computer' GPU.
The only possible exception is the GPU in the low-end Atom netbooks. It's pretty bad. Even the ultra-mobile PCs (smaller than 'netbook',) have a GPU that is slightly better than the GPU in the standard Atom netbooks.
Translation: I disagree with those points, but can't refute them. But they're still wrong!
What? I addressed and refuted each and every one of your points (and Scottsdale's that I chose to address), you refuted none of my points, and started accusing me of ridiculous things!
Don't forget the huge conspiracy involving anyone who favors Intel in any way. The only fanboys in this thread are applesupergeek and Scottsdale, and their posts prove that.
Do you remember that time when he said he had "sources" that claimed a MacBook Air revamp in September 2009 or so, and when people doubted his source, he got mad and threw all kinds of accusations at them. Well we know how reliable that source was.
Ok, I am throwing this out there and it no doubt could be turned into confetti within 2 posts buttttt. I was reading from my iPhone an article at tuaw.com that Jobs raved about how the processor screamed and the graphics were incredible...ok i only remember the screamed part but something was said about the graphics and it left me with an impression that maybe the air line could get a beefed up integrated chip from PMI Semi rather than do the Intel w/ integrated graphics. If the ipad is supposed to run an HD movie without a prob imagine what a beefier chip could do for the air...
They do not get mad when someone doubts the validity of their sources, or even the sources themselves (as what happens all the time in forums). Unlike you.What about all of the analysts and insiders who get their wrong information all of the time... do you go tell them they're liars and require them to site their sources! BAD INFORMATION HAPPENS! GET OVER IT!
Pot calling the kettle black (as you see I am not the first to say that to you), especially when both kettles aren't even black.Bottom line, lesson learned... I won't share with you. Now go make your derogatory statements elsewhere.
Obviously you can't respectfully disagree with anyone with a different opinion from yours, especially if it's MBA related, calling them "disgusting" and such. You know what that reminds me of? Yeah, those posts concerning your "source" before September.Quite frankly, it's disgusting!
Exactly. Throwing out your own opinion. Link me to a source that says that. Remember, I used to state 9400M = 2x GMA HD = 4x previous GMA, and yes that was from a source (which was fairly old and that's why I've stopped saying it).I say 50 to 60% processing power behind.
Not necessarily incorrect. Just unsourced.Maybe you think my information is incorrect, but I am not calling you a liar for believing what you do. I just plain think you're wrong.
Didn't I mention independent reviewers in that one post?Intel will come up with some skewd number and some people will believe it... go ahead, be that way.
Nobody is asking for exact percentages. We are asking for approximate percentages. A range of 10% is good enough.The only way we will be able to figure the EXACT PERCENTAGE of the differences between the graphics is to get a MBA with a C2D and an MBA with its Core i# and list all of the graphics benchmarks.
Because they have looked up sources?And I don't know why anyone would say the Intel IGP included with Arrandale is EQUIVALENT in ANY WAY to the 9400m or its successor.
So give a few instead. Articles will help me; long posts won't.Finally, I don't have to document every article I read stating Intel sucks and site my source to you.
Where in this thread have I advocated the use of the Intel IGP in the MBA?I agree to disagree with you. I don't care that you are on the other side of the fence. That's your own issue.
To the point of fanboyism.I am passionate about the MBA,
Good, so you won't reply to this post. Or for that matter, why did you make this post anyway?Finally, I admit when I make mistakes, and ever replying to you in the first place was a BIG MISTAKE as it simply wasn't worth my time.
Yeah, I thought the original MBA was a polarizing machine. It seems the NEXT one thats not announced or specced is even more controversial.
Even more ironic the few benchmarks/tests available that all show pretty good performance from the Intel GPU are considered evidence that its a poor performer. Not just a poor performer but a very poor performer
Supposition posing as fact, opinion posing as analysis, ad homonym and intellectually dishonest attacks on the reasonable posts, and complete illogic. What a thread. Must be a full moon or something.
I absolutely believe that, and I have suggested that as a possibility. At this point, the iPad looks pretty incredible given a 1GHz Apple A4 and whatever graphics it is using (has that been disclosed)??? I completely believe that Apple's dream is to cut out Intel completely with its own chips for all of its Macs, iPods, and iPhones. I suppose even that the MBA might be the first Mac to have an Apple designed CPU.
I believe that an Apple solution could be lightyears ahead of Intel's Arrandale with only IGP. I do think we're a year off from that happening. However, we could see one last Penryn C2D update with Nvidia for the MBA and low end MBPs. Then that would give Apple eight months to determine the best way to deal with the Intel IGP "problem." It might take longer than that, but Apple needs to give itself time and demand that Intel provide CPUs without IGPs that are CRAP! Yes, I will call the Intel Arrandale IGP crap because no matter what it's worse than the 15-month-old Nvidia 9400m... and nobody should have to go 15-months backwards AND BEYOND for tech in a new computer!