Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Intel Launching Next Generation MacBook Air Processors

Scottsdale said:
I am shocked that anyone finds this as a positive.

So you all want a drop from 1.86/2.13 to 1.4GHz CPUs in your 13" MBA? That is a 30% drop.

Then you want another drop of approaching 50% in graphics performance? Remember these IGPs clock in much lower than the STD voltage SB used in 13" MBP.

I find this completely backwards from Apple's current position on both CPU and graphics, and I don't think anyone would end up with a faster or better 13" MBA than the current generation. Apple would certainly have to bring back the backlit keyboard and introduce Thunderbolt to sucker anyone into buying such inferior junk! I would recommend people buy the current generation on clearance rather than lose performance everywhere like this. If this is the chip Apple uses in the 13" MBA, prepare for a big drop in capabilities!

I am still in shock anyone finds this a positive? Have you all read the clock speed? The facts about the chip and IGP in ultra low voltage variants?
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure you are aware that Apple would use LV CPU in 13", not ULV. That bumps us to 2.3GHz plus Turbo. You have said this yourself too and I already covered the reason in my other post.

This is just a MR article and surprisingly, they don't have much idea about the TDPs. Hopefully they will correct their article so people won't live in confusion.
 
roland.g said:
I have something better than a MacBook Air. It's called an iPad 2.

That with my iMac and I have no need anymore for my 13" aluminum MacBook. While the Air is a nice looking and light machine, I still like having things like Firewire, an optical drive (without having to pay extra for it or plug it in), and above all, screen real estate.

My 24" iMac gives me that. While my iPad 2 gives my instant on, mobile, and light. When the iMacs get a refresh and ship with Lion, it will be time for a 27".
Click to expand...

Yeah, but for alot of people as cool as the iPad 2 is, it still can't do alot of what they need to do on the road. I have the iPad 1 and it's great. My favorite way to surf the web hands down! HOWEVER...I like to edit HD movies from my csnon dslr and do some creative projects while traveling...and the iPad can't do it. When I heard the iPad 2 was going to get iMovie, I got excited, but when it was released, I found out that iMovie on the iPad 2 can ONLY edit movies shot on apple iOS devices(the iPad, iPod and iPhone)!! Nor can I use Photoshop, aperture, illustrator or anime studio pro on it.

There are MANY creative people out there who love the MacBook air, but have been waiting for this update.

I still love my original iPad, and travel with it everywhere. BUT I decided not to buy the new iPad 2 even if it has a camera and is faster....cause it's still a "closed" device, and can't do alot of the things I need to do on the road. Things the MacBook air CAN do.

Heck, when I get one of the new MacBook airs...I may travel with BOTH it AND my iPad. Lol. They are slim enough and can both fit in my laptop sleeve in my knapsack and still weigh less than a 15" or 17" MacBook pro!

I will get a new iMac when they are updated too for my workstation at home, since my G5 iMac is on it's last legs. Lol.

And I am sure EVENTUALLY I will update my iPad. But for now I don't need to at all.
 
TerrorOFdeath said:
IMHO i would love to see an 11.6 MBA with an i3. So that there could still be enough power for backlit.
And please, do make the screen better for the 11.6
Click to expand...

There isn't an i3 in any low voltage or ultra low voltage spec for Sandy Bridge.
 
GekkePrutser said:
There isn't an i3 in any low voltage or ultra low voltage spec for Sandy Bridge.
Click to expand...

There are with 18 Watts. Besides, wouldnt be the first time intel made special Cpus for Apple. So it isnt impossible an i3 even less than 18 special made for apple.

Tod
 
Scottsdale said:
I am shocked that anyone finds this as a positive.

So you all want a drop from 1.86/2.13 to 1.4GHz CPUs in your 13" MBA? That is a 30% drop.

Then you want another drop of approaching 50% in graphics performance? Remember these IGPs clock in much lower than the STD voltage SB used in 13" MBP.

I find this completely backwards from Apple's current position on both CPU and graphics, and I don't think anyone would end up with a faster or better 13" MBA than the current generation. Apple would certainly have to bring back the backlit keyboard and introduce Thunderbolt to sucker anyone into buying such inferior junk! I would recommend people buy the current generation on clearance rather than lose performance everywhere like this. If this is the chip Apple uses in the 13" MBA, prepare for a big drop in capabilities!

I am still in shock anyone finds this a positive? Have you all read the clock speed? The facts about the chip and IGP in ultra low voltage variants?
Click to expand...

clock speed is not everything... a 1.4ghz sb processor will kill anything you are doing with a 2.4ghz c2d. There are many other factors in a processor than just clock speed so i wouldn't be worried. There is no doubt that the sb will be a much faster processor than the ancient c2d.

Also, I would say 50% less graphics is a bit of a stretch. Haven't personally ran any benchmarks but was reading a thread the other day and in the benchmarks and graphics they were showing that the 320m averages about 5-10 extra fps over the 3000.

here is a thread you can look at and compare for yourself.

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1103257/

Sure the integrated graphics are going to be slightly worse, but at least you will have a nice new processor. Can't always have your cake and eat it too, especially in an ultraportable.

When the mba was refreshed everyone was complaining about the outdated processor, now rumors of a processor upgrade and people bitch about the integrated graphics. Guess you can't please everyone but jesus, sometimes it just seems like people find anything they can to complain about.

Here's a simple solution for all of you, if you want the "slightly" better graphics go buy a macbook air right now, it's not like apple has stopped selling them. If you'd rather have a sandy bridge processor, wait it out. Seems simple but i guess that's just me?!?!?!:eek:
 
toddybody said:
They do:D Speced out 17'' MBP.

Youre totally right though, their notebook displays have been taking backseat to the iOS train. Hell, the iPad3 is gonna have a 2048x1536 display for heavens sake...and they couldnt even give the refreshed 13'' MBP the same res as the months old 13'' MBA. FAIL.
Click to expand...

I bet you that you'll never see a iPad with screen resolution like 2048x1536, it's a ****ing nightmare to iOS developers. You don't understand that it's ****ing crazy, iOS interface like MacOS X interface is not scalable. Apple have to change the whole GUI before making this step forward. You know why there is much smaller apps for Android OS that for iOS? Because Adnroid devices have tons of screen resolutions and every ****ing vendor think that this is better but they kill platform with tons of resolutions, it's hard for developers to make apps compatible with all resolutions, again GUI problem.
 
jamesryanbell said:
I LOL'd. I owned iPad 1 for a year, and while it's nice, it's a FAR, FAR cry from the productivity capabilities of the current gen MBA.

Like it or not, iPad is SEVERELY CRIPPLED for content creation (i.e. real work), but excels at content CONSUMPTION. That's factual and completely undebatable. Everyone knows this.

So, no, it's not "something better". It's a more viable choice for entertainment and consumption. That's it.
Click to expand...

I didn't say I use it for content creation or production capabilities. Desktop power. Screen real estate. I'll take my iMac with 24" screen over a notebook at 11.6 or 13.3. And my graphics and cpu power over that in an MBA. And when I want something instant on, and quick access, and light and mobile, I've got an iPad 2. Sorry, but read the whole post. I apologize if I'm not one of those people who kids themselves into thinking that a notebook is a viable "real work" machine.
 
Hellhammer said:
I'm pretty sure you are aware that Apple would use LV CPU in 13", not ULV. That bumps us to 2.3GHz plus Turbo. You have said this yourself too and I already covered the reason in my other post.

This is just a MR article and surprisingly, they don't have much idea about the TDPs. Hopefully they will correct their article so people won't live in confusion.
Click to expand...

Hellhammer, can I ask you something about this? There are SB LV and now SB ULV. Both are for laptops and the Macbook Pro 13 has SB LV, right? Or does the Pro has something else? What is the performance difference between an equally clocked ULV and LV?

Thanks!
 
mactoday said:
I bet you that you'll never see a iPad with screen resolution like 2048x1536, it's a ****ing nightmare to iOS developers. You don't understand that it's ****ing crazy, iOS interface like MacOS X interface is not scalable. Apple have to change the whole GUI before making this step forward.
Click to expand...

what did Apple do with the iP4? Oh wait...
As far as Devs are concerned, they 2x the res for their ease. Sorry, its not that "****ing crazy". Oh, and before someone says "well theres not going to be a mobile GPU that could handle that res"; not true, even now theres some great emerging technologies that have handled concurrent instances of 1080p (like 10 displays)...much less whats going to be available in 2012(if we survive the world ending:) Furthermore, native apps like iBooks/iTunes/etc dont require heavy processing to display hi res. Sorry man, youre wrong.


PS: Take it easy on the *
 
gregor.hoch said:
Hellhammer, can I ask you something about this? There are SB LV and now SB ULV. Both are for laptops and the Macbook Pro 13 has SB LV, right? Or does the Pro has something else? What is the performance difference between an equally clocked ULV and LV?

Thanks!
Click to expand...

13" MBP uses SV chips, i.e. standard voltage (35W). Before it used MV (medium voltage, 25W) chips but Sandy Bridge does not offer CPUs like that. LV (25W) and ULV (17W) chips have not been released yet but will be released shortly like the article says.

If the clock speed and other specs are the same, then the performance is the same. ULV and LV chips are only separated by the TDP which causes the ULV to have lower clock speed. Otherwise they are the same chips.
 
regandarcy said:
Yeah, but for alot of people as cool as the iPad 2 is, it still can't do alot of what they need to do on the road. I have the iPad 1 and it's great. My favorite way to surf the web hands down! HOWEVER...I like to edit HD movies from my csnon dslr and do some creative projects while traveling...and the iPad can't do it. When I heard the iPad 2 was going to get iMovie, I got excited, but when it was released, I found out that iMovie on the iPad 2 can ONLY edit movies shot on apple iOS devices(the iPad, iPod and iPhone)!! Nor can I use Photoshop, aperture, illustrator or anime studio pro on it.

There are MANY creative people out there who love the MacBook air, but have been waiting for this update.

I still love my original iPad, and travel with it everywhere. BUT I decided not to buy the new iPad 2 even if it has a camera and is faster....cause it's still a "closed" device, and can't do alot of the things I need to do on the road. Things the MacBook air CAN do.

Heck, when I get one of the new MacBook airs...I may travel with BOTH it AND my iPad. Lol. They are slim enough and can both fit in my laptop sleeve in my knapsack and still weigh less than a 15" or 17" MacBook pro!

I will get a new iMac when they are updated too for my workstation at home, since my G5 iMac is on it's last legs. Lol.

And I am sure EVENTUALLY I will update my iPad. But for now I don't need to at all.
Click to expand...

I guess you have to do what you have to do on the road. Still a shame that you suffer running Photoshop, aperture, illustrator or anime studio pro, or edit HD video on a notebook, let alone an underpowered one. Both from a power and a screen aspect.

I don't discount the fact that there are road warriors who need an MBA or other portable for work. Whether that is an office suite and email or actual video/photo production or anything in between. But while some people, especially of the lighter use group, will choose the MBA over the MBP in a 15" or 17" form factor, or even the 13" MBP, for their needs, the point was that the MBA borders on a consumption machine because of its weight, access, and limits in power. You can do workhorse projects on it, but will still suffer the slow rendering time. An MBA is perfectly suited to the business traveler who needs all the office capabilities but no significant power.
 
Hellhammer said:
ULV CPUs (17W) will go to 11.6". The TDP of 320M is not known but 9400M has TDP of 12W so it is quite safe to assume that the TDP is similar to that. That means current 11.6" MBA has TDP of 22W (includes CPU, GPU, chipset) while SB 11.6" MBA would have a TDP of 21W (17W for the CPU and ~4W for the PCH).

13" will go with LV CPUs (25W). Again, currently it has 17W for the CPU and 12W for 320M. That's 29W. 25W CPU and ~4W for PCH gives you the same 29W.

11.6" - Core i5-2537M (option for Core i7-2657M)
13.3" - Core i7-2629M (option for Core i7-2649M)
Click to expand...

Thanks HH for those stats!:cool:
 
TerrorOFdeath said:
There are with 18 Watts. Besides, wouldnt be the first time intel made special Cpus for Apple. So it isnt impossible an i3 even less than 18 special made for apple.
Click to expand...

I think you mean the 380UM? But those aren't Sandy Bridge, they're Arrandales, and hopefully Apple won't go near them (they have left them alone so far even though they were already available at the time of the last update)

In Sandy Bridge there's only the i5/i7's mentioned already, and a celeron of 1.1 Ghz (called B847). That one's not even labeled i3. I really hope that one won't make it to the MBA. But even then there's only one so hopefully they'll offer an upgrade to i5/i7 in that case as the high-end CPU.
 
Hellhammer said:
I'm pretty sure you are aware that Apple would use LV CPU in 13", not ULV. That bumps us to 2.3GHz plus Turbo. You have said this yourself too and I already covered the reason in my other post.

This is just a MR article and surprisingly, they don't have much idea about the TDPs. Hopefully they will correct their article so people won't live in confusion.
Click to expand...

That isn't what this story reads, and I don't think anyone but you and I have even read the actual facts supposed here.

I actually find this one of the least accurate stories ever posted on MacRumors.com for several reasons... the OP is assuming ULV in the 13" MBA. The OP is assuming that if SB IGP is good enough for MBP it's fine for MBA. There is no rumor or timeframe listing these chips especially not in the 13" MBA. It seems like it's a blatant attempt to stir up activity without any real facts, rumors, or even common knowledge about the chips used in the MBAs.

Certainly the people haven't read the story or they're somehow focusing on the 11" MBA. Sure, this would be fine for the 11" MBA in terms of CPU clock speed but even then it's a gigantic loss in the graphics capabilities. That leads to a problem with the author saying good enough for 13" MBP than good enough for MBA. However, the IGP clock speed used in this ULV chip will be nearly a 50% drop in graphics performance. That for me doesn't equate to if this then that...

I am disappointed with MR for even writing such a poor piece of garbage. Forget that I cannot stand the SB IGP... the assumptions made here are absurd! It
definitely doesn't warrant this sort of reply from the fans of the MBA. You and I
could assume things all day, but that isn't the story written.
 
Last edited:
Hellhammer said:
13" MBP uses SV chips, i.e. standard voltage (35W). Before it used MV (medium voltage, 25W) chips but Sandy Bridge does not offer CPUs like that. LV (25W) and ULV (17W) chips have not been released yet but will be released shortly like the article says.

If the clock speed and other specs are the same, then the performance is the same. ULV and LV chips are only separated by the TDP which causes the ULV to have lower clock speed. Otherwise they are the same chips.
Click to expand...


So is that also true for the difference between SV and LV? If that is the case, the Core i7-2649M you cite above (2.3 LV chip) should be faster compared to the 2.3 i5 in the low end Pro 13?

Thanks!
 
Scottsdale said:
That isn't what this story reads, and I don't think anyone but you and I have even read the actual facts supposed here.

I actually find this one of the least accurate stories ever posted on MacRumors.com for several reasons... the OP is assuming ULV in the 13" MBA. The OP is assuming that if SB IGP is good enough for MBP it's fine for MBA. There is no rumor or timeframe listing these chips especially not in the 13" MBA. It seems like it's a blatant attempt to stir up activity without any real facts, rumors, or even common knowledge about the chips used in the MBAs.

Certainly the people haven't read the story or they're somehow focusing on the 11" MBA. Sure, this would be fine for the 11" MBA in terms of CPU clock speed but even then it's a gigantic loss in Tue graphics capabilities. That leads to a problem with the author saying good enough for 13" MBP than good enough for MBA. However, the IGP clock speed used in this ULV chip will be nearly a 50% drop in graphics performance. That for me doesn't equate to if this then that...

I am disappointed with MR for even writing such a poor piece of garbage. Forget that I cannot stand the SB IGP... the assumptions made here are absurd! It definitely doesn't warrant this sort of reply from the fans of the MBA. You and I could assailed things all day, but that isn't the story written.
Click to expand...

Given Apple's willingness to go with it on the 13", I'm inclined to go with the reasoning that they'll use it here. The argument that it will be a big step down from the 320M is kind of moot given that anyone will say you're crazy if you try to insist that a MBA should be used for anything like gaming or graphical work (read anyone as Apple). You also have to remember that the 320M is downclocked in the MBAs too compared to the 13", so the drop isn't as drastic as you state.

The combination of a lower or equal TDP, a GPU that doesn't need its own heatsink because its integrated into the CPU and the very likely prolonged battery life for the MBA, it's pretty much a done deal for the MBA.

gregor.hoch said:
So is that also true for the difference between SV and LV? If that is the case, the Core i7-2649M you cite above (2.3 LV chip) should be faster compared to the 2.3 i5 in the low end Pro 13?

Thanks!
Click to expand...

He didn't quite tell the whole story. A LV and ULV chip likely went through different binning as their performance at the same settings varies because the process they are built on varies. The chips that work at the extremes (say Intel's extreme desktop processors or the lowest voltage CPUs they offer) are likely the top performers in their binning tests. Just because a chip can function as a LV doesn't mean it would meet the requirements for ULV, for example. However, if the ULV chip were to be scaled to the LV's parts speed and voltage, it would function just fine.
 
Last edited:
xxBURT0Nxx said:
clock speed is not everything... a 1.4ghz sb processor will kill anything you are doing with a 2.4ghz c2d. There are many other factors in a processor than just clock speed so i wouldn't be worried. There is no doubt that the sb will be a much faster processor than the ancient c2d.

Also, I would say 50% less graphics is a bit of a stretch. Haven't personally ran any benchmarks but was reading a thread the other day and in the benchmarks and graphics they were showing that the 320m averages about 5-10 extra fps over the 3000.

here is a thread you can look at and compare for yourself.

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1103257/

Sure the integrated graphics are going to be slightly worse, but at least you will have a nice new processor. Can't always have your cake and eat it too, especially in an ultraportable.

When the mba was refreshed everyone was complaining about the outdated processor, now rumors of a processor upgrade and people bitch about the integrated graphics. Guess you can't please everyone but jesus, sometimes it just seems like people find anything they can to complain about.

Here's a simple solution for all of you, if you want the "slightly" better graphics go buy a macbook air right now, it's not like apple has stopped selling them. If you'd rather have a sandy bridge processor, wait it out. Seems simple but i guess that's just me?!?!?!:eek:
Click to expand...

Sure clock speed isn't everything. But you better go read up some more on Tue Intel HD3000 IGP. You're using facts from the STD voltage SB IGP and applying them to the ULV SB IGP. Go read about the graphics on the Samsung Series 9 laptops. The 13" model uses this very chip cited. It shows greater than a 50% drop in graphics performance from the 320m to ULV IGP used in SB.

This has been the problem all along with everyone. They're attributing facts that are actually fallacies to this Intel IGP.
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)

pmz said:
QCassidy352 said:
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)

I have a 13" ultimate of the current generation. The limiting factor for me is the graphics, not the processor. so going to sandy bridge with the intel 3000 would be a less appealing machine for my uses than the current model. It's really too bad the sandy bridge macs are tied to those garbage integrated graphics.
Click to expand...

Since you have no clue how the sandy bridge airs will perform, I'll take your statement as FUD.
Click to expand...

It's safe to say they won't outperform 13" mbp which has the same graphics and a faster processor. Which means the graphics performance will be a step back. And really, is the attitude necessary?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back