Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
as long as the new MBAs will have longer battery life (7+ preferably), then i'm cool with the HD 3000 in there, as the MBA's purpose is to be an ultra portable
 
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!

It would be about as fast. The IGP is 150MHz slower though so graphics wise it would be slightly slower. chrmjenkins explained some smaller details but in terms of performance, i7-2649M should be similar to i5-2520M.

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.

Remember that those are numbers under Windows. Anand mentioned in his 2011 MBP review that Intel HD 3000 has brilliant drivers in OS X, and in general it beat the 320M in OS X too. In Windows it got badly beaten by 320M. Sure the LV and especially ULV IGP will be slower than 320M, even in OS X but it may not be as bad as 50% drop.
 
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.

Not at all. It's pretty obvious that a future iteration of the iPad will have a 2048x1536 resolution, being exactly twice the current resolution. It will be just like they did for the iPhone with the Retina Display.

And it's extremely easy for devs to make a Retina Display enabled app. Actually you don't even have to touch the code (*) at all and just drop in the images at twice the resolution into the assets. Everything else is handled by the OS automatically. Text etc. is scaled appropriately anyway, and if you have the @2x versions of the images used, it will use those instead of the single res versions.

So no, no dev nightmare, no changing of the whole GUI, nothing of the sort.

____
(*)= for devs - yeah, I know about the “imageWithContentsOfFile" bug that won't load the @2x versions ;)
 
I have something better than a MacBook Air. It's called an iPad 2.

Let me know when it can run CS5 (in a pinch) and I'm in

Until then, I'm waiting for a back-lit key board and a faster processor (yah, I know learn how to type, yada-yada. I've been at this long enough that if you could type you became a "typesetter")
 
well the CPU in the 13" macbook air has a 1066 Mhz frontside bus, only the 11" has a 800 Mhz FSB, so that quote thing was wrong :D
 
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)

Hellhammer 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!

It would be about as fast. The IGP is 150MHz slower though so graphics wise it would be slightly slower. chrmjenkins explained some smaller details but in terms of performance, i7-2649M should be similar to i5-2520M.

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.

Remember that those are numbers under Windows. Anand mentioned in his 2011 MBP review that Intel HD 3000 has brilliant drivers in OS X, and in general it beat the 320M in OS X too. In Windows it got badly beaten by 320M. Sure the LV and especially ULV IGP will be slower than 320M, even in OS X but it may not be as bad as 50% drop.

True. But here's the thing. Apple generally updates these about one a year. With such a slow upgrade cycle, you'd like to see significant improvement on each update. To stay the same would be pretty mediocre. To actually move backwards is just sad.

And yes, I realize options are limited here by the spat between intel and nvidea and by the size of the air (not enough room for a big dedicated card). So I don't know what the right answer is. All I know is I won't be tempted by an upgrade to CPU when it comes with a gpu downgrade.
 
It would be about as fast. The IGP is 150MHz slower though so graphics wise it would be slightly slower. chrmjenkins explained some smaller details but in terms of performance, i7-2649M should be similar to i5-2520M.



Remember that those are numbers under Windows. Anand mentioned in his 2011 MBP review that Intel HD 3000 has brilliant drivers in OS X, and in general it beat the 320M in OS X too. In Windows it got badly beaten by 320M. Sure the LV and especially ULV IGP will be slower than 320M, even in OS X but the Windows numbers don't correspond to OS X numbers.

Are you smoking something? Sure the IGP used in SB 13" MBP might get some fudged numbers by those who report for Apple, but you think the ULV SB IGP is going to even compare to the 320m on any level??? Huh? You are far smarter than that.

A lot of people using the 13" MBP in comparison when there are almost no similaries.

I don't believe a ULV CPU gets used in the 13" MBA. I don't believe this CPU in the story gets used in the 13" MBA. I don't believe Apple is dumb enough to ruin the MBA brand AGAIN with Intel's IGP at this time. I don't believe that what Apple does in the 13" MBP has any correlation with the MBA because the IGP is different. I believe when Apple and Nvidia said Apple will use the Nvidia chipset and GPU for a long time they were specifically citing the MBA, as it make no sense for the MBA to be so challenged as to get such an inferior design leading to tragic real world results.

In 2012 the MBA will get an update when it actually makes sense. People waiting for a ULV SB chip in the 13" MBA will be waiting a long time. People waiting or expecting SB IGP to even compare in ULV variants will be waiting forever as they cannot match the Nvidia offering with the underclocked IGP.

This story is ridiculous as written.
 
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.

Are you comparing it to a MBA with 320M or a 13" MBP with 320M? The latter is unfair because it is not analogous to the CPU and GPU speed in an ultra-portable like the series 9 or MBP.

Are you smoking something? Sure the IGP used in SB 13" MBP might get some fudged numbers by those who report for Apple, but you think the ULV SB IGP is going to even compare to the 320m on any level??? Huh? You are far smarter than that.

A lot of people using the 13" MBP in comparison when there are almost no similaries.

I don't believe a ULV CPU gets used in the 13" MBA. I don't believe this CPU in the story gets used in the 13" MBA. I don't believe Apple is dumb enough to ruin the MBA brand AGAIN with Intel's IGP at this time. I don't believe that what Apple does in the 13" MBP has any correlation with the MBA because the IGP is different. I believe when Apple and Nvidia said Apple will use the Nvidia chipset and GPU for a long time they were specifically citing the MBA, as it make no sense for the MBA to be so challenged as to get such an inferior design leading to tragic real world results.

In 2012 the MBA will get an update when it actually makes sense. People waiting for a ULV SB chip in the 13" MBA will be waiting a long time. People waiting or expecting SB IGP to even compare in ULV variants will be waiting forever as they cannot match the Nvidia offering with the underclocked IGP.

This story is ridiculous as written.

Just exactly what end use do you imagine being crippled in the MBA by going from a 320M to a HD3000 IGP? Surely you don't suggest that the number of people gaming on the MBA and who demand that performance is sufficient enough to determine the fate of the product line or even approach appreciable numbers in sales.
 
Are you smoking something? Sure the IGP used in SB 13" MBP might get some fudged numbers by those who report for Apple, but you think the ULV SB IGP is going to even compare to the 320m on any level??? Huh? You are far smarter than that.

So what you are saying is, AnandTech manipulated their own benchmarks so Intel HD 3000 would look better than 320M? That's how I interpret your post. If all you want to believe is those Windows scores which are irrelevant when it comes to OS X, be my guest.

I didn't say the ULV IGP will be anything close to 320M, but just because it's 50% worse under Windows doesn't mean that it will be as bad in OS X. I'm pretty sure you even said that the benchmarks under Windows are not relevant when the first preview of SB was published.
 
Maybe..

Maybe, just maybe, this would be the first Air I'd consider buying..

If, this update would bring Thunderbolt to the Air..

USB-only is still a deal-breaker for me, I'd rather walk to the internet, uphill, both ways, in the snow, than be that limited in a laptop..

An Air, with Thunderbolt... Wouldn't be my primary Mac, but would make an Air/iMac combo look better than a maxed-out 15" MBP...

Shrug..
 
For most people the ipad is more useful than the air anyway imo. Yes i owned an air, the ipad 1, and now the ipad 2 and the air was just a watered down macbook pro more than the ipad is a scaled up ipod touch

I completely disagree with that statement.

Don't make that remark in the MacBook Air forum unless you enjoy a good debate :D
 
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?

I think most ppl here do not seem to realize the number 1 problem of MBA: overheating. I am the proud owner of a Rev. C MBA, which I would not exchange for anything else (especially the new models). The only problem I can complain abt is frequent overheating, which makes apps and the OS slow down consistently or (very rarely) even freeze.

I believe that the processor downgrading, as well as the elimination of backlit keys, are mostly in order to avoid such problem (as well as improve battery life). Otherwise, they would not make sense.

MBA is not MB Pro. If u want less weight/space, u must be willing to compromise.
 
Let me know when it can run CS5 (in a pinch) and I'm in

Until then, I'm waiting for a back-lit key board and a faster processor (yah, I know learn how to type, yada-yada. I've been at this long enough that if you could type you became a "typesetter")

I run Handbrake and Photoshop among other things when I need to (in a pinch (and zoom)).
 
I think most ppl here do not seem to realize the number 1 problem of MBA: overheating. I am the proud owner of a Rev. C MBA, which I would not exchange for anything else (especially the new models). The only problem I can complain abt is frequent overheating, which makes apps and the OS slow down consistently or (very rarely) even freeze.

I believe that the processor downgrading, as well as the elimination of backlit keys, are mostly in order to avoid such problem (as well as improve battery life). Otherwise, they would not make sense.

MBA is not MB Pro. If u want less weight/space, u must be willing to compromise.

Rev D. has no overheating issues. My CPU doesn't go over 70°C when watching 1080p Flash video in fullscreen. The fan sometimes kicks in but it's still very comfortable to use on your lap, since it's barely even warm. Older MBAs suffered from overheating, that is true.
 
oooo

I've always hated the MBA until this most recent update. FLASH drives are amazing. and if they can finally update the processor to i5 they will have my money! those complaining about graphics.. why are you buying 13in mac for gaming?? buy a MBP so you can see what you're doing. I want mine for general usage and music editing/writing. Sounds like a beautiful product to me. :)
 
I completely disagree with that statement.

Well at least the iPad does have a backlit keyboard :p

Edit: But I agree, I own an iPad myself and while it serves its purpose brilliantly there's many things that can just not be done on it. Just wanted to say there's a few things it does have over the MacBook Air (the built-in 3G option is another)
 
The most interesting thing here is how some people hang on every word over updates to the MacBook Air line.

Some won't touch it without a Sandy Bridge update, others want it left alone to save the NVIDIA graphics.

From dated chips, future proofing, when to buy, getting in at the right time and on and on ...

What gives?

In 90% of the tasks the average MacBook Air owner does are they really going to notice it either way?

Future proofing/saving a few hundred dollars ... there is no such thing ... just look back at the electronics you purchased in the past... how has 'future proofing' worked for you so far? lol

Like it. Buy it. Enjoy it.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.