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

Better to have Core2Duo with 320M than an i5 with GMA HD 3000. At least for now until drivers get better and especially software houses support.

3D and gaming performance on new GMA is not so good but especially support is bad, many games don't work at all. Open CL too seems to don't work.

See the graph

http://mac.ikirsector.it/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=84

Lion should get full OpenGL 3.0 support even for GMA... i hope.

Naturally MBA is not a gaming or 3D production machine, but if you want to do some gaming, casual gaming, GMA can have serious limits.
 
Mr. Retrofire said:
See, that is exactly not the purpose of OpenCL. OpenCL can also use specialized DSPs, if someone writes a compiler for them. OpenCL is GPU-independent, which is a problem, if you want to optimize your OpenCL-code for a specific GPU.
Click to expand...

See, that's exactly the same thing I said. And see, that's exactly what the SB + Intel 3000 HD solution does not do. :rolleyes:

Look, you're saying the same thing I am, you just don't want to agree that the Intel 3000 HD solution is sub-par for OpenCL, a big feature Apple pushed with Snow Leopard. Stop being obtuse. Right now, SB does not run OpenCL code on a DSP or anything else, it runs on it the CPU, defeating the whole purpose.

mirko.meschini said:
nVidia 320M si about 20W, so they can use 17W processors on 11,6" and 25W processors on 13", with an increased battery life on both models.
Click to expand...

You're forgetting that the 320m is more than just a graphics processor. SB still requires a south bridge which will also have a power rating.
 
roland.g said:
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.
Click to expand...

You obviously have not used a MBA for real work before. It is more than capable for some people's needs, not capable for others. I've been able to run 100 track Logic files on the thing without the Air breaking a sweat. Before you run along blabbering things you don't know about: think.
 
MikeD23nu said:
Perfect day for this news....

I have a new 13" MBA sitting here at my desk unopened...just dropped off from FedEx today. I'm debating whether or not to just return it and wait for the refresh or be happy with what I got.

I'm a very light user..web, email, iTunes, sync iPhone and iPad. Do I really need the Sandy Bridge power..probably not but I dont want to have the "old not so shiny ball" come June (as the rumors suggest).

Any help from the MR community is greatly appreciated!
Click to expand...

If it does what you need it to, I'd keep it. It's a great machine. The earliest anyone is expecting an update is June, and they might wait a bit longer. The current model is selling well, and the switch to the Sandy Bridge will require a redesign of the logic board (particularly if they also add Thunderbolt). That said, if they restore the backlit keyboard, and add Thunderbolt, the Rev E may tempt me. If it's just the existing model with the Core 2 Duo/NVIDIA 320m swapped for a Sandy Bridge Core i5/i7, I'll likely wait until Rev F.
 
HyperZboy said:
I'm getting tired of Apple Mac's being INTEL's BIATCH!

Integrated graphics on a laptop costing THAT MUCH? PLEASE!

Steve Jobs should threaten to switch to AMD/ATI solutions even if just for leverage with Intel to get discreet graphics chips in these machines.

If this is true, this is a pathetic technology compromise in my opinion.
Click to expand...

I would say the decision not to use discrete graphics is apples in order to save room inside the machine and make it small. If you want discrete graphics you can buy a macbook pro...? You make it seem like intel told apple they can't use the sb chips unless they use the IGP, which is obviously false. You are paying for the small, lightweight, portable laptop with the air, obviously not what's inside of it, save for maybe the SSD.
 
hleewell said:
If June 2011 is set, then i would expect:

11.6"
Sandy Bridge
4GB RAM default
256GB SSD max
Thunderbolt

13"
Sandy Bridge
4GB RAM default
512GB SSD max
Thunderbolt
Back-lit keyboard
Ext Superdrive free (hi end model)

Rejoice!
Click to expand...


ok don't be as ass! back-lit keyboard on the 13' but not the 11' would be heartbreaking for those of us who wants the 11 and will make the decision making between the two even harder..
 
animatedude said:
ok don't be as ass! back-lit keyboard on the 13' but not the 11' would be heartbreaking for those of us who wants the 11 and will make the decision making between the two even harder..
Click to expand...

yes posting DREAM spec's for a machine that he really knows absolutely nothing about makes him an ass because it is not your dream spec sheet:confused: some people these days... smh:rolleyes:
 
xxBURT0Nxx said:
You make it seem like intel told apple they can't use the sb chips unless they use the IGP, which is obviously false.
Click to expand...

It's not false per say, at least not 100%. Of course, graphics in such systems are usually IGPs, but before the Core iX line of processors, anyone could license and build chipsets for these processors and include a different IGP than Intel did. Intel however refused to license this for the new processors, including the SB line and thus nVidia who was making chipsets could not produce an IGP for the new platform.

So yes, essentially Intel told Apple they had to use the 3000 HD as an IGP, where before, Apple was using nVidia's tech. There was even a massive lawsuit about all of this, between Intel and nVidia which ended with nVidia stepping out of the chipset business alltogether.

So the poster you were replying to wasn't 100% wrong at all. It is in fact a testament to Intel's incompetence how all of this was handled, since an old MBA with a 320m outpaces new SB machines that have a much more powerful CPU in graphics performance.
 
KnightWRX said:
It's not false per say, at least not 100%. Of course, graphics in such systems are usually IGPs, but before the Core iX line of processors, anyone could license and build chipsets for these processors and include a different IGP than Intel did. Intel however refused to license this for the new processors, including the SB line and thus nVidia who was making chipsets could not produce an IGP for the new platform.

So yes, essentially Intel told Apple they had to use the 3000 HD as an IGP, where before, Apple was using nVidia's tech. There was even a massive lawsuit about all of this, between Intel and nVidia which ended with nVidia stepping out of the chipset business alltogether.

So the poster you were replying to wasn't 100% wrong at all. It is in fact a testament to Intel's incompetence how all of this was handled, since an old MBA with a 320m outpaces new SB machines that have a much more powerful CPU in graphics performance.
Click to expand...

I know about the whole nvidia/intel lawsuit, but to say that intel forced apple to use the IGP is not correct imo. Yes they may have said if you want to use integrated graphics, they must be our integrated graphics on sandy bridge, but obviously apple could still have chosen to use discrete graphics as they did in some of the macbook pros, however seeing them absent on the airs and the 13" mbp shows that apple didn't have enough space to include discrete on top of the new processors. I see what you are saying, but the op said intel made apple use their graphics in a machine that costs this much!?!? not true apple could have easily added amd graphics if they wanted to, however due to cost/design/whatever they use integrated graphics in their smaller laptops!
 
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)



A 15" MBA (no optical) with dedicated graphics is my ideal Mac. It'll happen someday...
Click to expand...

Same here except I don't need the dedicated gfx. For what? Games? Whenever I attempt to play a gfx intensive game on my mbp it gets super hot and the fans start to sound like a jet engine. That's not an appealing proposition. I'd rather play on the iPad , or games that don't require more than the built in gfx.

I am sitting out this generation of mbp. Get rid of the optical or I won't buy it. At least provide an option to officially replace it with a HD tray. I know it's not hard to hack, I have done it, but I don't see why I'd have to hack a brand new machine (and possibly void the warranty)
 
xxBURT0Nxx said:
but to say that intel forced apple to use the IGP is not correct imo.
Click to expand...


No indeed, it's not. Intel forced the whole OEM industry to use their IGP, not just Apple. ;)

No matter how you slice it, for some applications, IGPs make sense. Intel cut out the competence from that market with their shenanigans. And now the consumers pays for it with sub-par graphics processors.
 
KnightWRX said:
No indeed, it's not. Intel forced the whole OEM industry to use their IGP, not just Apple. ;)

No matter how you slice it, for some applications, IGPs make sense. Intel cut out the competence from that market with their shenanigans. And now the consumers pays for it with sub-par graphics processors.
Click to expand...

haha clever, i'm not really arguing with you, i rather agree with what you are saying, i just don't put the blame on intel. Sure the whole debacle may have pursuaded apple to just use the IGP, but i think it's more of apples decision to make things as thin as possible that left out a dedicated gpu in favor of the IGP.

If apple really didn't want their customers to have to use intels graphics, they could have easily gotten around this, they just may have had to do some design changes they weren't willing to make. just my .02 but either way i wouldn't consider the 320m of old to be very high end either. If you are looking to game or need a high end graphics card you should stick to desktop, perhaps even PC over mac.
 
Impact for the Average Joe

I can understand the debate about graphics and processors having positive and negative affects for folks who use Airs for work etc;

But how would this affect average Mac users, the people who walk into the store, see iLife and the other standard Mac features, and walk out with a MacBook Air.

How would it impact running iTunes. From a graphics perspective, how would it impact the export of say an hours home made movie in iMovie? (Quite a long process on my 08 Macbook).
 
2IS said:
lol... You really think Intel is the reason Apple laptops cost what they do? Really?
Click to expand...

I never said I considered it overpriced.

I was making a point that it's now underpowered for some users and less powerful than the previous model.

And another point... I'm not really blaming Apple. Obviously, it's Intel's fault for forcing the Intel graphics on Apple, among other companies that plan to use the new CPUs and Intel logic boards.

For many people with the current model, the new Macbook Air will be a downgrade unless you really need some of the other new features.
 
I'm happy with my Current Gen Maxed 13" but I'm interested in an 11" so I'll be keeping my eyes open for what they do there.
 
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...

The trouble is .. I find the TDP numbers for Sandy Bridge very misleading. For example the previous i7 2.66Ghz dual core had a TDP of 35W and the current i7 2.2Ghz quad core has a TDP of 45W. Theoretically, it should only use 10W more when doing CPU intensive task, but according to anandtech who measured the task, the i7 Sandy Bridge Quad core was using almost 40W more when running cinebench.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4205/the-macbook-pro-review-13-and-15-inch-2011-brings-sandy-bridge/14

It just doesn't make any sense. Going by those figures, if the i7 dual core was 35W, the i7 Sandy Bridge quad core would be around 70W.

Not sure how this relates to potential MacBook Air Sandy Bridge processors, but keep in mind.. there must be a reason why Samsung went for the ULV processor in their 13" laptop instead of the LV one.
 
Last edited:
Luph67 said:
What is the obsession with back-lit keys?

Do you actually look at the keyboard when you're typing?
Click to expand...

Nope, I touch type.

BUT, when I'm just lying around on the couch websurfing or reading something on the screen, then my hand is on the mouse pad, and when I need to reach up to hit a command-key or type a lazy couple of words into chat, or type in a password, or etc. then I LOVE the backlit keyboard. It's amazing how often it comes in handy.

Sure, I can get along without it - my current MBP is the first computer I've had with it. But do I WANT to get along without it? NooOOOooo!

But it's not because I have to look at the keys while normally typing.

MT
 
thunng8 said:
The trouble is .. I find the TDP numbers for Sandy Bridge very misleading. For example the previous i7 2.66Ghz dual core had a TDP of 35W and the current i7 2.2Ghz quad core has a TDP of 45W. Theoretically, it should only use 10W more when doing CPU intensive task, but according to anandtech who measured the task, the i7 Sandy Bridge Quad core was using almost 40W more when running cinebench.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4205/the-macbook-pro-review-13-and-15-inch-2011-brings-sandy-bridge/14

It just doesn't make any sense. Going by those figures, if the i7 dual core was 35W, the i7 Sandy Bridge quad core would be around 70W.

Not sure how this relates to potential MacBook Air Sandy Bridge processors, but keep in mind.. there must be a reason why Samsung went for the ULV processor in their 13" laptop instead of the LV one.
Click to expand...

CPU isn't the only thing that changed. AMD 6750M (~30W) has higher TDP than NVidia GT 330M (~23W). I had to put ~ because their TDPs are not officially stated by AMD or NVidia so it's just based on previous GPUs and their TDPs. The point is that AMD 6750M has higher TDP.

There is also another thing. TDP is not the maximum power draw. Maximum power dissipation is usually 20-30% more than the actual TDP. While MPD is rarely achieved as it requires maximum voltage and temperature, it can (nearly) be achieved with heavy benchmarking applications.

For example, the combined TDP from quad core SB and AMD 6750M is 75W. If we use 20% extra as the MPD, that is 90W, just from the CPU and GPU! Of course those parts are not using 90W in that test because things like screen, HD, RAM etc need power too. As the MPD is usually in percents, it can explain why the difference is so big in watts.

40W sounds a bit too much to explain with MPD though. IIRC the GT 330M is underclocked but I'm not 100% sure. You have a valid point that the SBs may be using more power than their predecessors. To make this more accurate, we should compare them with C2Ds though ;)

I guess we will have to wait and see, but an ULV in 13" would be more than a disappointment.
 
Hellhammer said:
CPU isn't the only thing that changed. AMD 6750M (~30W) has higher TDP than NVidia GT 330M (~23W). I had to put ~ because their TDPs are not officially stated by AMD or NVidia so it's just based on previous GPUs and their TDPs. The point is that AMD 6750M has higher TDP.
Click to expand...
330M is slightly underclocked, so that 23W would be a bit lower. However, the test where it was 40W higher was a CPU benchmark. It would have not stressed the GPU.


I guess we will have to wait and see, but an ULV in 13" would be more than a disappointment.
Click to expand...

It would mean ~50% drop in frame rates for games.
 
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