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

Intel Preps 1.7GHz and 1.8GHz Processors Suitable for Next MacBook Air

This really should be a nice piece of kit. It would be nice to see 4GBb of RAM and the 128Gb SSD standard for $999 on the 11".
 
rolfbert said:
the hd3000 over whatever it is called is about as fast as a nvidia 8600m gt
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, this is not true. In fact it's doubly not true. First, the rankings where people have been getting that idea actually combine scores from two versions of the 8600M GT. The version which was in the older MBPs is significantly better than its brother, so the ranking for the 8600M GT that we're all familiar with should be quite a bit higher (I fell for this myself).

Second, the HD 3000 we're familiar with is the one that's in the 2011 13" MBP. The version of the HD 3000 we can expect in the Air (such as the one in the processors described in this thread) run at a lower clock speed. So we can't expect the MBA to have the same graphics performance as the MBP. Although, these new chip's turbo speed comes quite close to the chips in the MBP.

thermodynamic said:
I'll agree those are good points, but for a higher-priced machine, people perceive quality. Therefore, especially as the OS is said to be finely tuned to the hardware, the people being bummed out do have a valid point.
Click to expand...

Oh certainly, don't get me wrong, I feel we have some right to expect that a new generation of machine shouldn't involve taking a step backwards in something so central as GPU performance. I just mean that there are some business realities involved here that are forcing a sacrifice and Apple has deemed that the sacrifice will inconvenience a small enough sector of the potential customers of this machine that they're willing to go for it. Apple has a spectacular track record for knowing exactly how to scoop the biggest chunk of potential customers. I'm certain they know the downgrade to the HD 3000 will disappoint a group of us but by making this move to Sandy Bridge they're gaining a lot more fans than they're losing. I'd love something with 320M like power but I also understand why it's unrealistic to expect it in the current processor market. I think a 1.8ghz SB MBA owner will have very very little to complain about.
 
as much as this is tempting. and I love sandy bridge as much as everybody else especially since I had colleagues that worked on it. I will have to say since I already have a MBA, I have no currrent need to upgrade. Web pages load fast and I haven't complained once about the slowness. I just wish I got a bit more battery life out of the 11.6 inch, but other than that. PERFECT MACHINE.
 
apdg said:
Unfortunately, this is not true. In fact it's doubly not true. First, the rankings where people have been getting that idea actually combine scores from two versions of the 8600M GT. The version which was in the older MBPs is significantly better than its brother, so the ranking for the 8600M GT that we're all familiar with should be quite a bit higher (I fell for this myself).

Second, the HD 3000 we're familiar with is the one that's in the 2011 13" MBP. The version of the HD 3000 we can expect in the Air (such as the one in the processors described in this thread) run at a lower clock speed. So we can't expect the MBA to have the same graphics performance as the MBP. Although, these new chip's turbo speed comes quite close to the chips in the MBP.



Oh certainly, don't get me wrong, I feel we have some right to expect that a new generation of machine shouldn't involve taking a step backwards in something so central as GPU performance. I just mean that there are some business realities involved here that are forcing a sacrifice and Apple has deemed that the sacrifice will inconvenience a small enough sector of the potential customers of this machine that they're willing to go for it. Apple has a spectacular track record for knowing exactly how to scoop the biggest chunk of potential customers. I'm certain they know the downgrade to the HD 3000 will disappoint a group of us but by making this move to Sandy Bridge they're gaining a lot more fans than they're losing. I'd love something with 320M like power but I also understand why it's unrealistic to expect it in the current processor market. I think a 1.8ghz SB MBA owner will have very very little to complain about.
Click to expand...

Holy cow, I think this is literally the most reasonable thing that anyone has said about it on here. Listen to this guy.
 
Hmm, actually... The i5 in the 2011 13" MBP base model, I believe, looks like this:

Base Frequency: 2.3ghz
Turbo Frequency: 2.9ghz
L3 Cache: 3MB
GPU Base Frequency: 650mhz
GPU Turbo Frequency: 1.2ghz

The high end i7 mentioned here looks like this:

Base Frequency: 1.8ghz
Turbo Frequency: 2.9ghz
L3 Cache: 4MB
GPU Base Frequency: 350mhz
GPU Turbo Frequency: 1.2ghz

Both with 2 cores and 4 threads.

Surely we can't hope that an MBA with this 1.8 chip will match or beat the base MBP when pushed? But with identical turbo frequencies, theoretically, as long as you keep it cool, the MBA could put out very similar frame rates to the MBP.

I suspect that the lower base frequencies might mean the reins are a little tighter for how much turboing can be done. But I don't know that I'd be surprised to see benchmark results being similar since I imagine the Air could run all fully turboed out long enough to get through a benchmark test.

I'd appreciate if someone could point out why I'm totally wrong here or I might get all hopeful and upbeat.
 
madhatter61 said:
Soldering improves reliability... and backlit keyboards runs down the battery quicker. Apple is headed for Thunderbolt, not sata III... and they looking for lighter not heavier. I do have the opinion that the AIR will replace Macbook. Macbook will likely die. FWIW
Click to expand...

Interesting thing to say considering 2011 MacBook Pro's and iMac's have SATAIII. Why would it be heavier? Do you know what SATA is?

If they want Thunderbolt then they need the latest SATA otherwise it will be useless.
 
apdg said:
Oh certainly, don't get me wrong, I feel we have some right to expect that a new generation of machine shouldn't involve taking a step backwards in something so central as GPU performance. I just mean that there are some business realities involved here that are forcing a sacrifice and Apple has deemed that the sacrifice will inconvenience a small enough sector of the potential customers of this machine that they're willing to go for it. Apple has a spectacular track record for knowing exactly how to scoop the biggest chunk of potential customers. I'm certain they know the downgrade to the HD 3000 will disappoint a group of us but by making this move to Sandy Bridge they're gaining a lot more fans than they're losing. I'd love something with 320M like power but I also understand why it's unrealistic to expect it in the current processor market. I think a 1.8ghz SB MBA owner will have very very little to complain about.
Click to expand...

Funny how we just agree:) I have been fighting a lot of people lately explaining to them that decisions are not purely technically, they are dictated by business. After all engineers need the business guys to pay them salaries. You may enjoy reading this (http://bit.ly/laQ6Y8) on this very topic.
 
i wont buy one of does if apple uses the toshiba SSD's again.
The toshiba SSD is what Kingston uses in their line Kingstong V and V+ SSD's.
they are very slow.

No prices in 3rd party SSD but i imagine the cost...

When all the market is going to sata 6gbps, thunderbolt, looks like the air will be another limited model.

its better to old my credit card on this one.

Unless apple takes a rabbit out of the hat!!
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)

Only if they can increase the SSD size to reasonable values and maintain costs. It is the only thing left about the current AIRs that make them impossible for me. The faster processors would be very welcomed though.
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)

Piggie said:
It's actually going to be interesting to see if Apple can keep the screen res of their laptops, such as the air so low down, if they do indeed bring out an iPad next year with a 2048x1536 screen resolution.

It's going to hard to argue than a Laptop, such as this new air, or the current macbooks don't have the need or power to drive that screen res, when a much lower power tablet can drive it.

Going to be interesting to see what happens.
Click to expand...

You are not comparing Apple to oranges here. IOS is resolution independent, Mac OS is not. Until that is addressed I don't see higher resolution screens coming on Macs.

The real question is this: does Lion add enough improvement to make high resolution screens possible. I don't think it does but I'm not clued in as to all of Lions features.

Beyond that building a suitable high density screen for a laptop will be expensive and a technology stretch this year and likely into next year.
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)

apdg said:
ipodlover77 said:
sorry if this comes off as stupid but does this mean that the 320m has better youtube playback capabilities than the sandy bridge+hd3000?
Click to expand...

Yes. But probably not to a degree that many people will find problematic. While it's definitely true that the HD 3000 is a significant step backward from the 320M, it's backed by a more powerful CPU which closes the gap enough to where the only people who'll notice a difference are those playing games. A couple folks here have pointed out that processors far weaker than the HD 3000 has been giving people good experiences for a long long time. It just that it happens to be weaker than the 320 that bums some folks out.

I'd be interested to see what the base and turbo clock speeds of the HD 3000 in these chips are. The previous best 17W was only 350/1000, significantly less than the HD 3000 the 13" MBPs have.
Click to expand...

You mis important elements of the debate here. Some of the problems with the Intel GPU are very significant. For example no OpenCL support, terrible 3D support and no acceleration support.

If the integrated GPU was just slow with respect to 3D that would be one thing but instead we have major regressions in a number of areas. In some cases the CPU will make up for the GPUs short comings but not all the time. There is also a huge power penalty when using the CPU. The impact on users will be highly mixed with those needing good 3D performance likely objecting the most.

Note too 3D means more than games. It is very grating when people focus on gaming for advance GPU usage. I'd be the first to admit though that current AIRs are not targeted at power users. However when other parts of the system improve drastically and the GPU regresses it can be frustrating.
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)

AppleScruff1 said:
ipodlover77 said:
just to be sure, when you say fly, you mean breeze through CPU intensive things or will it fly in general (as in more noticeable than the C2D in everything)
Click to expand...

I think you will notice a difference in just about everything. Web pages will load quicker, etc. I think that this is going to be one sweet machine, and it is a nice one in it's current rendition. This one will encroach even more into the Macbook Pro 13" market, IMHO.
Click to expand...

Nope, the next 13" MBP just becomes more powerful. You need to realize that the 13" MBP has a greater capacity for heat dispation and battery. Those two things mean that it can always be considerably faster.
 
wizard said:
You mis important elements of the debate here. Some of the problems with the Intel GPU are very significant. For example no OpenCL support, terrible 3D support and no acceleration support.

If the integrated GPU was just slow with respect to 3D that would be one thing but instead we have major regressions in a number of areas. In some cases the CPU will make up for the GPUs short comings but not all the time. There is also a huge power penalty when using the CPU. The impact on users will be highly mixed with those needing good 3D performance likely objecting the most.

Note too 3D means more than games. It is very grating when people focus on gaming for advance GPU usage. I'd be the first to admit though that current AIRs are not targeted at power users. However when other parts of the system improve drastically and the GPU regresses it can be frustrating.
Click to expand...

All true and I agree completely. I was focusing my answer for the user asking about YouTube playback so these details seemed a bit superfluous. Games are certainly not the only job for a GPU and the HD 3000 is indeed a loss in more areas than one. It's a frustrating situation for sure, but it does seem to be an unavoidable one. I have a sneaking suspicion that even some of us who are disappointed by this (and I very much count myself as one of the disappointed) will find the next Air more capable of meeting our needs than we think. It is certainly a loss though, I agree, and some of us will feel it.
 
17W processors are only for 11,6" i think, for 13,3" they could use 25W processors (2.1 and 2.3GHz dual-core, 3.0/3.2 in turbo-mode, 500MHz Graphics).
The Graphics HD3000 core frequency is 650MHz for 35W/45W processors (actual MacBookPro's), 500MHz for 25W and 350MHz for 17W.
 
Cinch said:
I used to think the MBA was my way to computing, but I'm having second thought. I think an iMac (Mac mini) plus an iPad is the way to go. The iMac is perfect for long hours of working and makes for a great media hub. The iPad with airplay is great for everything else that is not work related. The MBA lacks the convenience of the iPad and the robustness of the iMac. I just don't see a future of laptops. Die laptop die, along with your outdated optical drive. Who would have thought that the desktop would be making a comeback!
Click to expand...
I think macs in general have an outdated optical drive. I personally think macbooks should die. They are slow and overpriced. For 1,199, i can get a alienware m14x, or a sager np8130. With blu-ray. Not an outdated optical player.
 
darkleemar said:
I think macs in general have an outdated optical drive. I personally think macbooks should die. They are slow and overpriced. For 1,199, i can get a alienware m14x, or a sager np8130. With blu-ray. Not an outdated optical player.
Click to expand...

You're in for something.

Here's to our expectations of these beastly little machines. *drinks*
 
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