Talk about not knowing anything. Yeah AMD did take the lead, only after they screwed over Intel. Go read more articles, I'm not going to go into details with that. Intel was always ahead in terms of technology. Payback's a b**** when you can't get the gov to help you.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Intel Promising Faster Integrated Graphics in Next Laptops, But Fast Enough?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Newsflash: "A Few Years" (ie. 3-4, or pre-Core) is an extremely long time in the computer industry. Especially seeing as people generally keep their computers only for about 3 years.
So AMD is behind in both the extreme high end CPUs, which Apple uses in the Mac Pro, and is also behind in the mobile sector, which Apple uses for everything else. Ignoring the fact that you contradicted yourself by saying AMD lags "only" in server CPUs, and then saying it also lags in mobile.
You are perhaps unaware that Apple can in fact pair an Intel CPU with an AMD GPU? As they have done with the X1600?
Wow, I thought I was a pretty fanatical Apple fanboy, but I've got nothing on how much you obviously love AMD. I've got to admit, when you first posted, I was wondering if you were just having a laugh. Thanks for clearing that up.
EDIT: Damnit, why can't I get my quotes working? How can I apply an adequate serving of toast when I can't quote properly? Why aren't the "quote"s in capitals? They were when I typed them, and they are when I press edit...
EDIT 2: Thank you again, iMacmatician.
Anyway, back on topic, what do people think about the Macbooks getting some level of discrete graphics if the Intel integrated package isn't up to scratch?
Also, what options are there for having both low and high performance graphics cards with the Clarkfield platform? Can someone summarise how the loss of a "discrete" northbridge means for the present 9400+9600 type MBPs? I mean, is the present dual configuration impossible, impractical, difficult, or feasible on a Clarkfield platform? It seems to me that at the moment the consensus is impractical.
Anyway, if the main problem with Clarkfield is that it is too difficult for nvidia GPUs to get to main memory, is there any reason why Apple can't say throw in a high performance GPU with say 512MB of VRAM, plus another low performance GPU, which shares (at least some of) this memory, instead of main memory? On the other hand, I am assuming that AMD has licenses to QPI and all that, so Apple could just switch to AMD graphics, couldn't they? Would that make things easier? I mean, it seems that they are going to have to dump the nvidia chipset anyway...
iMacmatician: I guess that makes sense, seeing as dales are "low", but although fields tend to be flat, and therefore higher than dales, it doesn't really fit with "high performance". Clearly high performance should be "Clarkhill", mainstream "Clarkfield" and low power variants "Clarkdale". Or even better, really Intel needs to scrap those annoying names altogether, and go back to a numbering scheme. Give platforms a "p" prefix, graphics a "g" prefix, etc. and start calling high end "p17", mainstream "p15" and budget "p13", then they can call ultra low power "p11". Then when they bring in the die-shrink, they can call them "p18", "p16" etc, and then when Sandy Bridge comes in, go to "p27", "p25", etc. and start the process again. At least then it actually makes sense, and it is easy to tell what is better than what.
Also, what options are there for having both low and high performance graphics cards with the Clarkfield platform? Can someone summarise how the loss of a "discrete" northbridge means for the present 9400+9600 type MBPs? I mean, is the present dual configuration impossible, impractical, difficult, or feasible on a Clarkfield platform? It seems to me that at the moment the consensus is impractical.
Anyway, if the main problem with Clarkfield is that it is too difficult for nvidia GPUs to get to main memory, is there any reason why Apple can't say throw in a high performance GPU with say 512MB of VRAM, plus another low performance GPU, which shares (at least some of) this memory, instead of main memory? On the other hand, I am assuming that AMD has licenses to QPI and all that, so Apple could just switch to AMD graphics, couldn't they? Would that make things easier? I mean, it seems that they are going to have to dump the nvidia chipset anyway...
iMacmatician: I guess that makes sense, seeing as dales are "low", but although fields tend to be flat, and therefore higher than dales, it doesn't really fit with "high performance". Clearly high performance should be "Clarkhill", mainstream "Clarkfield" and low power variants "Clarkdale". Or even better, really Intel needs to scrap those annoying names altogether, and go back to a numbering scheme. Give platforms a "p" prefix, graphics a "g" prefix, etc. and start calling high end "p17", mainstream "p15" and budget "p13", then they can call ultra low power "p11". Then when they bring in the die-shrink, they can call them "p18", "p16" etc, and then when Sandy Bridge comes in, go to "p27", "p25", etc. and start the process again. At least then it actually makes sense, and it is easy to tell what is better than what.
Intel is pushing many more components on the CPU in order to maintain control. No more third party chipsets or IGPs. You're seeing this as well with nVidia vs. Intel on licensing as well.
On the value models with their onboard IGPs you're going to see very few vendors providing alternative video options since it's going to be a race to the bottom for prices. Soldering more components onto the motherboard is going to drive up costs. Hopefully we'll learn more about Arrandale's IGP but I don't have much hope after the GM965 and G45. Barely a difference beyond a die shrink and the addition of hardware h.264 and VC-1 decoding.
ION2 is aiming for the Core 2, Atom, and VIA Nano markets but you're not going to see it beyond that.
On the value models with their onboard IGPs you're going to see very few vendors providing alternative video options since it's going to be a race to the bottom for prices. Soldering more components onto the motherboard is going to drive up costs. Hopefully we'll learn more about Arrandale's IGP but I don't have much hope after the GM965 and G45. Barely a difference beyond a die shrink and the addition of hardware h.264 and VC-1 decoding.
ION2 is aiming for the Core 2, Atom, and VIA Nano markets but you're not going to see it beyond that.
Not to be polemical, but isn't the "additional cost" of discrete graphics cards fairly nominal for low-end versions? I realize the penny-pinchers at Apple look at numbers en masse, but for the cost of their computers, Apple could easily swallow $20-40 for a low end solution.
"graphics performance of the integrated graphics in Intel's next-generation mobile processors will exceed the performance of the current Intel mobile platform"
Next-gen hardware to be faster than current-gen? Who'da thunk it!Just wish Intel would Learn To Stop Worrying and Love Nvidia.
What I love is this snippet:
Notice the wording: "should end up faster" not "is currently faster." Sounds like it is currently slower.
Apple HAS rebranded most of it's notebook line to the MBP badge, so I would think they would put discrete GPUs in them if NVIDIA and Intel don't start playing nice.
The MBA and whatever replaces the plastic MacBook would probably get whatever Intel has, though.
The MBA and whatever replaces the plastic MacBook would probably get whatever Intel has, though.
I am an educator though and I ll try to make it crystal clear once more in an effort to educate you. Thank me later:
Fact of the matter is still amd is pretty comparable to intel and only fall behind in the very high end and lag a bit in their mobile chips, and all that when they 've been getting the boycott of the century by intel and with a 1/20 or so of intel's resources. And that tiny fraction that they are behind isn't even noticeable for 99% of users as the bottleneck is elsewhere.
Yet with these 1/20 a few years ago they DID manage to outdo intel for a LONG period of time, and they COULD do it again with the right backing, ie. apple. That's not science fiction, it's reality, apple was lagging way behind and managed to pull themselves together. What is more AMD have BETTER, MUCH BETTER gfx than INTEL that from now on will be forcing everyone to user THEIR gfx. So appl will be killing two birds in one stone in that they will be owning the better gfx platform (one half of the cpu from now on) and a company that will quite possibly with some much needed capital will be able to go h2h with intel in a roadmap of a year or so and outdo them even.
That will mean also much tighter integration for apple, much better prices for us and much better control of the end product, plus they wouldn't need to be saddled with inferior intel graphics, and they could again make a propriety cpu like the powerpc with the added benefit of being fULLY compatible with intel pcs, and not having to change or optimize the software much differently. Plus they could add goodies down to the chip level that could only feature in apple and nowhere else.
It's the most ideal solution, and I am sure a lot of people in apple are actively thinking about it and figuring out the logistics on when and how to make this move. I am not saying they will definitely, but I am absolutely sure people are giving it intense thought.
I hope that at least 5% of what I said has gone through to you, I will be happy, I don't expect it since you don't seem to be the fastest gun in the far west, but like I said I am an educator and I like to point things out and educate.
In all good will I am telling you. EDUCATE yourself.
Come on Steve, buy Ati+AMD, you already got pa semi, and eff everyone and not give a toss about anyone and be completely self contained.
So essentially you want Apple to go back to making exclusive components?
I wouldn't see it as a bad thing. I want to see better cards in the MBP line than integrated Intel chips and slightly older Nvidias with new paint listed as 'new.' Why not an Nvidia GTX 260M like in the current Asus gaming computers? If they can sell for $999 in the Asus couldn't that card be in a $1500 and up MBP? Maybe just a tad lower version in all of them and leave the big one as an option. That way they can let the real Pros get their Pro grade laptop built the way they want instead of limiting them.
Apple's current feature bump and price drop is a step in the right direction but there's still some room for improvement. And I know they are the only ones making any money but let's not let them be made fun of in the process.
AMD has certainly made great strides with their latest 45nm desktop and server chips, and while they are not as fast at the high-end, they compare quite admirably with the Nehalm quad-cores.
That said, the fact remains that they have been completely and utterly blown out of the water on mainstream and performance mobile chips. Mobile 45nm Core 2 Duo chips have become the de-facto standard for laptops. I mean it really isn't even a competition; even more so for the excellent 10W ULV low power chips.
Similarly, near the end of the year the 32nm Arrandale chips with integrated memory controller and SMT support will be out, and they will just continue Intel's domination.
I think AMD is an excellent, innovative company with great products, and is one who has definitely been screwed over by Intel on many occasions. I don't want to see them pushed out of the market, and I wish a large company flush with cash would buy them to help inject much needed capital.
But you have to face reality. Unless AMD pulls off some miraculous R&D, they will be playing second fiddle for the foreseeable future.
Because Apples notebooks can't handle the heat produced. Notice that all the gaming laptops are much larger than anything that comes out of Cupertino...
Yes I do. I so much want them to do that, and eff intel. Because I real thinkk it will be a shame for such a great co and great minds that essentially pushed intel to make the core and quit their messing about, to go to waste, and it will also be a shame now that apple is almight to not incorporate a part that could give it almost complete freedom and control, and no more the hackintoshes and the psystars and the rest of that crap.
Where have I said anything different? Didnt I say amd lag six months in the mobile part? Of course if intel has had everyone sign contracts to not allow amd cpus mobile in more than 95% of their machines they are not going to t have a lot of footing to evolve are they? But check out what they are bringing in to go against atom, which is a clocked down athlon that blow atom away, and check out the pipeline too. Didn't I say on the desktop that is not the case? Didn't I say apple's cashflow could put them on par in a year or so? Where did I say on par right now? That's the whole point that apple at 60 bil and amd priced at 1.5 bil or so apple could buy it and TRIPLE the value of amd in cash flow and we ll see then if and when they can bring those cpus to the market, if they can lag half a a month for mobile and even compete h2h with intel in dekstop and server, imagine what they can do with that amount of cash, in any case history being our guide they managed it before with way, way, way less resources why would they de facto wont manage it again with apple's backing? If there's someone that excels in r and d that is apple.
And you too, try to address all of my point instead of picking on a couple and looking sideways.
Uhuh. I'm gonna go through this nice and slow for you. I guess it is pointless to add that the attitude is not appreciated.
QED...
Apple is a small company. Getting bigger, but still small.
This is not true.
Well, wouldn't that just waste all of Apple's money. Clearly it would be far better for Apple to continue to use Intel chips until this 'glorious day' that you dream of, and then buy from AMD. Maybe Apple should buy IBM as well?
No doubt none of this will get through the AMD wall though, so I don't know why I bother. I must be just bored.
I thought that was true in the case of integrated graphics. Especially since in the mobile platform they will be in the CPU packaging. It appears Intel still hasn't given Nvidia license to create a chipset for Core iX yet.
I guess, but I still feel it's a bit of a moot point. Firstly we still don't know how good the Intel graphics is going to be (it could be great) and secondly, as said before, there's no reason why Apple couldn't just go with different levels of discrete graphics across the board if the Intel GPU isn't up to scratch, as they did before moving to Intel. And Intel graphics are only going to improve, with the Larrabee project.
Apple is not going to start shipping a new line of computers that have inferior specifications to the old ones. One way or another, Apple will find a way to increase the Macbook graphics power, and (at least for a few years) that will not be by moving to AMD processors and chipsets.