Intel Shipping New 1.7GHz-1.8GHz MacBook Air-Class Processors

[iDisk]

Intel............

Intel HD 3000 graphics card still doesn't make this a worthwhile update... Apple should have just put higher clocked C2D in the Airs from the beginning.... Nvidia 320 is still the better card.

 

[likegadgets]

now just give the 11" model a 256gb upgrade option and i'm in!

If they would have an 8GB RAM + 512 SSD (or OWC), I would consider replacing mt MBP

 

[reactions]

Excellent! I can see these becoming the most sold Apple laptop over the MBP. They are just amazing.

I'm a newb here but if the speed was on par with mbp's can u tell me the disadvantages and advantages of one over the other?

 

[macjonny1]

Do you think it is worth selling my current 2011 Macbook Air 13 with 4GB ram and get the new Air?

Wow...

 

[JohnDoe98]

Do you think it is worth selling my current 2011 Macbook Air 13 with 4GB ram and get the new Air?

That depends. How long do you plan on keeping it? If a long time then yes. Sell your current MBA asap since its resale value is higher now then it ever will be. Why sell though if you want to keep it a long time? Well, because in the long run, OSs might drop Core 2 Duo support well before they drop i5 or i7 support. Notice how Lion now requires Core 2 Duo and is dropping Core Duo. Also notice how SL dropped anything lower than Core Duo, even if it was intel based. At some point some new operating system will likely allow the new MBA but not the one you got.

As for performance in the interim... We won't know until benchmarks show up. So if you are generally happy with your current machine, maybe you don't need the new one. Mac OSs always seem to pack nice features though, so keep that in mind.

 

[Santabean2000]

Do you think it is worth selling my current 2011 Macbook Air 13 with 4GB ram and get the new Air?

I hope you're being sarcastic.

 

[Wang Foolio]

Only if you really, really, really need Thunderbolt for some reason...

 

[FanBoyTroll]

Only if you really, really, really need Thunderbolt for some reason...

Mmm... I would like to know if Thundebolt can be used for anything at all. I doubt anyone really needs it.

 

[tonypee]

Graphics performance

Here's some benchmarks of its chip

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-Intel-HD-Graphics-3000-graphics-solution.43710.0.html

 

[fyrefly]

Intel HD 3000 graphics card still doesn't make this a worthwhile update... Apple should have just put higher clocked C2D in the Airs from the beginning.... Nvidia 320 is still the better card.

There are no higher clocked C2D chips to move to. The SL9600 is the highest-clocked Low-Voltage C2D available.

There's really no choice for Apple - move to Sandy Bridge and lose a bit of gaming performance, or wait for Ivy Bridge, which is still probably a year away at this point.

Here's some benchmarks of its chip

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-Intel-HD-Graphics-3000-graphics-solution.43710.0.html

That is a review of the Quad-Core (full voltage) chips that are in the 15" MBP. The 11" (and possibly the 13") Air will get Low Voltage versions of the Sandy Bridge chips that have less performance in terms of gaming.

Pretty much everything else one would do (other than, say, high end compositing in Motion) the Intel HD 3000 will not seem any different than the 320M (despite the fact that it is "less capable").

 

[robertpolson]

There are no higher clocked C2D chips to move to. The SL9600 is the highest-clocked Low-Voltage C2D available.

There's really no choice for Apple - move to Sandy Bridge and lose a bit of gaming performance, or wait for Ivy Bridge, which is still probably a year away at this point.

I think I'll wait for Ivy Bridge and then sell my Macbook Air 13 2011.

 

[iDisk]

There are no higher clocked C2D chips to move to. The SL9600 is the highest-clocked Low-Voltage C2D available.

There's really no choice for Apple - move to Sandy Bridge and lose a bit of gaming performance, or wait for Ivy Bridge, which is still probably a year away at this point.

I would wait then... but I'm an engineer at heart ... I'm not a gamer but the Intel HD 3000 is just a slap in the face... I really feel bad for the 13" MBP customers, the get a low rez screen and that graphics card on a "Pro" laptop

 

[fyrefly]

I think I'll wait for Ivy Bridge and then sell my Macbook Air 13 2011.

And you're more than welcome to do that. I've said this numerous times - the primary market for the Sandy Bridge MBA will not be current (2010 release) MacBook Air owners. It'll be new Mac Users, or those with older MacBooks that want a new laptop.

Mmm... I would like to know if Thundebolt can be used for anything at all. I doubt anyone really needs it.

LOL. At present, it's a bit of a mystery, indeed. But the *potential* of Thunderbolt is really awesome - if only Apple can muster up some 3rd Party support - there's so much awesome stuff that the port can do.

 

[Laco]

anyone think the hard drive sizes will be increased?

 

[lordrayden127]

That depends. How long do you plan on keeping it? If a long time then yes. Sell your current MBA asap since its resale value is higher now then it ever will be. Why sell though if you want to keep it a long time? Well, because in the long run, OSs might drop Core 2 Duo support well before they drop i5 or i7 support. Notice how Lion now requires Core 2 Duo and is dropping Core Duo. Also notice how SL dropped anything lower than Core Duo, even if it was intel based. At some point some new operating system will likely allow the new MBA but not the one you got.

As for performance in the interim... We won't know until benchmarks show up. So if you are generally happy with your current machine, maybe you don't need the new one. Mac OSs always seem to pack nice features though, so keep that in mind.

The reason they are eliminating support for Intel's Core Duo processors is because those processors are not capable of running 64-bit code. I may be wrong, but I highly doubt Apple will stop supporting Core 2 Duo processors for a long, long time as they can run 64-bit code.

 

[ri0ku]

Intel HD 3000 graphics card still doesn't make this a worthwhile update... Apple should have just put higher clocked C2D in the Airs from the beginning.... Nvidia 320 is still the better card.

comments like this are stupid...

The 320 is only slightly faster at doing certain tasks than the HD3000 the CPU performance alone would make most of your performance in any application better.

You cannot simply put a higher clock rate on the c2d... in such a small enclosure.. you have to think about heat...and power consumption...

 

[asdf542]

That depends. How long do you plan on keeping it? If a long time then yes. Sell your current MBA asap since its resale value is higher now then it ever will be. Why sell though if you want to keep it a long time? Well, because in the long run, OSs might drop Core 2 Duo support well before they drop i5 or i7 support. Notice how Lion now requires Core 2 Duo and is dropping Core Duo. Also notice how SL dropped anything lower than Core Duo, even if it was intel based. At some point some new operating system will likely allow the new MBA but not the one you got.

Apple dropped Core Duo support because apps in Lion are starting to be compiled only in 64-bit. If you hack Lion onto a Core Duo MBP then the Finder for example won't run because it's no longer being compiled in 32-bit.

Machines with a 64-bit CPU and a 64-bit EFI will be at the EOL when their other parts no longer meet the system requirements. The CPU won't be the deciding factor for system requirement cut-offs later down the road. Those with C2D machines that have 64-bit EFI's have nothing more to worry about than i3, i5, i7 or Xeon machines. I'd be more worried about their RAM limit as far as system requirements will go (this applies to ALL machines, not just Core 2 Duo's).

 

[JohnDoe98]

The reason they are eliminating support for Intel's Core Duo processors is because those processors are not capable of running 64-bit code. I may be wrong, but I highly doubt Apple will stop supporting Core 2 Duo processors for a long, long time as they can run 64-bit code.

I hope you are right!

 

[macjonny1]

The reason they are eliminating support for Intel's Core Duo processors is because those processors are not capable of running 64-bit code. I may be wrong, but I highly doubt Apple will stop supporting Core 2 Duo processors for a long, long time as they can run 64-bit code.

Core 2 Duo support will be there for a LONG LONG time. Apple used the Core Duo processors for only a short period. They have had C2Duos in their computers since at least 2007 until present. That's a lot of computers to shut out, and isn't going to happen for quite a while.

 

[JohnDoe98]

Apple dropped Core Duo support because apps in Lion are starting to be compiled only in 64-bit. If you hack Lion onto a Core Duo MBP then the Finder for example won't run because it's no longer being compiled in 32-bit.

Machines with a 64-bit CPU and a 64-bit EFI will be at the EOL when their other parts no longer meet the system requirements. The CPU won't be the deciding factor for system requirement cut-offs later down the road. Those with C2D machines that have 64-bit EFI's have nothing more to worry about than i3, i5, i7 or Xeon machines. I'd be more worried about their RAM limit as far as system requirements will go (this applies to ALL machines, not just Core 2 Duo's).

Fair enough. I was not wedded to making a point about only CPUs, though that is how I presented it. I guess there will always be multiple possible reasons why a system can get dropped down the road. All we can say for sure is that the newer it is the longer it'll last. So if he just bought his MBA and a new one is about to come out, it might be worth paying the difference. If you have already had the system for a while and there has been considerable depreciation of value, upgrading might not be worth it.

 

[asdf542]

Core 2 Duo support will be there for a LONG LONG time. Apple used the Core Duo processors for only a short period. They have had C2Duos in their computers since at least 2007 until present. That's a lot of computers to shut out, and isn't going to happen for quite a while.

The only cut-off we could see after Lion (as far as the CPU goes) will be machines that only have a 32-bit EFI. There's still a 32-bit kernel in Lion to support the machines with 64-bit processors but only have a 32-EFI. I can't imagine those machines sticking around for another OS update after Lion.

List of machines with 64-bit CPU's and 32-bit EFI's:
http://www.everymac.com/articles/q&...-bit-macs-64-bit-efi-boot-in-64-bit-mode.html

 

[JohnDoe98]

The only cut-off we could see after Lion (as far as the CPU goes) will be machines that only have a 32-bit EFI. There's still a 32-bit kernel in Lion to support the machines with 64-bit processors but only have a 32-EFI. I can't imagine those machines sticking around for another OS update after Lion.

List of machines with 64-bit CPU's and 32-bit EFI's:
http://www.everymac.com/articles/q&...-bit-macs-64-bit-efi-boot-in-64-bit-mode.html

There are systems there with 64 bits in everything but the boot, but which the site says would need to be updated. Is Apple likely to upgrade the systems with firmware support or will they also be dumped, despite being capable?

 

[fyrefly]

Apple dropped Core Duo support because apps in Lion are starting to be compiled only in 64-bit. If you hack Lion onto a Core Duo MBP then the Finder for example won't run because it's no longer being compiled in 32-bit.

I've seen Lion (Developer Preview) run flawlessly on a CoreDuo 1st Gen White MacBook from 2006. Finder and all.

Apple *wants* us to move to all 64-bit. But they're not there yet. But discontinuing official support for 32-bit systems (EFI and all) is a first step to drag people away from their "legacy" hardware.

 

[asdf542]

There are systems there with 64 bits in everything but the boot, but which the site says would need to be updated. Is Apple likely to upgrade the systems with firmware support or will they also be dumped, despite being capable?

I can't speak for Apple but they will most likely update those that are capable when the time comes.

I've seen Lion (Developer Preview) run flawlessly on a CoreDuo 1st Gen White MacBook from 2006. Finder and all.

Apple *wants* us to move to all 64-bit. But they're not there yet. But discontinuing official support for 32-bit systems (EFI and all) is a first step to drag people away from their "legacy" hardware.

You may have seen it running on developer builds prior to version 4, but you can not make the Finder run in DP4 or later on Core Solo/Duo machines. It's only compiled in 64-bit, and I'm sure that many other apps will follow. There ARE technical reasons as to why Apple is dropping 32-bit machines.

 

[apdg]

In my mind, the best thing about these three new processors is that the top on turbo boosts it's graphics up to 1.2Ghz, whereas we've only seen Sandy Bridge benchmarks of the i5-2537 which only Turbo boosts to 900Mhz.

I don't know, I think we do have a fair comparison. Primate labs lists the processor in the i5 13" MBP as a 2415 which I believe has a 650/1200 base/turbo on its HD 3000. While the base CPU speeds of the MBP's i5 are higher, the turbo is the same as the turbo of this 1.8 i7. There are some decent tests of that machine here.

I'll admit it seems a little weird to be comparing the 2.3ghz MBP to a 1.8ghz MBA but the turbo speeds for both CPU and GPU are identical which might suggest comparable top end performance if thermals can be kept in a happy place.