I agree with you BROTHER, BROTHER SON; the force be with you
When will the MBP conventions be prepping for refresh releases.
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 Unveils Update to MacBook Air's Custom Processor
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I agree with you BROTHER, BROTHER SON; the force be with you
When will the MBP conventions be prepping for refresh releases.
Did you really think I was being serious? (Notice the
Haahhh..... You scared the hell out of me!
I would hope Apple chooses the 10W processors (1.4GHz). Apple even might be able to get their hands on a 1.6GHz 10W part. That would be awesome!
The new X4500 integrated graphics, DDR3 memory and cheap SSD drives will easily offset the slightly slower clock speed.
Together these improvements could push the battery life to 6-7 hours.
The new X4500 integrated graphics, DDR3 memory and cheap SSD drives will easily offset the slightly slower clock speed.
Together these improvements could push the battery life to 6-7 hours.
Yeah well, that's just your opinion. I and a lot of others are not of the opinion that intel owns the high end.
It is indeed opinion, but it's backed up by plain facts. AMD's fastest Phenom X4 is 2.6GHz, which they sell for $235. Intel is at 3.2GHz, wich goes for $1499, as well as 3.0GHz ($999), 2.83GHz ($530) and 2.66GHz ($316).
Since when did "opinion" become a substitute for "facts"?
Either Intel owns the high end or it doesn't.
Either Intel owns the high end or it doesn't.
And the Intel chips are faster.
Yeah the intel cheaps are faster but how faster are they? Is the 3.2 faster enought than amd's 2.6 ghz to warrant a 700% price increase? Of course not. They are just MARGINALLY BETTER because the bottleneck is not the ghz but the ram speeds and the hd speeds. And of course the shared caches for intel where currently and until nehalem's "groundbreaking" design amd is BY DESIGN better. And let's not venture into tdps...So it might be a fact that in some respect intel's cheaps are faster but they nowhere near own amd, it's just hype. Hype, hype, hype. It's like saying a lamborgini owns a ferrari just cause on3 outputs 300 hp and the other say 280 hp, that's the differences, and they are of course negligeable. Only an idiot would pay up to 700% difference for a perforance gain of no more than 2% (I would wager).
And those are the plain facts of the matters. The rest are for the gullible and those fortunately or not are many.
INTEL IS MARGINALLY BETTER IN THE HIGH END, THAT'S THE FACT, BUT IT'S WHY BETTER IN MONOPOLY TACTICS AND HAVING ALL THE INTERNET GURU BOZOS POCKETED.
And those are the plain facts of the matters. The rest are for the gullible and those fortunately or not are many.
INTEL IS MARGINALLY BETTER IN THE HIGH END, THAT'S THE FACT, BUT IT'S WHY BETTER IN MONOPOLY TACTICS AND HAVING ALL THE INTERNET GURU BOZOS POCKETED.
AMD certainly does not lack for talent, but talent alone isn't enough to stay relevant these days. And even if an Intel CPU is not 700% better, if they can get people to not only think it's 700% better, but consider it worth paying 700% more for...
AMD designs are good, but their initial execution has been usually flawed and it has taken a few revisions before they're "up to snuff", refusing to acknowledge any issues in the interim. That does not exactly inspire confidence in the marketplace and helps create the notion, false or not, that "Intel executes better" and therefore Intel can get the market to pay more for their product.
And even if you have the best product in the world, if you can't make it, then what's the point? Even when AMD was the undisputed leader in chip design, they could barely meet the demand of some third-tier OEMs, to say nothing of folks like HP and Dell. It does HP and Dell no good to offer AMD products across the line when AMD can't get them CPUs due to lack of production space. And instead of spending billions on new fabs, they spent it on ATI (which quickly lost half the value they paid for it).
Intel, on the other hand, has plenty of fabrication space (in general - they're hurting on the 45nm side right now, but within six months will have four facilities) and can meet any demand thrown at them. When an OEM says "we need more chips next quarter", Intel just says "how many" and then delivers. Intel built a "monopoly" by building plants to deliver product to customers who wanted it. And that's not illegal.
Now that AMD has shed some of their clowns in the head office (Ruiz, for example), the new executive team seems to have a clue on both how to run a CPU foundry and how to communicate with the press and their customers. They're desperately short on cash and still seem to be pinning their hopes on a sugar daddy (Dubai) or winning the lottery (the lawsuit against Intel), but they might yet survive.
AMD designs are good, but their initial execution has been usually flawed and it has taken a few revisions before they're "up to snuff", refusing to acknowledge any issues in the interim. That does not exactly inspire confidence in the marketplace and helps create the notion, false or not, that "Intel executes better" and therefore Intel can get the market to pay more for their product.
And even if you have the best product in the world, if you can't make it, then what's the point? Even when AMD was the undisputed leader in chip design, they could barely meet the demand of some third-tier OEMs, to say nothing of folks like HP and Dell. It does HP and Dell no good to offer AMD products across the line when AMD can't get them CPUs due to lack of production space. And instead of spending billions on new fabs, they spent it on ATI (which quickly lost half the value they paid for it).
Intel, on the other hand, has plenty of fabrication space (in general - they're hurting on the 45nm side right now, but within six months will have four facilities) and can meet any demand thrown at them. When an OEM says "we need more chips next quarter", Intel just says "how many" and then delivers. Intel built a "monopoly" by building plants to deliver product to customers who wanted it. And that's not illegal.
Now that AMD has shed some of their clowns in the head office (Ruiz, for example), the new executive team seems to have a clue on both how to run a CPU foundry and how to communicate with the press and their customers. They're desperately short on cash and still seem to be pinning their hopes on a sugar daddy (Dubai) or winning the lottery (the lawsuit against Intel), but they might yet survive.
Not true. You will see performance improvements until 3.2GHz which scale not perfectly, but substantially well with CPU clock in real-world applications.
Probably - but the difference in performance is nowhere near 2% but in most cases considerably larger. Depending on if and how applications are making use of the cores (AMD has more affordable 3+ core processors). A Core 2 Duo at a given clockspeed will often outperform a triple-core part from AMD at the same clockspeed. And even in multithreaded applications will the Intel CPU mostly be not far behind.
Well... they can meet "any" demand for their run-of-the-mill processors.
But the story might a whole lot different considering the models at the very high end (3.2 GHz Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Quad). As far as I know, these things aren' produced on dedicated assembly lines or factories - rather they are the "best" individual samples coming from the same factories. A lot of slightly "defective" parts (and there are many in CPU manufacturing, AFAIK) will have some parts deactivated on the die and be sold at the lower end. Which is why Intel's pricing isn't just based on "hype". And it definitely just isn't only about how much "better" the higher-end, enthusiast parts are. "Real" limits in terms of manufacturing technology are playing a role there.
Plainly put: The difference in clock speed between a 2.4 and a 3.0 GHz part is 25%. If, however, the 3.0 GHz part cost just a mere 25% more, "everybody" would want to buy the faster thing - and then, Intel might very very well have problems meeting the higher demand (without investing and / or spending considerably more on manufacturing, lowering margins)
All of the cpus Intel makes are speed binned (manufacturer backed overclocking basically). That 2.4 Ghz chip people buy most likely can run at 3.0 Ghz just fine. The higher clocked chips are stupidly high margin parts. But the demand for those parts is low. Intel actually locks the multiplier of the cpu because people would buy the lower speed unit and run it at higher speeds, if given the chance.
The lower TDP units for the Macbook Air are a welcome change. Maybe then people wont have that core shutdown due to heat issue. I also hope the chipset runs cooler that would help a ton as well.
Intel's 45nm production yields are much better the AMD's so the majority of their wafers are producing CPUs that can handle any clockspeed. This is why their CPUs have been overclocking so well, lately.
And yes, the Core2 Quads take up more die space then the Core2 Duos, which is why the cheapest quad is almost the same price as the most expensive dualie, but again, Intel can make all the QX9775s the market wants because most of their chips can handle that.
Intel has currently one full-scale 45nm fabrication facility - Fab 32 in Chandler, AZ. A new 45nm fab - 28 - is under construction in Israel. It was supposed to be online by now, but is running late and will not be ready until early next year. Fab 11X in New Mexico is in the process of being converted from 65nm to 45nm and will also be ready in early 2009. They also have a small R&D fab in Hillsboro, OR which can help produce chips and has been doing so to help try and cover the short-falls in production due to the delay in Fab 28 coming on-line.
Ok guys, I will conceide that the difference might be more than 2% but not that much more, and of course not 700% more in terms of price. Plus I dont think anyone in the home user environment would be gagging for a 5% say increase right here right now, while they can have that for nothing in a few months, we are not talking about servers. But of course maniacs to fork out the extra 700% abound. The rest like many friends here said is marketing.
Plus those babies from amd overclock very, very neatly too.
But I stand behind my analogy that a laborgini and a ferrari where one outruns the other by a few secs, which for me is the case with intel and amd at the moment, (as was the reverse a few years ago) isn't exactly owning. Of course in the computer biz and giving the nature of the web we have the tendency to blow everything out of proportion...anyone remeber the iphone aka the jesus phone.
The jesus phone....
Jesus....
hey cwalace and applied micro. Great points! wasnt aware of alot of what you said. Thanks.
Plus those babies from amd overclock very, very neatly too.
But I stand behind my analogy that a laborgini and a ferrari where one outruns the other by a few secs, which for me is the case with intel and amd at the moment, (as was the reverse a few years ago) isn't exactly owning. Of course in the computer biz and giving the nature of the web we have the tendency to blow everything out of proportion...anyone remeber the iphone aka the jesus phone.
The jesus phone....
Jesus....
hey cwalace and applied micro. Great points! wasnt aware of alot of what you said. Thanks.
It would not surprise me to see Apple do a minor refresh in the MBA and include these new processors as the new defaults and BTOs. The price shouldn't go up too much if at all.
Sure.
But if this puts you off, may I dare to ask, why you are even here, as a Mac user?
I mean... Apple and teh Steve are masters in blowing little advantages out of proportion as a selling proposition, aren't they?