Intel's Sandy Bridge CPUs could be with us this year

[Shimfs]

i am in the same boat as you two above me

I am going to buy my very first apple product (aside from the iphone) and i am going to use it for law school, so my need isn't so great as to wether it is a core 2 duo or I5

However! i have always been interested in computers, and have a hard time on settling with something less than the best and i think i would feel bent over, if i bougt the core 2 duo around christmas, and in febuary, it would be upgraded.

I for one, also think they are forced into the new sandy bridge chips, since the C2D will be discontinued

 

[henrikrox]

Not to be skeptical here, but i im worried about the peformance of the intel IGP, i mean intel igp in the bast havnt been great. And it worries me that the SB 13" macbook pro will probably use the intel IGP.

I know the demo shown at computex, but i mean, i dont get much out of watching mass effect 2 standing still. with no movement. that doesnt show me the power of the intel IGP.

Also Mass effect 2, can run on my 2.4ghz 320m, on native res with everything on max with great fps.

Im just skeptical on the intel gpu ://

 

[pulieb89]

Sandy Bridge won't cost more than current CPUs do, so if you can, wait. You'll get more for the same buck. It will bring SATA 6Gb/s but USB 3.0 is unfortunately not included in the mainstream (LGA 1155) chipset.

If you don't do anything CPU intensive, it's unlikely that you will notice much difference but most people just prefer having the newest and shiniest. You should ask that later on when you can buy it ASAP as then we will likely know more about Sandy Bridge and possibly about MBPs as well

Thank you for that I think I can wait till the end of the year, early next for an announcement and base my decision on that!

 

[Hellhammer]

*snip*

Quad core Sandy Bridge benchmarked

“Sandy Bridge is not going to be 2.3x. It is not going to be 3x, it’s not going to be 4x,” Eden said. “It’s going to be much higher.”

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/computers...-bridge-promises-a-big-performance-boost/2684

Earlier reports said all Sandy Bridge chipsets will support USB 3.0 but the latest reports have been saying that Intel won't deliver a chipset with native support for USB 3.0 until 2012 (link, link, link). However, there has been some talks about Intel delivering its own discrete USB 3.0 controller but those have existed for a long time. It's not official but there is a great chance we won't see USB 3.0, yet, although many people, including me would really like to see it.

 

[pulieb89]

I'm exactly in the same position as you. I'm saving for my first MBP, and still don't have enough to get it. I'll have the money for it more or less by the time the next update comes. I will buy the MBP then if it fills my "requirements" (explained later in this post).

As for the Sandy Bridge technology, I'm not that into it, but from what I've read/seen/discussed, it seems pretty promising. Not only performance-wise (check the last link of Hellhamer's post), but also energy-consuming-wise. Benchmarks also give positive results. (I'd like to know more about this, but still haven't researched that deeply).

Wheather you need the Sandy Bridge technology or not, that really depends on your needs. If all you're going to be doing is browsing web, listening to music, IM-ing, email-ing and doing some iWork/Office stuff, then I doubt you will need it. The reason I am interested in it, is because I'd like to do some CPU-intensive gaming (emulate Playstation 2 games which I have, on the laptop). It also goes with your desire to be future-proofed or not. The Intel Core 2 Duo is getting discontinued soon and as such, really is a product that's at the end of its life. The Sandy Bridge, however, is at its begginning. Who knows what might come after. So having it surely gives you more guarantees than the Core 2 Duo, when it comes to programs you might or might not want to run on your future MBP. It's up to you to, regarding these two points, decide wheather it's worth for you or not to wait and, possibly, spend more money, on the MBP that should be coming around January.

I don't know if USB 3.0 is related to Sandy Bridge or not (as I said, I'm a mere reader/poster, I'm not a professional of this area). If it does, however, come with the next Macbook Pro, it'll make your USB devices work faster and more reliably. Not to mention it has backwards compatibility with 2.0, so it can't really go wrong.

Personally, those are the two updates I'm looking more foward to: USB 3.0, and Processor power. If those two satisfy me, I'm totally getting a MBP 13''.


EDIT: Regarding USB 3.0, I found some interesting links:

http://www.slashgear.com/intel-sand...0-super-frugal-battery-life-possible-0176048/
http://www.devicemag.com/2010/03/01...s-3-0-usb-3-0-support-and-great-battery-life/
http://techztalk.com/techwebsite/03...idge-to-bring-usb-3-and-pci-express-3-support


Hellhammer, does this contradict what you said about the mainstream Sandy Bridge not having 3.0?

I dont think I will need the power of the Sandy Bridge as I decided to save for a 15" i5, but if there is an announcement at the end of the year (around the time I would have all my money together) I feel I may aswell wait, I mean a couple more months cant hurt.

I must say as good as Sandy Bridge sounds for the future i was annoyed that now i have to wait longer.

But I also think that I may be thinking about it too much, as I could always be waiting for the new updates as technology doesn't stand still at all, there is ALWAYS going to be something in the not too distant future that is quicker or more powerful.

So I spose I will just wait for an Apple announcement around the end of the year???? See what Jobs and co have to say?

 

[henrikrox]

Hellhammer

I know this is just guessing, but if apple chooses to go intel igp in the SB macbook pro 13, with intel past IGP's how do you think it will compare to lets say 320m.

And i know its just guessing, cause there arent any specs out yet for the IGP. Still, at least we know how the older intel IGP did against other nvidia gpu's.

 

[Hellhammer]

So I spose I will just wait for an Apple announcement around the end of the year???? See what Jobs and co have to say?

By the end of the year, we will know so much more about Sandy Bridge and there will be benchmarks etc, also rumors about new MBPs so it's too early to ask what to do in 6 months. You don't need Sandy Bridge but if you get something more powerful for same $ by waiting a month or two, I would say it's worth it.

Revive this question when you have the money, it's easier to help as we know more

Hellhammer

I know this is just guessing, but if apple chooses to go intel igp in the SB macbook pro 13, with intel past IGP's how do you think it will compare to lets say 320m.

And i know its just guessing, cause there arent any specs out yet for the IGP. Still, at least we know how the older intel IGP did against other nvidia gpu's.

Well, the current IGP is as fast as 9400M is in benchmarks but the real world performance is worth (possibly due drivers). I would guess it's about as good as 320M, if not better. Intel has put a lot effort on the IGP and it should pay off, they know how bad the current IGP is

Anyways, I'm off to bed now! Hopefully Eidorian and iMacmatician will join us, they always have some fancy roadmaps and other cool stuff

 

[pulieb89]

Quad core Sandy Bridge benchmarked



http://www.zdnet.com/blog/computers...-bridge-promises-a-big-performance-boost/2684

Earlier reports said all Sandy Bridge chipsets will support USB 3.0 but the latest reports have been saying that Intel won't deliver a chipset with native support for USB 3.0 until 2012 (link, link, link). However, there has been some talks about Intel delivering its own discrete USB 3.0 controller but those have existed for a long time. It's not official but there is a great chance we won't see USB 3.0, yet, although many people, including me would really like to see it.

I figure if its not going to be that long aa wait, and after reading those links I might just wait.

I do like the statement “Sandy Bridge is not going to be 2.3x. It is not going to be 3x, it’s not going to be 4x,” Eden said. “It’s going to be much higher.”

That is what makes me want to wait.

would apple use the intergrated graphics and them use the NVIDIA card too? or something like that anyway? Or do we just not know yet, too early to say?

 

[Blues003]

No USB 3.0: Sad me.

One of the links, however, mentioned some sort of adapter. Is there the possibility of inserting an adapter that makes the USB 2.0 port "act" as if it was USB 3.0? Is that it?

 

[Hellhammer]

would apple use the intergrated graphics and them use the NVIDIA card too? or something like that anyway? Or do we just not know yet, too early to say?

Likely IGP in 13" and both, IGP and NVidia card in 15" and 17", just like they are doing at the moment (IGP + 330M)

No USB 3.0: Sad me.

One of the links, however, mentioned some sort of adapter. Is there the possibility of inserting an adapter that makes the USB 2.0 port "act" as if it was USB 3.0? Is that it?

There has been rumors that Intel is working on a discrete controller. Whether it's a PCI card or something soldered onto the mobo, I don't know. There are many mobos with USB 3.0 but they use a discrete controller chip. NEC has made them for a long time. It's possible that Apple uses one but I doubt it as it would be another chip drawing power and being an expense for Apple. Would be great if Apple did though

 

[hypermog]

A few months ago I made a mockup of what the 13" MBP would look like if the DVD drive was removed, a dedicated GPU was added and the battery was enlarged:

(actual) 2010 MBP 13"

(mockup) 2011 MBP 13"

 

[FnuGk]

i have only read the first thread but here goes.

no one here seem to be giving any thoughts on AMD
giving the rumors that came out a few months ago about apple and amd getting together http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/04/16/apple_in_advanced_discussions_to_adopt_amd_chips.html

some might say bah amd have bad mobile cpus and they use alot of power but thats only looking at their current lineup. arround the same time sandy bridge comes out amd will have their lliano out. Thats a 2 or 4 core mobile cpu or APU as they like to call it. It's a cpu and gpu in the same chip much like sandy bridge. The big difference is where intels gfx might only be up to par with 320 if we are lucky but i wouldnt count on it AMD ownd ATI and thus they are using an ATI gpu that is much more powerfull than anything intel could ever hope to put in their sandy bridge.

do you think its likely that apple might go amd? if so would it be only for the 13" or other models aswell (including mac mini maybe?)

 

[Blues003]

i have only read the first thread but here goes.

no one here seem to be giving any thoughts on AMD
giving the rumors that came out a few months ago about apple and amd getting together http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/04/16/apple_in_advanced_discussions_to_adopt_amd_chips.html

some might say bah amd have bad mobile cpus and they use alot of power but thats only looking at their current lineup. arround the same time sandy bridge comes out amd will have their lliano out. Thats a 2 or 4 core mobile cpu or APU as they like to call it. It's a cpu and gpu in the same chip much like sandy bridge. The big difference is where intels gfx might only be up to par with 320 if we are lucky but i wouldnt count on it AMD ownd ATI and thus they are using an ATI gpu that is much more powerfull than anything intel could ever hope to put in their sandy bridge.

do you think its likely that apple might go amd? if so would it be only for the 13" or other models aswell (including mac mini maybe?)

So let me see if I got this straight: currently Intel owns AMD CPU-wise, while AMD owns Intel GPU-wise. Is that correct?

What info do you have on lliano that could be of interest?

 

[gianly1985]

You don't need Sandy Bridge but if you get something more powerful for same $ by waiting a month or two, I would say it's worth it.

As long as they're just "a month or two".

Last fall, people in the market for a Macbook Pro were told to wait January for the Arrandales. The rest is now history. (the endless wait till April 2010) Eventually some people waited from October to April, and a part of them still had to buy a C2D then (the 13"). That's 6-7 months.

Also, I can see a partial redesign of the Macbook Pro in Fall 2011, with some fancy new features, maybe IPS displays, and maybe LightPeak. So in January-March 2011, even if Sandy Bridge "classic" uMBPs will be out, you cannot be sure not to be pissed off in a couple of months. Like people who "waited for Penryn" from summer 2007 to january 2008, but then they missed the Fall 2008 unibody revolution. There will be always reasons to "wait XXX months and get more for the same $$$", if XXX=6-9. And that's what we're talking about here. So, people, this thread is good for "fun", "speculation" and "nerd porn", totally agree, but if you're "in the market" for a MBP NOW, just buy it NOW, they've just been updated and widely tested on the road and proved no major issues. (the highlighted activities "costs" 1-2 more months to add to the wait for an update, if not more, see iMac 27", putting even more time distance between an ACTUAL and SAFELY BUYABLE sandybridge MPB and my desk).

Then there are the 13"-ers (like me). The risk is to wait for nothing again. There's certainly time for another update before C2Ds get EOLed, if not two.
We're talking about 4core/8thread CPUs (very low-end/consumer/MBP13"-ish/MINI-ish/WhiteMB-ish....yeah ), with "brand new" price and the usual "forced intel IGP, nvidia IGP banned" issue. No warranty we will see Sandy Bridge on the Mini/MB/MBP-13" platform in the next update. (and I wanna stress that this "platform" must be seen as a WHOLE, a SINGLE and synced_update platform, with all the consequences).

 

[Blues003]

I respectfully disagree (partly) with the above poster. There are updates worth being pissed off about, and others not really. I know technology will get inevitably obsolete, but some updates are big, and some are not.


Regarding the AMD on MBP issue, I found this link: http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/04/amd-and-apple-it-could-happen-with-the-imac.ars

Here's the part that caught my eye: AI speculates that AMD may end up in Apple's portables, but that's just crazy talk. Sure, Apple spent a lot of engineering effort on getting its own new-from-the-ground-up version of NVIDIA's Optimus tech out the door. But at the end of the day, the hacked-up, Optimus-like solution that Apple has for portables now is actually great from a performance/watt perspective for mobiles. It combines the leading performance/watt mobile CPU with the leading mobile discrete GPU, and it's a shame that the solution doesn't fit into the 13" Macbook Pro (more on that topic on Sunday, though). AMD/ATI would not have been able to offer an IGP + discrete GPU switching solution that matches it in terms of performance and power efficiency (though an AMD-designed alternative would've been cheaper for Apple).

No, the real place where Intel's strategy of putting an IGP/northbridge in the same package as CPU is a real problem is on the desktop.

Now, this obviously doesn't refer to the AMD's equivalent of Sandy Bridge (which would have to be used; Apple doesn't have enough space on the MBP 13'' for CPU+GPU AND a dedicated graphic's card), which an above user seemed to believe was as good its rival. But heh, it might avoid some pointless speculating in the future.

 

[gianly1985]

I respectfully disagree (partly) with the above poster. There are updates worth being pissed off about, and others not really. I know technology will get inevitably obsolete, but some updates are big, and some are not.

Of course, the "pissing potential" is different in every update.

But I was pointing out that in 2010-2011 we may have 3 "big ones" in a row:

1) Arrandale

2) Sandy Bridge

3) Renewed (after 3 years) unibody mbps, with iPad-grade displays (and I said "iPad-grade" on purpose, to show even low end stuff in apple line-up get IPSs nowadays) and some crazy tech taken from one of the many patents we read about everyday on sites like patentlyapple.


Needless to say, it comes down to one's needs if an update is worth being pissed or not.

The bad approach is saying "it's worth waiting" or "it's worth being pissed" in "general"...like it is something absolute...

If one is in the market for a notebook TODAY, in most cases there's absolutely no reason to start "waiting for sandy bridge" NOW. In most cases.

 

[Blues003]

Of course, the "pissing potential" is different in every update.

But I was pointing out that in 2010-2011 we may have 3 "big ones" in a row:

1) Arrandale

2) Sandy Bridge

3) Renewed (after 3 years) unibody mbps, with iPad-grade displays (and I said "iPad-grade" on purpose, to show even low end stuff in apple line-up get IPSs nowadays) and some crazy tech taken from one of the many patents we read about everyday on sites like patentlyapple.


Needless to say, it comes down to one's needs if an update is worth being pissed or not.

The bad approach is saying "it's worth waiting" or "it's worth being pissed" in "general"...like it is something absolute...

If one is in the market for a notebook TODAY, in most cases there's absolutely no reason to start "waiting for sandy bridge" NOW. In most cases.

We were talking about the MBP 13'': Apple decided NOT to use Arrandale there because of graphical capabilities, and will not be able to use Arrandale while mantaining those on a 13''. Not to mention, the reason to go Sandybridge, is exactly to counter the Arrandale weakness (a weak integrated GPU). As such, 1) and 2) updates shouldn't happen both on the MBP 13'' line.

 

[acesam]

This is what SJ said:
"We chose killer graphics plus 10 hour battery life over a very small CPU speed increase. Users will see far more performance boost from the speedy graphics."

Quoted from Ars Technica

Graphics performance would have taken a significant step backwards if Apple opted to rely solely on the Intel HD IGP that comes with Core i3 or i5, so Apple would have also had to include a discrete GPU like that used on the 15" and 17" models. Besides the added cost, there's simply no room on the 13" MacBook Pro logic board to include an additional discrete GPU.

Apple had NVIDIA build a special 48-core variant of its GeForce 310M mated to an improved version of the controller in the 9400M. Called the GeForce 320M, it gives the new 13" MacBook Pro as much as an 80 percent boost in graphics performance when pushed to its limits (and NVIDIA says the 16-core 310M is 10x faster than the Intel HD IGP).

At the same time, it still offers as much as a 40 percent power savings when performing more mundane computing tasks (this likely outweighs the power penalty for sticking with Core 2 Duo). In addition, it gives Mac OS X's Grand Central Dispatch three times the resources to tap for GPGPU processing.

Source: http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/04/why-the-13-macbook-pro-didnt-get-a-core-i5-upgrade.ars

And according to Wikipedia:
-Sandy Bridge will be an evolutionary step from Core i5/i7.
-Sandy Bridge will focus on power efficiency.
-Sandy Bridge's CPU and GPU are likely to be on one die (unlike the two-die approach of Nehalem).

 

[Hellhammer]

*snip*

Redesign is something we don't know, thus it's not worth waiting for, it might happen along with ANY update. However, CPUs are something that we know will happen, it's not just a guess or an opinion.

I don't advice to wait if you are in market for one NOW, but if you aren't getting the money before late this year, you could just wait a month or two for an update.

 

[Blues003]

This is what SJ said:
"We chose killer graphics plus 10 hour battery life over a very small CPU speed increase. Users will see far more performance boost from the speedy graphics."

Quoted from Ars Technica


Source: http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/04/why-the-13-macbook-pro-didnt-get-a-core-i5-upgrade.ars

And according to Wikipedia:
-Sandy Bridge will be an evolutionary step from Core i5/i7.
-Sandy Bridge will focus on power efficiency.
-Sandy Bridge's CPU and GPU are likely to be on one die (unlike the two-die approach of Nehalem).

The question is, what about the AMD chip that user talked about? The AMD equivalent of Sandy Bridge?...

 

[Hellhammer]

The question is, what about the AMD chip that user talked about? The AMD equivalent of Sandy Bridge?...

Possible AMD Fusion Details

Article about the IGP in Fusion + video

I actually hope for AMD as the IGP is much better than Intel's plus AMD can deliver a quad core for reasonable price and with TDP of 35W although clocks are unknown and so are benchmarks but we will see fairly soon

 

[Blues003]

Possible AMD Fusion Details

Article about the IGP in Fusion + video

I actually hope for AMD as the IGP is much better than Intel's plus AMD can deliver a quad core for reasonable price and with TDP of 35W although clocks are unknown and so are benchmarks but we will see fairly soon

A few questions:
- Any info on what's Sandy Bridge's TDP?
- Wouldn't that be a compromise on the processor? (considering usually AMD's CPUs are considered inferior)
- Is Sandy Bridge already known to have an inferior graphic's card to the AMD?
- What is better performance-wise: a 3GHz processor dual core, or a quad core with 2.4 GHz ? (hypothetical numbers, just trying to understand some concepts here)
- Is it known if this will have USB 3.0?


EDIT: From the second link: It is true that Intel beat AMD to the idea of having a CPU and an IGP in one package, Intel's DX10 IGP is nowhere near the capabilities of the GPU part of the Fusion APU. In fact, it is fairly useless for any kind of gaming. At the same time, Fusion's CPU part will pale in comparison to Intel's Sandy Bridge - which will also feature an IGP and a CPU on one die.

:\...

 

[Hellhammer]

- Any info on what's Sandy Bridge's TDP?

There has been some reports saying some TDPs but they are just guesses. Probably about the same as current, possibly lower in mobile segment at least.

- Wouldn't that be a compromise on the processor? (considering usually AMD's CPUs are considered inferior)

Intel has been able to deliver better clock for clock, core for core performance but on the other hand, AMD can deliver sub 200$ high-end CPUs. There is no benchmarks for Fusion yet but it is looking very promising. AMD made a note that they aren't going to go with virtual cores etc, they said they will deliver real cores instead.

Fusion is looking very promising. Intel might be able to deliver faster CPUs but they come with a hefty price tag.

- Is Sandy Bridge already known to have an inferior graphic's card to the AMD?

There haven't been to much details but seeing that the AMD IGP is based on ATI 5000 series and AMD=ATI nowadays, so it's very likely that AMD can deliver better IGP. Look at this video and compare it to Intel's video, which one is looking better?

- What is better performance-wise: a 3GHz processor dual core, or a quad core with 2.4 GHz ? (hypothetical numbers, just trying to understand some concepts here)

It's up to software. The biggest issue is that most software is still single-threaded thus cannot utilize more than one core. In those apps, the clock speed matters, thus dual core is faster if they are based on same architecture and have similar specs (cache etc). That's the main reason why Turbo was invented so single-threaded performance can be increased.

If the software can utilize all four cores, then quad core will run circles around dual core, but there isn't too many apps that can do that, video encoding is the first that comes to my mind what an average Joe would do. For most people, dual core is more than fine.

- Is it known if this will have USB 3.0?

There will likely be two versions of Hudson chipset, the other one having support for USB 3.0 and the other one without support for USB 3.0, so it's possible that with AMD, we would get USB 3.0 in early 2011

EDIT: From the second link: It is true that Intel beat AMD to the idea of having a CPU and an IGP in one package, Intel's DX10 IGP is nowhere near the capabilities of the GPU part of the Fusion APU. In fact, it is fairly useless for any kind of gaming. At the same time, Fusion's CPU part will pale in comparison to Intel's Sandy Bridge - which will also feature an IGP and a CPU on one die.

Since the merge of AMD and ATI, there has been talks of CPU+GPU chip from AMD, now it's true. AMD has been working with Fusion for four years, about the same time Intel has been working with Sandy Bridge. AMD has cutting edge as ATI has been making GPUs since 1985, with very good results. Intel has been making some IGPs before but they have been bad, just like the current IGP is. Intel did put a lot money on Larrabee but it was cancelled earlier this year, possibly because it wasn't as fruitful as they hoped.

It looks like industry is moving towards CPU+GPU combinations which ain't a bad thing, as long as the performance ain't compromised too much. I'm urgently waiting for more details on next gen IGPs

 

[Blues003]

Hmm... Well, all things considered, I think I'm hoping for Sandy Bridge. Don't get me wrong, I liked the IGP and the USB 3.0 possibility of AMD a lot. However, I also want the heavy processing power for emulating, and if as you said, most stuff usually relies on a single core, then I'd get much mroe "juice" out of Sandy Bridge than of AMD's Fusion card.

 

[DoFoT9]

It looks like industry is moving towards CPU+GPU combinations which ain't a bad thing, as long as the performance ain't compromised too much. I'm urgently waiting for more details on next gen IGPs

would be nice if the integration of said CPU+GPU could be utilised by software too