Too bad Llano was slipped to Q3 2011 and so far all models will be for desktops (TDP +65W). I bet Ivy Bridge will be out before AMD releases decent mobile Fusions
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.
MBP 2011 Ivy v Sandy Bridge
- Thread starter kamil.amersi
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Too bad Llano was slipped to Q3 2011 and so far all models will be for desktops (TDP +65W). I bet Ivy Bridge will be out before AMD releases decent mobile Fusions
I know that. I was making a point about the difference in wattage between the current high end i7 640M and the quad core i5 S model SB processor. Only 10W separates the two. It is speculated that Apple is going with a discrete ATI GPU's in it's next models. Which currently use less power than even Nvidia's 330M. The Quad core i5 SB S model with the new ATI discrete GPU will be about the same wattage total as the current dual core i7 640m with Nvidia 330M.
The Nvidia 320M and the new SB IGP is comparable. The sandybridge in early tests beats a ATI 5450 in most tests. The Nvidia 320M and 5450 are comparable. So in the Macbook Pro 13inch and Mini a SB IGP would not really be a downgrade. We still don't know in the tests if the IGP was a lower clocked 12 EU part or a higher clocked part. It may even well be a wash or a upgrade. But we will not know until they are released. Apple is not stupid, they would not settle for a under achieving part or GPU intergrated or not. Hence their willing to for go the Core line and remain with the C2D line because of the underachieving Core IGP.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/3871/the-sandy-bridge-preview-three-wins-in-a-row/7
Sandy Bridge = 32nm
Ivy Bridge = 22 nm
So Ivy Bridge is more energy efficient and produce less heat due to smaller die size, so they can produce Quad cores with a TDP of 35W. There is also a change in architecture, so they don't need to hit the same clock speeds in order to give the same performance as the current i7 iMac
Btw, it's 35W for the package ( GPU + CPU ). The integrated GPU of Nvidia has a TDP of around 11W or something like that. So for the C2D (25W) + Nvidia, it is also around 35W. The i5/i7 Dual core has probably a TDP of only 25W if Intel excluded the GPU.
The stated wattage is for the CPU only, not both. Note the total wattage for the Core i7 640M. It's 35 Max TDP. They don't include a third party IGP for their processors. The Sandy Bridge Quad Core S i5 mobile processor has a total of 45W TDP in comparison. Both without the GPU.
No reason for Apple not to include a Quad model i5 S Sandy Processor in their MacBook Pro's.
http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=49666&code=640M
You will most likely see these processors in the new MacBook and Mac Mini and MacBook Pro. Here is my opinion of how it will play out.
Intel Core i3 2100T=MacBook and Mac Mini
Intel Core i5 2390T=MacBook and Mac Mini upgrade(Maybe), Standard Mac BookPro.
Intel Core i5 2500T= MacBook Pro upgrade.
I may be wrong but I don't see how much choice Apple has here.
First of all, the Intel GPU only wins it with a mere 5 fps on most games, that's not what I call beat. Sometimes the ATI 5450 wins from the Intel GPU too. They are pretty close in performance.
However there is a big performance difference between the ATI 5450 and the 320m.
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Computer-Games-on-Laptop-Graphic-Cards.13849.0.html
World of Conflict.
320m (integrated version) = 34 fps
ATI 5450 = 23 fps.
That is close to 50%.
For Call of Duty Modern warfare 2, the ATI 5450 and the Intel GPU get only 40 and 44 fps on Low settings at 1024 x 768. ( see your anandtech article )
http://www.notebookcheck.net/typo3temp/pics/da80f6a98e.gif
The 320m* integrated version at a higher resolution of 1366 x 768 runs it at an average of 60 fps at low.
It's not close at all. The 13" MBP will suffer a decrease in GPU performance more than likely.
Last edited:
2390T or 2400s are desktop cpus that will be used in HTPC. May be Apple will use S class CPU in iMac and T class CPU in mini.
For mobile they will use 2820QM/2720QM/2630QM quads or 2620M/2540M duals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Bridge_(microarchitecture)#Mobile_Processors
For mobile they will use 2820QM/2720QM/2630QM quads or 2620M/2540M duals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Bridge_(microarchitecture)#Mobile_Processors
How do you know the TDP of 330M? ATI GPUs don't use less power. Yes, they do offer models with lower TDP but so do nVidia and on the other hand, some models have higher TDP than 330M.
That 10W is 29% more. It's not only, it's A LOT in a laptop. Apple would have to use something like ATI 5470 to match the TDP of current MBPs.
The graphics chip is build in the processor. So when the TDP is measured, the GPU is also taken into account as they are not separate anymore.
And it makes sense ofcourse. If you have both a CPU and GPU in there, you need to handle the heat of both, not just the CPU alone.
To be honest, will people really notice THAT much of a difference between a dual-core Sandy Bridge processor and a quad-core Ivy Bridge processor?
It's not going to be like the jump from single-core to dual-core processors, is it?
I mean, how many applications are coded to take advantage of four cores?
It's not going to be like the jump from single-core to dual-core processors, is it?
I mean, how many applications are coded to take advantage of four cores?
Basically it is because there is twice as many cores to crush numbers. Of course clock speeds matter as well but if clocks are similar, then it would be the same. By the time dual cores came around, most apps did not support more than one core/thread.
Quite a few apps that can actually take advantage of the CPU power are multithreaded nowadays. Safari won't be any faster, that's for sure but things like Logic and several Adobe apps will be.
Remember that people are just hoping for different things. I bet most people who want the quad don't need it but they still want it.
As far as known number go. A 330M has a TDP of 23W. A 5650 is said to have a TDP of 15-19W. As if that weren't enough the 5650 is a significantly faster GPU too so they aren't directly compareable.
But as for the 330M in the MBP as it is underclocked one could guess the real TDP is closer to 18-20W and although the 300M an 400M (as far as it exists) are definitely worse in Performance per Watt and thus much worse GPUs for notebooks the 500M series seems to close the gap again.
I also doubt that they wouldn't put a faster card in there just to get a Quad into the machine.
It is not 30%. If you want to look at ratios do it right.
The whole coolingsystem dissipates heat from 2-3 chips. That is 50W at least.
60/50 and that is 20% difference which is possible but still unlikely as I guess they will make the machine thinner before faster or care more about ergonomics and in the current design a Quad would mean a very hot MBP, maybe one of the hottest ever.
Also the new SandyBridge Dual Core is much better than the old one and all by itself enough to make marketing happy. Ivy Bridge and 22nm will be the time Quads will find their way into MBPs. This time is unlikely although not impossible.
Your forgetting other aspects of the SB GPU. It's video play back performance is on par with the higher end cards. And the SB IGP in the article is believed to be the 6 EU part or the lower clocked 12 EU part.
We will not know until it is released for sure. The higher clocked 12 EU part most likely will surpass the 320m or will be on par with it. With superior video playback to boot.
Apple will not put a inferior card in there either a IGP or discrete. By the reports alone Apple was duely impressed with the performance of the SB processors.
Last edited:
The graphics chip is build in the processor. So when the TDP is measured, the GPU is also taken into account as they are not separate anymore.
And it makes sense ofcourse. If you have both a CPU and GPU in there, you need to handle the heat of both, not just the CPU alone.
Yes when we are talking about SB or the core series. I said as much. But no when a third party IPG is involved such as NVIDIA.
http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=49666&code=640M
For instance the above, it includes the intel IGP, not a Nvidia IGP.
The TDP of the 330M is 23W. And yes new ATI GPU's use less power. It is not alot in a laptop. Not at all. And your looking not looking at the total TDP for both the CPU and GPU. A ATI mobility GPU and quad i5 2390T SB processor can come in at a total of 60W TDP to 65TDP. The current i7 640M with a total wattage of 35W and the 330M have a total wattage of 58W TDP.
You have to look at the total heat of the Laptop, not just the CPU and GPU. A SSD give off little heat as opposed to a HD. A OD gives off heat. You have to factor that in as well. Both the HD and OD will most likely be gone in the next MBP.
So a Quad is likely, not just unlikely
Anandtech changed his article to say it is a 12EU part, not 6 EU. Not sure where you got the lower clocked bit. They tested a desktop Sandy Bridge part. Wouldn't a laptop part be lower clocked or at least equivalent?
You have no clue what you're talking about do you? You do realize that the 2390T you're mentioning is a desktop processor not a mobile one? Besides that, the increase in wattage is a lot for a notebook by the way. Especially one that's already prone to overheating like the MBP.
If you're expecting quad core, I think you're going to be disappointed come spring time.
Ahhh there will always be better cpu and gpu in the horizon. For me as long as they get the odd & hdd out and stick in an ssd and lots of battery in then I'm a happy camper.
SSDs use as much power as HDs. It's not the heat since the HD is in the other corner of the MBP and thus is not really affected by the heating of CPU but it's the battery life. OD doesn't give off any heat unless you are using it. In 99% of the time, you are not. Apple cares more about the battery life than they care about CPU or GPU performance. ATI 5650M isn't even that much better than the 330M, it wouldn't be that much of an upgrade.
Besides, if the total TDP will be 65W, then it's 12% more than it currently is. Again, that's not a little in a laptop where cooling system is already what it is. Current MBPs are hot enough.
It still had no Turbo I think
I won't buy anything with the "pro" label on it and an Intel-only GPU. Period.
With all due respect to Anand, I will need to see many more benchmarks across a broad spectrum of apps (and on real-world notebook hardware) before I believe that the Intel IGP has caught up with the low-end AMD or nVidia offerings.
Intel has a horrible record of addressing graphics driver incompatibilities, coming out with updates very seldom, if ever. Some folks don't have the money or room for both a portable and a gaming rig. Apple charges premium prices for its ultra-portables. Premium performance on an $1100 to $1800 machine isn't too much to ask for.
Sure, if Apple was afraid you'd take your laptop business elsewhere but they don't really care. You can't use the rest of the industry to gauge what Apple should do and you'd think after all these years of macs being slightly underpowered and behind the "tech" eight-ball, people would know this.
If premium performance is what Apple intended then they would compete head-to-head with AlienWare/Dell. But they don't.
You're getting sleek, fashionable, thin and light. Whatever fits into it is secondary.
Agreed. But there is a vast area between Alienware and Apple in which some form of compromise between performance and style could be reached. Apple has found ways to offer mid-range GPUs along with better-than-average looks, portablilty and battery life in the past. Nobody here is asking for a 13-inch notebook with a GeForce 470x. Even the 320m offered reasonable performance. Intel has a consistently bad reputation in this arena. Offering $300 netbook innards in a "pro" model is going beyond even Apple's reputation for poor price / performance ratio.
I really want an i3 and a GPU with dedicated memory in the 13". I love the size of it for the portability but the gap is so big, IMO, between the 13" and 15". I have love for the 15" but I travel a lot and the smaller size makes the 13" better. I feel like I'm sacrificing too much going with the current 13" but I'm getting tired of waiting.
I agree, but the baseline MacBook Pro has features that the less expensive laptops don't have. You are getting premium overall capability. If you configure other laptops to have as close of specs and features as you can to the MBP, you can easily break 2 grand. A HP I priced up would cost about $2700 to get the same specs as the i7 MBP, also about $2700. Even if speed isn't the fastest, the aluminum, backlit keyboard and fit and finish are ahead of the basic laptops. The Sony Vaio Z, a PC fav of mine, will cost about $3-5 grand when decked out.
Feature wise above all, Apple has one advantage on everyone else that is clear as day and that is their track pad. The capability of the MBP's trackpad is rarely given enough credit and you can only get a trackpad, which is as easy to use and capable of so many different functions in the MBP.
Looping back to the processor debate, as said, MacBook Pros carry different features and some are unique. When the term 'capability' is discussed with the MBP, it must always be considered that capability has numerous meanings.
Why don't you "spec that out" for us?
About six weeks ago I saw an online offer from Logic Buy posted at Laptop Magazine's site to buy an Envy 14" for $849 that was equipped with an i7 processor. That setup with it's GPU would melt a 13" MBP in performance.
For $849.
Come June Windows laptops get new trackpads and drivers that work like Apple's do.
--
100% agreed. I always get caught up in the "better" option and even if i get the slightly less version it always seams to be enough.Look in the mirror.
Valid question. One that frankly I could debate for hours. Here's a brief summary.
I truly need (due to my work) the most resource laden laptop available, therefore I have always upgraded at each new release, over the last decade. If experience has taught me anything it's that speed, or any other "advantage" of upcoming new chips always looks better on paper than once you have the machine in front of you, in use.
I'm not saying there is no value to waiting, if you truly do not _need_ a computer in the relatively near future. But you will always pay in a variety of ways for "the latest". Sometimes in the amount of bugs present in a new model.
So, setting aside the lure of the lastest, and greatest. Ask yourself if you've not better off buying the current machine.
Cheers...