Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

New MacBook Pro 6,1 on Geekbench!!

Wolfpup said:
Yeah, and you can get THOSE in systems starting at $1200 :-/ Core i7 quad AND Geforce GTS 360 for $1300 if not a bit less.
Click to expand...
you get what you pay for in most cases. ive said it before and ill say it again, i happily pay the price for a mac because ive made that decision. i know that we can get the faster, "better" computers in the PC world - but its not worth it from my experience. i would like to have a good graphics card for once though, not that i play games that much ;)

Well I want Blu Ray too. I use an external drive now, but most of the stuff I rent is on Blu Ray, except for older things where it's not available.
Click to expand...
i did want bluray, until i got a PS3 - now i use it + linux to rip the BDs digitally. i can stream the mkvs to anywhere in my house now. SOOO much easier.
 
DoFoT9 said:
im confused by this. regardless of CPU utilisation shouldnt the OS be managing thread usage of all processes as efficiently as possible? the allowable performance ratio should be the same at ~20% as it would be at ~80%. should it not?
Click to expand...

There is a direct correlation between the percent idle being a high number and tubro boost turning on. Likewise if in your common workload the idle percentage is always very low ( sub 15%), then not very likely TurboBoost would turn on for significant periods of time.

The OS is going to do distribution of execution load regardless. Efficiently as possible is problematical. There are several somewhat conflicting points to trade off to get to "optimal". Sometimes managing efficiently means managing with less overhead ( lowest time of switching from one thread to another). That may mean looking at fewer factors (e.g., trying to schedule so that Tubro Boost gets turned on as much as possible. )

What looking for in TurboBoost in that case is when it just so happens to coincide with what the OS did. So the OS can put threads onto multiple cores ( which tends to deactivate TurboBoost) but some of the threads go to "sleep" for long (relative to OS timeslice interval ) time. That latter enables the boost to turn on if the right set of threads go to sleep distributed over distinct cores. The planets align and it turns on.

bigger idle windows likely will allow the planets to align more often.
 
Steve Mobs said:

.....
Future 15"

$1700 - 2.26GHz Core i3-350M, 2 Cores, 4 Threads, 3MB L3, 1066 FSB
Intel Integrated Graphics

$2000 - 2.40GHz Core i5-520M, 2 Cores, 4 Threads, 3MB L3, 1066 FSB
Intel Integrated Graphics + NVIDIA Optimus + NVIDIA Discrete Graphics

$2300 - 2.53GHz Core i5-540M, 2 Cores, 4 Threads, 3MB L3, 1066 FSB
Intel Integrated Graphics + NVIDIA Optimus + NVIDIA Discrete Graphics
Click to expand...


Optimus seems to be more software psudeo software driver than hardware.

http://www.anandtech.com/mobile/showdoc.aspx?i=3737&p=2

Basically is Hybrid SLI version 3. Only this time can seemlessly switch instead of requiring a reboot or several seconds of black screen. Requiring either ones of those pragmatically meant that practically nobody switched. Vast majority of users ran it one of the two ways most of the time.

Since this requires Nvidia getting hands on Intel's (or Apple's) Arrandale IGP drivers color me a bit skeptical that Apple will roll that way. (Perhaps the Nvidia folks are embedded in Apple... which seems quite un Apple like ).

Optimus works better pointing backwards at IGPs that Intel has long since released... not bleeding edge stuff. They've got to copy the graphics out of the discrete GPU's memory into the the IGPs memory buffer in just all the right places.

Don't know about you but that sounds like can really screw things up if don't do that right. Tasks like that is typically stuff that Apple wants to do for itself.... not depend upon 3rd parties. ( Does Apple write the Nvidia drivers or does Nvidia? I thought it was the case that ATI/AMD did theirs and Apple did the Nvidia ones. But could have that backwards. )

The upside as far as i3/i5/i7 Arrandale goes is that the copying from framebuffer to framebuffer is done over PCI-e. So with enough software glue to make it work, it could work. Looks like it is development for Windows.


There are tons of cards that don't come to the Mac Platform in part because the drivers/firmware isn't built. ( low run rate is another issue... since really only MacPros where could even hope to have a diverse market. ). It would finally make putting discrete chips in the MBPs more effective so perhaps Apple will/did fund the development.
 
Steve Mobs said:
My predictions for the Feb 2010 refresh.

Future 13"

$1200 - 2.13GHz Core i3-350M, 2 Cores, 4 Threads, 3MB L3, 1066 FSB
Intel Integrated Graphics

$1500 - 2.26GHz Core i3-350M, 2 Cores, 4 Threads, 3MB L3, 1066 FSB
Intel Integrated Graphics

Future 15"

$1700 - 2.26GHz Core i3-350M, 2 Cores, 4 Threads, 3MB L3, 1066 FSB
Intel Integrated Graphics
Click to expand...

Why would Apple put the garbage integrated intel graphics back into the MBPs when their cheapest 13" sitting at 1200$ has an NVIDIA chip in it? And even more so, why would they stick that intel chip in a 15" that you "predict" to cost 1700$ when they have 15" models with NVIDIA 9400 + 9600 chips simultaneously? You might want to revise these "predictions".
 
Eorlas said:
Why would Apple put the garbage integrated intel graphics back into the MBPs when their cheapest 13" sitting at 1200$ has an NVIDIA chip in it? And even more so, why would they stick that intel chip in a 15" that you "predict" to cost 1700$ when they have 15" models with NVIDIA 9400 + 9600 chips simultaneously? You might want to revise these "predictions".
Click to expand...

you do realize that EVERY arrandale notebook will by default have intel integrated graphics...since it's on the die. It's not an option to remove. Only an option to add an additional discrete option as well.
 
gfiz said:
you do realize that EVERY arrandale notebook will by default have intel integrated graphics...since it's on the die. It's not an option to remove. Only an option to add an additional discrete option as well.
Click to expand...

Unless what's taking so long are custom chips from Intel..
 
Wolfpup said:
Since quad cores were introduced in notebooks.
Click to expand...

you entirely missed the point ...

in a notebook is important to have a BALANCED system, so a quad core with a 55W TDP is not better than a 32nm i7 dual core with a 35W TDP.
And nowadays not all applications can really use 4 cores ....
 
gfiz said:
you do realize that EVERY arrandale notebook will by default have intel integrated graphics...since it's on the die. It's not an option to remove. Only an option to add an additional discrete option as well.
Click to expand...

Yes, and that is a BIG problem.

Integrated performance will be LESS than the 9400m of current models. You're going to want to use the dedicated chip ALL the time because that intel integrated crap is, well, CRAP :mad:
 
Max(IT) said:
you entirely missed the point ...

in a notebook is important to have a BALANCED system, so a quad core with a 55W TDP is not better than a 32nm i7 dual core with a 35W TDP.
And nowadays not all applications can really use 4 cores ....
Click to expand...

It depends what you want. I don't care about balance, I want power and reliability, etc.
 
wilycoder said:
Yes, and that is a BIG problem.

Integrated performance will be LESS than the 9400m of current models. You're going to want to use the dedicated chip ALL the time because that intel integrated crap is, well, CRAP :mad:
Click to expand...


well if I'm just surfing the web or working with Office...I'll be happy to have the option ot use less power with a perfectly able integrated graphic solution. To be honest, and maybe I'm one of the only ones, but for what i use it for, I'll be perfectly happy with the intel only graphics on the 13", along with an i5 and SSD.
 
JaZzMaN251 said:
True.

-> (...) we only know that Apple rejected Arrandale.

If February is over, then Apple is 'taking long'. Any day in February is actually 'on time' (8 month update patterns).

But I don't say I don't want them now :D
Click to expand...

Do we really know they were rejected? I mean...anything they did would have to be pretty darned custom, and it seems like Intel would charge more, versus Apple just buying what they have.

I can see complaining about it-I mean you're being forced to buy graphics hardware you don't want, but in the scheme of things it's pretty much take that, buy higher end chips instead, or go with AMD.
 
Max(IT) said:
so you are not looking for a MacBook Pro, which is thin, quite light and with a good 7-hrs battery
Click to expand...
I was about to say.

While Apple likes to make top of the line products (or at least used too), their laptops are not designed to be power monsters. If you're looking for something powerful, as in, powerful for gaming, then the macbook is not what you're looking for.

Apple's computers are more or less designed for a balanced performance. It's not ALL about power. Apple's computers are more than enough for heavy video editing, and graphic designing. If you want something powerful, you're going to get something hot, bulky, and a 2 hour battery life -- which goes against everything Apple wants for a notebook.
 
deconstruct60 said:
There is a direct correlation between the percent idle being a high number and tubro boost turning on. Likewise if in your common workload the idle percentage is always very low ( sub 15%), then not very likely TurboBoost would turn on for significant periods of time.

The OS is going to do distribution of execution load regardless. Efficiently as possible is problematical. There are several somewhat conflicting points to trade off to get to "optimal". Sometimes managing efficiently means managing with less overhead ( lowest time of switching from one thread to another). That may mean looking at fewer factors (e.g., trying to schedule so that Tubro Boost gets turned on as much as possible. )

What looking for in TurboBoost in that case is when it just so happens to coincide with what the OS did. So the OS can put threads onto multiple cores ( which tends to deactivate TurboBoost) but some of the threads go to "sleep" for long (relative to OS timeslice interval ) time. That latter enables the boost to turn on if the right set of threads go to sleep distributed over distinct cores. The planets align and it turns on.

bigger idle windows likely will allow the planets to align more often.
Click to expand...

that explains it nicely! thanks :)

you wouldnt want to put all your hopes and dreams into a process going into sleep mode though, it would have to be highly researched - for the best efficiency of course.
 
Steve Mobs said:
Future 15"

$1700 - 2.26GHz Core i3-350M, 2 Cores, 4 Threads, 3MB L3, 1066 FSB
Intel Integrated Graphics
Click to expand...

I don't think this is going to happen. Even Apple can't pull such low powered Hardware in a 1700$ Laptop. Just think about it. The CPU is actually cheaper than the one the current macbook Pro is using now, and it supplies the gpu and the northbridge as well. The GPU is less powerful, than the already underpowered 9400M (underpowered at least for a 15" Laptop sporting a price tag like it does).
Apple saves again because besides the southbridge they don't have to spend a lot on the Logicboard either. Since the i3 has no Turboboost the cpu wouldn't even be faster than the old one and would have a slower GPU.

Aint gonna happen.
 
gfiz said:
well if I'm just surfing the web or working with Office...I'll be happy to have the option ot use less power with a perfectly able integrated graphic solution. To be honest, and maybe I'm one of the only ones, but for what i use it for, I'll be perfectly happy with the intel only graphics on the 13", along with an i5 and SSD.
Click to expand...

Are you unaware that the entire UI of OS X is OpenGL accelerated?

And are you unaware of how much Apple marketed OpenCL in Snow Leopard?

The integrated intel GPU chip is a step BACKWARDS from what is in the current 13".

BACKWARDS.

My x3100 is choppy when hooked up to an external monitor.

Its beyond stupid to defend intel GPUs. Unless you are a shill.

Get a Macbook Air if all you do is browse the web and use office. You don't need a "pro" machine.
 
Eorlas said:
Why would Apple put the garbage integrated intel graphics back into the MBPs when their cheapest 13" sitting at 1200$ has an NVIDIA chip in it? And even more so, why would they stick that intel chip in a 15" that you "predict" to cost 1700$ when they have 15" models with NVIDIA 9400 + 9600 chips simultaneously? You might want to revise these "predictions".
Click to expand...
Because every Arrandale chipset comes with them, you can't remove them. If they are upgrading to Arrandale, that Intel GFX is coming too. But, that doesn't mean they have to use it, they could easily put a better graphics card in there.
 
Seriously...can't Intel just physically sever or disable the iGPU? They used to do similar things to help them increase yields. 80486SX=80486DX with defective FPU, for example. Maybe Apple will be getting the Arrandale cores with defective GPUs...
 
wilycoder said:
Are you unaware that the entire UI of OS X is OpenGL accelerated?

And are you unaware of how much Apple marketed OpenCL in Snow Leopard?

The integrated intel GPU chip is a step BACKWARDS from what is in the current 13".

BACKWARDS.

My x3100 is choppy when hooked up to an external monitor.

Its beyond stupid to defend intel GPUs. Unless you are a shill.

Get a Macbook Air if all you do is browse the web and use office. You don't need a "pro" machine.
Click to expand...

Ok one, the new on die Intel graphics chip is no slouch. In fact, I'm pretty sure the GMA HD will out perform the 9400M, especially with graphics turbo. If they don't increase the resolution on the 13", it will have ZERO issue with the snow Leopard UI, and there won't be anything for you to get your panties in a twist about. A 13" MBP is not a gaming computer. For all else, it should be able to handle with ease.
 
Sneakz said:
This s**t is getting ridiculous. 13" will have dedicated graphics. Trust me. 15" and 17" will just get better dedicated graphics. Remember I said it, post 719.
Click to expand...

which is going to happen with the 13" to allow this? Are they going to change the form factor or remove the optical? It's got to be one or the other or there's no dedicated card and cooling solution that I think will fit as is.
 
gfiz said:
which is going to happen with the 13" to allow this? Are they going to change the form factor or remove the optical? It's got to be one or the other or there's no dedicated card and cooling solution that I think will fit as is.
Click to expand...

Dedicated GPU's on laptops come in the form of a die on the logic board, not a "card". The current 13" easily has the thermal envelope to support a more powerful option that isn't integrated into the chipset, it's just that Apple likes to shoehorn the customers who want that option into a more expensive laptop. That said, it would be impossible for them to use integrated graphics (9400M) again, as the legal fight between Intel and Nvidia has made using the ix chips on an Nvidia chipset currently impossible. This means that Apple's only option for integrated graphics is the old GMA on an Intel chipset, and doing a graphics downgrade wouldn't look good on the company's most popular Mac. They have no choice but to use an Intel chipset with either Nvidia or ATI dedicated graphics.
 
Techhie said:
Dedicated GPU's on laptops come in the form of a die on the logic board, not a "card". The current 13" easily has the thermal envelope to support a more powerful option that isn't integrated into the chipset, it's just that Apple likes to shoehorn the customers who want that option into a more expensive laptop. That said, it would be impossible for them to use integrated graphics (9400M) again, as the legal fight between Intel and Nvidia has made using the ix chips on an Nvidia chipset currently impossible. This means that Apple's only option for integrated graphics is the old GMA on an Intel chipset, and doing a graphics downgrade wouldn't look good on the company's most popular Mac. They have no choice but to use an Intel chipset with either Nvidia or ATI dedicated graphics.
Click to expand...

A discrete, or dedicated card is not a die on the logic board. It is a physical unit that fits into the pci-E slot of the laptop mainboard, that can be swapped out physically if you had access to it. Integrated graphics are a die on the mainboard... hence the term "integrated"

here's an example:

http://www.laptopparts101.com/graphics-card-video-board/

and also....Intel's "option" for integrated graphics is already on the CPU die...it's the "GMA HD" graphics solution that's already embedded in the CPU die and takes up no additional space, and is the best integrated offering they've had to date. I guess that's why you're just a "demi-god", and not the full fledged Steve Jobs :p
 
gfiz said:
A discrete, or dedicated card is not a die on the logic board. It is a physical unit that fits into the pci-E slot of the laptop mainboard, that can be swapped out physically if you had access to it. Integrated graphics are a die on the mainboard... hence the term "integrated"
Click to expand...

zduues214nosasif.jpg


I ask you to look at this 17" uMBP logic board, and tell me where there is a PCIe slot. You will notice the 9600M GT (and 9400M) soldered to the board, however the 9400M is directly connected to the chipset and shares RAM.

EDIT: the link you posted above shows a type of graphics card no longer common on laptops, let alone the Apple laptops being discussed. The 9600M GT is a discreet GPU because of it's separation from the chipset, not it's upgradability.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back