Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
My God, we are already getting a true six or seven hours of battery life. Why would any more be important... I would prefer more power, and with Nvidia we have it ALL. Intel is a huge step backwards. The Arrandale integrated will probably be 35% as powerful as the new Nvidia GPU 200m. Some are saying 240m is 5x as powerful as Arrandale integrated.

What is most disappointing about the whole thing is that MCP99 was supposed to be twice as fast as the 9400M (32 shaders instead of 16 - I'm sure Nvidia would have sold crippled versions with 24 or 16 shaders to allow for lower power consumption too). So we went from having 200% of the performance we have now to 60%. Yuck. I would hope that Intel had to give Apple a sweetheart deal on these new Arrandale chips to get the business back from Nvidia and basically put Nvidia out of the chipset business.

The 240M will likely be 5x as fast, using the 9400M as a reference point, Arrandale is 60% and the 240M is 3x as fast, so 5x total improvement.

Apple isn't likely to extend the battery life much beyond 7-8 hours, what happens is that Apple's customizable battery design means they can put exactly the amount of battery power in a laptop as they want, and reduce the total weight or thickness of the laptop. Shave a quarter of a pound or more off a laptop.

It could make a huge difference in the MBAir - its 18W CPU and 10W 9400M becomes 18W + 4W, plus less heat (!!!) and less room on the motherboard required so they can cram even more battery into it (the MBA could use a boost).

The reason we see the 9400m in nearly every Mac as it is so very capable. There is no way Apple can go so far backwards without considering dedicated for every Mac. Dual graphics with option to boot Intel integrated or a dedicated solution is fine for MBP buyers as they can just boot dedicated. But Intel integrated graphics is not going to be a viable option as sole graphics in MB, MBA, Mac mini, and iMac. Mac users will NOT be happy with 15% faster CPU, and 15% better battery life if losing 70% of graphics capabilities.

Don't underestimate Apple's ability to spin the decision to use a less powerful GPU. They'll come out and talk about dual 1080P HD video decoders and better battery life, or how they made it even lighter and thinner. The RDF will be in full effect.

Improved battery life doesn't matter for the mini or imac. But it also ties in with possible price reductions too. Remember Intel goes from selling CPU+MCH+ICH to CPU with GPU and most of MCH + PCH. Apple probably wants to get a $999 iMac in there, and this could help.

Intel is just going to require Apple to use dedicated solutions in every Mac. I had thought maybe Apple would work out a licensing agreement with Intel paying Intel licensing for each Mac using an Nvidia GPU. Apple has invested so heavily in Nvidia GPU/Chipset that I figured Apple may have already worked out an agreement exclusive for Macs.

I still hope, no pray, that Apple doesn't go solely with Intel integrated graphics.

Well there is no way Intel is going to put an Nvidia GPU on package, and Apple licensing DMI for Nvidia doesn't seem too likely. Adding any sort of integrated video that isn't Intel to these Arrandale chips isn't really possible, it'll have to be a discrete GPU with its own memory ($$$). The memory controller is on the GPU die itself (not the CPU!) and the only connection is via DMI. There is the x16 PCIE connection but I don't know if anything hanging off that port will be able to use system memory as graphics memory. Maybe.

I wouldn't say every mac would have a discrete GPU - the bottom of the lineups in each category will undoubtedly have chieapo graphics just because its cheap.

Also, the dual HD video decoders would make this a good time to add BR.
 
horrible. Intel's IGPs are pathetic. I've used the GMA 950, the X3100, AND the X4500. all poor (for my uses).

if apple expects consumers to pay $1000+ for Intel's IGP, they have another thing coming.

wait.

i better take that back.

I'm sure Apple will find some way to spin this into "good" news. or add some cutting edge new feature.
:(
 
Why cant they just combine the Arrandale with lets say the Geforce 280m ? ;)
That would solve all problems once and for all...although i admit, battery life would suffer greatly....
They could at least make it an option..
 
Don't underestimate Apple's ability to spin the decision to use a less powerful GPU. They'll come out and talk about dual 1080P HD video decoders and better battery life, or how they made it even lighter and thinner. The RDF will be in full effect.
Just like what happened with iBook to MacBook and PPC Mac mini to Intel Mac mini. I think they got rid of the "Graphics" section on those product pages.
 
Hey, if ATI/Apple can keep things cool I'm all for ATI GPU's in future MacBook Pro's. My concern was the Radeon X1600 in the 2006 models. I know there was an issue with heat. If Apple can avoid that and if ATI's mobile GPU's have improved, if NVIDIA doesn't want to manufacture I would be happy with a Radeon.

i do see what your talking about, but its much different now, those x1600's were very poorly designed.

even looking at a 3450 or 4350 the design has significantly improved.


heat has been significantly decreased and performance has been moderately increased.

http://www.hardware.info/en-US/news/ymiclpqUwpmaaZY/IGP_32nm_Arrandale_processor_can_be_disabled/

looking here looks to me as if intel may go the route of dual video cards for almost all of there line, using the intel/arrandale combo and a 9500m or ati alternative, they have prepared us by having dual gpu's now but not letting them coincide together.

maybe apple will just stick with the on chip/die gpu's but i would hope thats not the case.

discrete graphics is not new to apple, coming from power pc its the only option they had.

maybe they will just treat the arrandale as they did power pc.

i hate intel graphics....it will ruin the air , macbook and the lower end 15" lines.

why design a os to use CUDA if you just going to take it away......
 
This is a deeply disturbing development

As a consumer, I want power in my laptop, limited by availability not inter-company politics.
 
Apple isn't tied to CUDA, so they don't have to use Nvidia GPUs. Of course, only Nvidia has a mostly 40nm GPU lineup - most of ATI's GPUs are still 55nm except for the highest performing 48x0 mobile GPUs. Nvidia is in the opposite position - all their mobile GPUs are 40nm except for their two highest end (GTX260/280). IMO the ones we're more likely to see are the mid range GPUs, so I would bet on Apple going 240M/260M (GT/GTS) for mobiles. Maybe offer a GTX260 for an iMac because its plugged in.
 
What about the upcoming ATI 5000 series that coming to laptops? I know it trickling out for desktops right now.

From what I am reading the ATI 4330 is a little better than the 9400 because it doesn't have to share ram with the comp. I would prefer Apple to use a dedicated chip like the 4570, as it would be a good step up from the 9400. Both, Sony, and Toshiba have that gpu in their 13in machines(and I know with Sony it can be paired with a 2.88ghz, and I think even the 3.0ghz cpu) and I have heard anything regarding heating issue there. Nor with the ATI 4330 or the higher 4650 in 14 and 15in machines.
 
Apple has never offered anything better than mid-range graphics cards. If you look at what the Dell XPS Studio and HP HDX16 is using, you would probably get a decent idea of what Apple would put in their 15" MBPs.
 
Looks like nvidia is giving up on nahalem ars

As I mentioned with the continual march to putting the GPU on the same die as the CPU, its financial prospects are getting dimmer and dimmer
 
Its a shame though...i really like the NForce chipset. It was a breathe of fresh air from Intel's GMA series

I guess i'll be holding on to this machine a while.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.