Sandy Bridge Core i7LM chips coming!

[KPOM]

In many ways the Air is very attractive today
but long term value is probably its weakest point.

As always, it will be a much different market over the next year
and riding into that with a 2008 processor will be interesting
if you want to sell.

I can hear Steve now ...
"These new Intel processors are just amazing,
and yes we listened, the back-lit keyboard is back."

No consumer technology product is a good "long term value" for resale. I agree Apple's decision to stick with the Core 2 Duo for so long puts buyers in an odd position. Regardless of the rationale (and resisting Intel's IGP for as long as possible is a good one), they are left introducing a brand new product with both a processor (Core 2 Duo) and chipset (nVidia GeForce) that have been or are soon being discontinued.

It is pretty clear that Apple will need to make some moves over the next 12 months, not only with the MacBook Air, but also the 13" Pro and Mac Mini. Apple has more room to spare in the Pro and Mini, particularly if they eliminate the optical drive in the 13" Pro. An obvious option is the Core i5 and a discrete GPU since they have already done it, but it gets tricky with the MacBook Air.

 

[macbook123]

Can somebody educate me what the advantage of SB over current i3-i7 processors will be? How much faster the processor, and how much faster the integrated graphics? In other words, what are the reasons Apple would use it in the Air, but not the current generation?

 

[Hellhammer]

How much faster the processor

We don't know yet but I would expect 10-20%

and how much faster the integrated graphics?

Said to be twice as fast

In other words, what are the reasons Apple would use it in the Air, but not the current generation?

Sandy Bridge isn't available yet. There are plenty of reasons why Apple did not use iX in current get 13" MBPs or MBAs. The biggest one being the poor IGP and no space/want for discrete GPU

 

[gwsat]

Uh, what about the GPU ? The fact is, these things have Core 2 Duos because of Intel's refusal to license the key technologies to nVidia to make chipsets for the Core iX series.

Intel GPU ? Don't make me laugh, I wouldn't have bought a Core i7 equipped MBA.

We share the same concern. When I saw the thread title about Sandy Bridge i7 chips being on the way, my first thought was to wonder how much better, if any, the Intel integrated GPU in the new Sandy Bridge chips would be than the remarkably weak GPUs it uses in the curent i series lineup. Time will tell, I guess. I wouldn't have bought an MBA equipped with the current i7, either, because of the i7's sorry integrated GPU.

 

[FuNGi]

So just how bad is Intel's IGP relative to the 9400, 9600, and 320M? Anyone have a handy link or idea?

Edit: I forgot Apple's link showing the 320M as about 3 times better than the 9400 but I'm wondering about Intel's offering relative to these.

 

[Scottsdale]

I believe Apple will actually attempt to force Intel off its hand (like poker) by openly touting talks with AMD. I believe Mac users (13" MBP, MB, MBA, & Mm) will be much better off with AMD CPU, GPU, Chipset than Intel Core i-series CPU, IGP, and Chipset. Of course, what Apple will really be attempting to do is force a new agreement between Nvidia and Intel.

Intel made this move so it can sell its Intel IGP and Chipset on all four of the Macs I mentioned above. However, this is not by any means in the best interest of Mac users and it would provide a much less capable Mac than an Intel CPU, Nvidia GPU & Chipset OR an AMD CPU, GPU, & Chipset.

We also have hope that the Justice Department's investigation will show the anti-competitive and illegal actions Intel has taken and will force Intel to stop its illegal actions when it forced Nvidia out of the market of GPU/chipset combinations with Intel CPUs.

I don't believe there is much real hope for Apple negotiating a truce as Intel made its move specifically because it wants that huge contract to provide ALL of Apple's CPUs, GPUs, and chipsets. Apple can provide better Macs by going to all AMD or continuing with Intel CPU, and Nvidia GPU/chipset systems. The real hope has to be someone forcing Intel to stop its illegal tactics and honor its contract with Nvidia.

As a Mac user, I would be most happy with an Intel CPU, Nvidia GPU/chipset Mac. As a human being, I find Intel's actions disgusting and hope someone stops their madness. Given all the circumstances, I believe we should use our brains and morally support an Apple move to AMD CPU, GPU, and Chipset unless Intel stops its deplorable actions immediately.

 

[Eidorian]

1. Intel iX + Intel IGP
2. Intel iX + discrete GPU (remove ODD?)
3. AMD Fusion + AMD IGP

If Intel can't provide something what Apple wants but AMD can, then it's not that unlikely that Apple will go for AMD. The Intel vs nVidia fight was definitely something that Apple did not like since Apple has used nVidia chipsets in some products. Now they cannot and Intel cannot provide anything similar.

Apple didn't use Intel in iToys. Sure Intel didn't like that but they can't control Apple

Even AMD Fusion + AMD IGP would be 3 chips on a board designed for two right now.

We still haven't seen Lllano but I'll be surprised to see it hit 25/30W.

 

[Hellhammer]

I believe Apple will actually attempt to force Intel off its hand (like poker) by openly touting talks with AMD. I believe Mac users (13" MBP, MB, MBA, & Mm) will be much better off with AMD CPU, GPU, Chipset than Intel Core i-series CPU, IGP, and Chipset. Of course, what Apple will really be attempting to do is force a new agreement between Nvidia and Intel.

Intel made this move so it can sell its Intel IGP and Chipset on all four of the Macs I mentioned above. However, this is not by any means in the best interest of Mac users and it would provide a much less capable Mac than an Intel CPU, Nvidia GPU & Chipset OR an AMD CPU, GPU, & Chipset.

We also have hope that the Justice Department's investigation will show the anti-competitive and illegal actions Intel has taken and will force Intel to stop its illegal actions when it forced Nvidia out of the market of GPU/chipset combinations with Intel CPUs.

I don't believe there is much real hope for Apple negotiating a truce as Intel made its move specifically because it wants that huge contract to provide ALL of Apple's CPUs, GPUs, and chipsets. Apple can provide better Macs by going to all AMD or continuing with Intel CPU, and Nvidia GPU/chipset systems. The real hope has to be someone forcing Intel to stop its illegal tactics and honor its contract with Nvidia.

As a Mac user, I would be most happy with an Intel CPU, Nvidia GPU/chipset Mac. As a human being, I find Intel's actions disgusting and hope someone stops their madness. Given all the circumstances, I believe we should use our brains and morally support an Apple move to AMD CPU, GPU, and Chipset unless Intel stops its deplorable actions immediately.

nVidia gave up

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/mainbo...dia_We_Are_Not_Building_Chipsets_Anymore.html

Even AMD Fusion + AMD IGP would be 3 chips on a board designed for two right now.

We still haven't seen Lllano but I'll be surprised to see it hit 25/30W.

So Fusion still needs separate bridges (i.e. no Northbridge integrated to the CPU)? Or what is the 3rd chip then?

 

[Eidorian]

So Fusion still needs separate bridges (i.e. no Northbridge integrated to the CPU)? Or what is the 3rd chip then?

Fusion still requires a separate platform controller. the GPU/IGP and memory controller are on one die now but any other I/O is handled from a separate chip.

 

[Hellhammer]

Fusion still requires a separate platform controller. the GPU/IGP and memory controller are on one die now but any other I/O is handled from a separate chip.

With my maths that is two chips (CPU/IGP + PCH)? What am I missing?

 

[runnin17]

Unfortunately AMD does not have good mobile chip offerings. Intel is very far ahead when it comes to power draw and mobile chip design. This is unfortunate because Intel is being petty, greedy and stupid in their requirement of no other IGP with their new chipsets.

Intel has tried multiple times in the past to put out a decent IGP and they have failed every time. Either they are too stupid to figure it out, are too cheap to implement it correctly, or just have no clue what they are doing. I find it very odd that Intel cannot figure out integrated graphics. They have plenty of money to throw at chip designers and developers. They should be able to churn out a pretty nice product.

I wish AMD had better mobile chip offerings. I personally love AMD as a company and I think they look out for the customer much better than Intel ever has or ever will.

 

[FuNGi]

Ahhh - I see you guys have already hashed this out...
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/853545/

 

[Eidorian]

With my maths that is two chips (CPU/IGP + PCH)? What am I missing?

It was a bit confusing in your previous post where the IGP was an addition beyond the APU.

Zacate can compete with Atom but you're going to need the quad core Llano to replace Core 2. I haven't heard of any low power or dual core Llano processors just yet.

 

[Altered3]

I wish AMD had better mobile chip offerings. I personally love AMD as a company and I think they look out for the customer much better than Intel ever has or ever will.

And behold the first of the new wave of AMD mobile chips, reviewed today on Anandtech: http://www.anandtech.com/show/4023/the-brazos-performance-preview-amd-e350-benchmarked. One of the first "Fusion" processors to be reviewed, this one competes in the netbook space mainly with Atom, but Anand benchmarked the graphics against the 320m on a MacBook Air. It's competitive, but the 320m definitely superior by ~50%.

With that said, if that's the performance AMD Fusion is offering in the netbook range, it will be fascinating to see what they offer to compete with i3/i5/i7. I would expect those integrated graphics to surpass the 320m easily, and offer a viable alternative to Intel/Nvidia for Apple.

Oh, and graphics performance comparable to the ATI 5450 HD is nothing to brag about, for Intel. See http://www.techspot.com/review/244-ati-radeon-hd-5450/page10.html. The 5450 is a $50 budget card, horrible for gaming. Considering that the old 9600GT desktop card runs circles around the 5450, I don't see the 5450 remotely measuring up to the current Nvidia 320m. It's hard to compare directly between desktop cards and notebook cards, but it looks like the 320m delivers maybe 50% better performance than the 5450. So my rough math would indicate that the new Intel integrated i7 graphics are comparable to what AMD is offering in the netbook space with Zacate, both inferior to the 320m.

 

[Hellhammer]

It was a bit confusing in your previous post where the IGP was an addition beyond the APU.

I thought it was clear enough since I listed iX + Intel IGP the same way and said IGP, not GPU. I'm under drugs due to this freaking flu so I may not be very clear though

Zacate can compete with Atom but you're going to need the quad core Llano to replace Core 2. I haven't heard of any low power or dual core Llano processors just yet.

iMacmatician listed some possible details back in June but I don't know how they match up with more recent info.

 

[Eidorian]

iMacmatician listed some possible details back in June but I don't know how they match up with more recent info.

I remember that thread now. I would have preferred to see a Llano preview instead of Zacate at this point. Atom hasn't changed much since the beginning.

Expect more fancy features on Bulldozer instead of these lower end parts.

 

[Altered3]

I remember that thread now. I would have preferred to see a Llano preview instead of Zacate at this point.

Agreed, Llano would be more exciting. Closest thing to a Llano preview I've found is http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=991. Supposedly AMD is targeting Radeon HD 5650 performance for the IGP, which would make the Llano IGP roughly 30-50% superior to a Nvidia 320m, dramatically faster than 5450 performance. Of course, the other side is that the CPU performance is not likely to compete with Intel's Sandy Bridge, but we see how Apple is leaning on the importance of CPU versus GPU performance...

 

[Eidorian]

Agreed, Llano would be more exciting. Closest thing to a Llano preview I've found is http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=991. Supposedly AMD is targeting Radeon HD 5650 performance for the IGP, which would make the Llano IGP roughly 30-50% superior to a Nvidia 320m, dramatically faster than 5450 performance. Of course, the other side is that the CPU performance is not likely to compete with Intel's Sand Bridge, but we see how Apple is leaning on the importance of CPU versus GPU performance...

A mobile Athlon II X4 at 30W + 5600 level IGP would be an improvement over the current Core 2 stock.

I thought they got rid of HyperTransport on Llano.

 

[CaoCao]

Even AMD Fusion + AMD IGP would be 3 chips on a board designed for two right now.

We still haven't seen Llano but I'll be surprised to see it hit 25/30W.

AMD Fusion+Controller, that's it. Zacate is low powered Llano

Unfortunately AMD does not have good mobile chip offerings. Intel is very far ahead when it comes to power draw and mobile chip design. This is unfortunate because Intel is being petty, greedy and stupid in their requirement of no other IGP with their new chipsets.

Intel has tried multiple times in the past to put out a decent IGP and they have failed every time. Either they are too stupid to figure it out, are too cheap to implement it correctly, or just have no clue what they are doing. I find it very odd that Intel cannot figure out integrated graphics. They have plenty of money to throw at chip designers and developers. They should be able to churn out a pretty nice product.

I wish AMD had better mobile chip offerings. I personally love AMD as a company and I think they look out for the customer much better than Intel ever has or ever will.

Zacate/Llano will be better

It was a bit confusing in your previous post where the IGP was an addition beyond the APU.

Zacate can compete with Atom but you're going to need the quad core Llano to replace Core 2. I haven't heard of any low power or dual core Llano processors just yet.

Zacate obliterates Atom

And behold the first of the new wave of AMD mobile chips, reviewed today on Anandtech: http://www.anandtech.com/show/4023/the-brazos-performance-preview-amd-e350-benchmarked. One of the first "Fusion" processors to be reviewed, this one competes in the netbook space mainly with Atom, but Anand benchmarked the graphics against the 320m on a MacBook Air. It's competitive, but the 320m definitely superior by ~50%.

With that said, if that's the performance AMD Fusion is offering in the netbook range, it will be fascinating to see what they offer to compete with i3/i5/i7. I would expect those integrated graphics to surpass the 320m easily, and offer a viable alternative to Intel/Nvidia for Apple.

Oh, and graphics performance comparable to the ATI 5450 HD is nothing to brag about, for Intel. See http://www.techspot.com/review/244-ati-radeon-hd-5450/page10.html. The 5450 is a $50 budget card, horrible for gaming. Considering that the old 9600GT desktop card runs circles around the 5450, I don't see the 5450 remotely measuring up to the current Nvidia 320m. It's hard to compare directly between desktop cards and notebook cards, but it looks like the 320m delivers maybe 50% better performance than the 5450. So my rough math would indicate that the new Intel integrated i7 graphics are comparable to what AMD is offering in the netbook space with Zacate, both inferior to the 320m.

AMD would easily make custom chips for Apple, I'm sure AMD's chips will do much better with some refinement

I remember that thread now. I would have preferred to see a Llano preview instead of Zacate at this point. Atom hasn't changed much since the beginning.

Expect more fancy features on Bulldozer instead of these lower end parts.

Llano is coming out 2h 2011 so we aren't going to see any reviews for a while, also keep in mind a ULV will have a weaker GPU

 

[Altered3]

A mobile Athlon II X4 at 30W + 5600 level IGP would be an improvement over the current Core 2 stock.

I thought they got rid of HyperTransport on Llano.

Supposedly AMD has come up with something secret that will outperform HyperTransport for linking the CPU and GPU. And I agree, something like the Athlon II X4 would be superior to the Core 2 Duos, except for one glaring weakness: single-threaded processing. Supposedly this is related to the lack of a L3 cache, although to be fair, I don't think the mobile Core 2 Duos have L3 cache either. Llano doesn't include L3, but AMD is increasing the L2 cache which could help performance.

Since so many apps still run single-threaded, this could be an annoying step back from Core 2. However, Zacate is ironically showing superior single-threaded performance, so perhaps Llano will surprise us there.

 

[Hellhammer]

Llano is coming out 2h 2011 so we aren't going to see any reviews for a while, also keep in mind a ULV will have a weaker GPU

It's mid-2011

http://techreport.com/discussions.x/19830

Since so many apps still run single-threaded, this could be an annoying step back from Core 2. However, Zacate is ironically showing superior single-threaded performance, so perhaps Llano will surprise us there.

There is Turbo in Bulldozer, that will help with single-threaded apps

 

[Altered3]

There is Turbo in Bulldozer, that will help with single-threaded apps

Oh right, check out this processor roadmap from Engadget: http://www.engadget.com/2010/11/11/amd-publishes-cpu-roadmaps-through-2012-runs-a-quad-core-bulldo/.

It would appear "Trinity" is the higher-end laptop equivalent of Llano, with "Bulldozer" CPU cores. Clearly Trinity is the one to compete with i5/i7, probably Llano will be more competitive with i3.

 

[CaoCao]

Oh right, check out this processor roadmap from Engadget: http://www.engadget.com/2010/11/11/amd-publishes-cpu-roadmaps-through-2012-runs-a-quad-core-bulldo/.

It would appear "Trinity" is the higher-end laptop equivalent of Llano, with "Bulldozer" CPU cores. Clearly Trinity is the one to compete with i5/i7, probably Llano will be more competitive with i3.

Too bad Trinity comes after Intel roles out Ivy Bridge

 

[Hellhammer]

Oh right, check out this processor roadmap from Engadget: http://www.engadget.com/2010/11/11/amd-publishes-cpu-roadmaps-through-2012-runs-a-quad-core-bulldo/.

It would appear "Trinity" is the higher-end laptop equivalent of Llano, with "Bulldozer" CPU cores. Clearly Trinity is the one to compete with i5/i7, probably Llano will be more competitive with i3.

Trinity is just the successor of Llano. If Llano can't compete with i5/i7, then I doubt that Trinity can. Trinity will just be enchanted Llano so AMD can keep up with Intel since Intel will also be releasing better CPUs in 2012.

 

[Eidorian]

Supposedly AMD has come up with something secret that will outperform HyperTransport for linking the CPU and GPU. And I agree, something like the Athlon II X4 would be superior to the Core 2 Duos, except for one glaring weakness: single-threaded processing. Supposedly this is related to the lack of a L3 cache, although to be fair, I don't think the mobile Core 2 Duos have L3 cache either. Llano doesn't include L3, but AMD is increasing the L2 cache which could help performance.

Since so many apps still run single-threaded, this could be an annoying step back from Core 2. However, Zacate is ironically showing superior single-threaded performance, so perhaps Llano will surprise us there.

Propus (Athlon II compared to Deneb with 6 MB of it.) is the base for Llano. To be honest even without the L3 Cache, Propus did hold its own against Deneb but AMD heavily crippled the Athlon II's clock speeds early on. The current +3.0 GHz Athlon II processors should be reevaluated against say a Phenom II X4 920.

Athlon II X3 is the current value processor darling with 3.1 GHz or greater speeds, that extra core over a dual core, and an $80 price tag. Desktop Llano is going to need to start off as high as possible or leverage 4 cores against 2 with hyperthreading from Intel. The HD 5600 level IGP should be the saving grace.