Why new MBA uses Core 2 Duo - All praise Nvidia graphics

[cb911]

Just reading a review of the 11" MacBook Air and noticed an interesting point on why they are likely using the Core 2 Duo while other 11" notebooks are using the new CULV chips (i5 and i7). I know I have been wondering why the Core 2 Duo is still stuck in there, others were expecting the Core i5 or i7. Hopefully this puts any queries to rest.

The review mentions that it's so they can use the Nvidia integrated graphics - there must be some sort of restriction/problem why the i5 and i7 all seem to be using Intel GMA video? Sure enough, I looked up the Acer Aspire 1830T-3721 and it uses Intel GMA HD. (Also note that although it's an i5 it is only running at 1.2GHz.)

Thank goodness Apple stuck with Nvidia. From what I had read of others experiences and from my own the original MBA with Intel GMA was really a let down & the MBA got so much better when newer models got Nvidia graphics.

Maybe this info helps others who are wary of the 1.4GHz Core 2 Duo that is used. It did for me - I'm sold.

 

[justin216]

From what I recall, there's a bit of a legal skiff between Intel and nVidia right now, which causes nVidia to be unable to package certain graphics chips with certain Intel processors. Obviously, it's not all encompassing, since the 15" Macbook Pros have switchable graphics et al.

As a result, to make sure the Macbook Air didn't have to deal with Intel IGP again, they went with the last generation Intel processor, and mated it to the nVidia chipset.

 

[cb911]

Ahhh... I see. Well regardless it looks like the 320M beats the Intel GMA HD (which seems to be the default for an integrated Intel graphics now?) Looks like the MBA graphics performance is one big plus in comparison to other 11" notebooks.

 

[ImperialX]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8B117 Safari/6531.22.7)

I welcome the 320M. The i3 sucks anyway.

 

[Steve121178]

The i3 sucks anyway.

It doesn't. It's better than any variation of the C2D!

 

[ImperialX]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8B117 Safari/6531.22.7)

The i3 sucks anyway.

It doesn't. It's better than any variation of the C2D!

No. The C2D is without a doubt, faster than the i3.

 

[justin216]

Talking about oranges vs. apples (no pun intended) on the C2D vs i3. Some models of the C2D are indeed faster than an i3 for some tasks, but that varies greatly with what you're doing.

 

[jclardy]

Ahhh... I see. Well regardless it looks like the 320M beats the Intel GMA HD (which seems to be the default for an integrated Intel graphics now?) Looks like the MBA graphics performance is one big plus in comparison to other 11" notebooks.

I have found that the Intel HD graphics in my i7 MBP is slower than the 9400M in my Mac Mini. I still wish they could have put an i3 in there though.

 

[urkel]

But doesn't the i3 offer better CPU/Battery/Heat efficiency? I like the 320M but in a device meant to be an "ultra-portable computer" then wouldnt a faster and more power efficient chip paired with mediocre graphics be more important than incredible graphics with the slowest C2D in the last 2 years?

I'm still considering an MBA for the wife but I admit the decision is based purely on aesthetics and my oversized blinders. Its a nice machine but between the iPad, MBP13 and MBA then the Air is going to feel outdated far earlier than the other two.

 

[Cat5e]

It doesn't. It's better than any variation of the C2D!

Wrong, Wrong, Wrong, Wrong, Wrong, Wrong, Wrong, Wrong, You're wrong! [/Dr. Cox]

j/k

In all seriousness, the i3 is a decent processor but there are several C2Ds that are much more powerful.