Would Sandy Bridge go into the 13"

[vipergts2207]

I don't understand why current-gen Arrendales such as an i5 or i7 couldn't be put in the next MBP 13". They could leave SB for the larger models.

In fact, it seems like the most likely thing.

Why in the world would Apple do that? The entire reasoning for not putting Arrendale in the 13" in the first place is because they would have to use the Intel IGP which has awful performance in comparison to the 320m. Why would Apple not use SB which at least almost performs on par with the 320m? I don't follow your logic.

 

[Hellhammer]

I hear the production stopped in late 2010. But it it possible Intel would go out of there way to continue producing some C2D just for Apple?

See my post earlier in this thread.

Six month ago we reported about Intel plans to discontinue large number of Core 2 mobile microprocessors in the 3rd and 4th quarters 2010. Today Intel posted several Product Change Notification (PCN) documents, the contents of which confirms earlier reports. According to the PCNs, the following 23 Core 2 Solo and Duo models are end-of-lifed starting today:

Core 2 Solo SU3300 and SU3500
Ultra-low power Core 2 Duo SU9400, SU9300 and SU9600
Low-power Core 2 Duo Mobile SL9300, SL9400 and SL9600
Power-optimized Core 2 Duo SP9300, SP9400 and SP9600 in Small Form Factor package.
Power-optimized P8400, P8600, P8700, P8800, P9500, P9600 and P9700 CPUs in 478-pin package.
Standard-power Core 2 Duo T9400, T9550, T9600, T9800 and T9900 in 478-pin and 479-ball packages.

Last order date for all discontinued microprocessors is April 29 2011. Tray processors will be shipped until October 14, 2011, and the boxed ones will be shipped while supplies last. While all listed consumer CPUs will be discontinued, 5 models will still be available for embedded applications. These processors are Core 2 Duo Mobile SU9300, SL9400, SP9300, P8400 and T9400.

 

[Yebubbleman]

No, they are not.


http://www.cpu-world.com/news_2010/2010120703_Intel_discontinues_Core_2_mobile_CPUs.html

They are still available though

Ah, then I got it mixed up; it does sound like they'll still be available through Early 2012, and it doesn't sound like EVERY SINGLE Core 2 Duo is getting axed, though realistically they all should be.

I realise that. One can hope however!

Hope's cute an' all, but it doesn't make for realistic Mac predictions.

Indeed. The 486 remained in production until 2007.

That's not a realistic comparison at all.

Well, according to benchmarks, the SB IGP is not quite up to par with the 320M. (the benchmarks where SB IGP scored higher on low graphic settings and slightly lower on medium settings compared to the 320M, was with a i7 processor backing it up. Clearly we will not be seeing i7's (or possibly even i5's) in the 13") So, basically we would be looking for a slight decrease in graphic performance. The step from C2D to SB processors are huge, so it might weigh out the step down to SB IGP overall. That would still leave us with a 1 step forward, 1 step back kind of update.

The way I see it, Apple has 3 options. 1) SB and Intel IGP, 2) Faster C2D and 320M or 3) SB and discrete GPU. Hopefully the 3rd solution is chosen, although I find this very unlikely given Apple's history. I mean, we have been talking about discrete GPU's in 13"'s for years, and we have yet to see it happen. On the other hand, the current dilemma with the NVIDIA/Intel problems and the aging C2D's may be the factor that could cause Apple to make a "real" 13" pro machine happen. I mean, they have to do something to differentiate it from the Air's, that are currently not far from being in the same class as the 13" MBP. A Macbook Air Pro anyone?

Again, regarding your third option there, engineering doesn't work that way. Apple isn't going to make the computer thicker, so in order to do what you're proposing they need to either nix the optical drive or the hard drive; they won't nix the optical as it is a MacBook Pro, so they might nix the hard drive in favor of the blade SSDs, but even that is an unlikely move for Apple. Meanwhile the other two options aren't really acceptable for "MacBook Pro" customers. It makes way more sense for Apple to either kill the 13" MacBook Pro or merge it with the white MacBook to make "The new MacBook" and have the MacBook Pro line be restored to only having a 15" and a 17" model. Though I do like the idea of a MacBook Air Pro, just as long as they don't call it that.

I agree, except with the AMD bit. That's just not going to happen, as it would be roughly the equivalent of staying with Core 2 Duo, so there's really no benefit there. I think we will see sandy bridge and the intel IGP, it's the easiest solution and supposedly the IGP isn't supposed to suck as hard as intel's offerings typically do.

It'd actually be better than sticking with a Core 2, but worse than moving to Sandy Bridge. Though it's not like Macs don't run well on old CPU technologies, such as Core 2 Duo.

I am seeing this new 13" refresh in the, "Something is gonna be thrown out" refresh style.

It's either the DVD drive that bites the dust or the HDD. Something has got to go away to make space for the GPU. Either we get a MacBook Air SSD treatment, or we get rid of the DVD drive which I personally use once every blue moon.

That or we get BTO options if we want to trade something for the GPU (say either the DVD or the HDD). However this is just a dream as Apple is known for simple universal approach, not having options or much BTOs.

Realistically, they're gonna nix the entire computer. We have way too many 13" Apple laptops and Apple isn't one for flooding their own market.

I don't understand why current-gen Arrendales such as an i5 or i7 couldn't be put in the next MBP 13". They could leave SB for the larger models.

In fact, it seems like the most likely thing.

See Hellhammer's quote below this text.

Cost. Arrandales still cost as much as they did a year ago. You can get a beefier Sandy Bridge for the same $. Besides, the IGP in Arrandale is pure crap

I hear the production stopped in late 2010. But it it possible Intel would go out of there way to continue producing some C2D just for Apple?

It is possible, Intel has bent over backwards before for Apple (with the custom Core 2 Duo in the original MacBook Air being evidence to this effect).

 

[gonnabuyamacbsh]

either i5 or nothing. at least for me

 

[Yebubbleman]

either i5 or nothing. at least for me

Get a 15" MacBook Pro then.

 

[gonnabuyamacbsh]

Get a 15" MacBook Pro then.

eff that. I want the portability of the 13".


also... the 15" is too expensive for me

 

[Yebubbleman]

eff that. I want the portability of the 13".


also... the 15" is too expensive for me

either i5 or nothing. at least for me

The i5 isn't finding its way into a 13" MacBook Pro; your only options are either the 15" MacBook Pro or nothing. To be fair, the 15" isn't that much less portable than the 13".

 

[evanrousso]

The i5 isn't finding its way into a 13" MacBook Pro; your only options are either the 15" MacBook Pro or nothing. To be fair, the 15" isn't that much less portable than the 13".

You may be right about the 13" not being much more portable than the 15", but it is much more expensive.

 

[Yebubbleman]

You may be right about the 13" not being much more portable than the 15", but it is much more expensive.

I never said it wasn't. Though to be fair, the bottom-of-the-line model 15", the 2.4GHz Core i5 model isn't that much more priced than the higher-end of the two 13" MacBook Pro models, though really the entire MacBook Pro line from the 2.4 GHz C2D 13" to the 17" model is overpriced.

And really, if the 13" MacBook Pro even makes it to the next refresh, it's definitely not getting an i5 as it will essentially share the innards of the white MacBook and the Mac mini (as it has for the last two refreshes), neither of which are candidates for a Core i5 over a Core i3, if they are going with Core i at all.

 

[c1phr]

they won't nix the optical as it is a MacBook Pro

That makes absolutely no sense:

It is a Macbook Pro, ergo is has an optical drive.
(Not trying to disprove this, just pointing out how absurd that sounds)

While I understand that the Opti Drive is important in a "pro" line of machines, I have a feeling that drive space is more important, leading me to believe that SSD's are not coming standard. I actually can very easily see the Opti Drive being pulled and offered separately for the 13 model, you guys can all talk about how much you do/don't use it, but fact is, physical media is slowly dying.

Now, that's not to say it won't sick around for a few more refreshes on the larger models, but with the contributions Apple has put into OpenGL and opting for "killer graphics" in the 13 with the last refresh, I don't foresee a step backward in GPU performance.

Nor do I see the 13 being dropped altogether. It seems that the 13 has actually been a fairly good seller for Apple, it's been a good way for PC users to come to the Apple mobile world with a well built/specced machine at a somewhat affordable price.

So for alternatives?

I wouldn't be surprised if AMD has been working on an integrated style GPU similar to the 320m behind the scenes for Apple. We've seen what they can do with Zactate/Ontario, why are people here so skeptical of their chips?

Stick with the SB IGP? It's possible, but it seems unlikely, same reason that they stayed with C2D last refresh, they opted for "killer graphics" which Arrendale would not provide.

Remember, these are all speculation. No one here is really qualified to say "they will or won't" do something. That said, there is too much of this going on.

 

[Yebubbleman]

That makes absolutely no sense:

It is a Macbook Pro, ergo is has an optical drive.
(Not trying to disprove this, just pointing out how absurd that sounds)

I was hoping that the argument I'm about to make would've been self-explanitory. That said, what separates the MacBook Pro from the MacBook and the MacBook Air is that it has things like FireWire and an SD card slot; things that not all of us have a use for, but if ever we do, it's there. The optical drive has more reason for being there, for that reason than the FireWire port even.

While I understand that the Opti Drive is important in a "pro" line of machines, I have a feeling that drive space is more important, leading me to believe that SSD's are not coming standard. I actually can very easily see the Opti Drive being pulled and offered separately for the 13 model, you guys can all talk about how much you do/don't use it, but fact is, physical media is slowly dying.

Do I think you're right about optical discs dying, yes, but you are way too premature on that. Bandwidth isn't high enough to nix the need for them just yet. Try installing Final Cut Studio over the internet. Not gonna happen. You might not have a use for it, but that doesn't mean it is useless.

Now, that's not to say it won't sick around for a few more refreshes on the larger models, but with the contributions Apple has put into OpenGL and opting for "killer graphics" in the 13 with the last refresh, I don't foresee a step backward in GPU performance.

Nor do I see the 13 being dropped altogether. It seems that the 13 has actually been a fairly good seller for Apple, it's been a good way for PC users to come to the Apple mobile world with a well built/specced machine at a somewhat affordable price.

Remove the 13" MacBook Pro and the White MacBook will take its place as the best selling Mac laptop. That's how it was when the MacBook replaced both the iBook G4 and the 12" PowerBook G4 (which was Apple's best seller at the time, mind you) and there's no reason to assume it wouldn't happen that way again. Graphics isn't anywhere near important enough for Apple to kill the ODD on the 13" MacBook Pro for; they could stick with the Core 2 Duo and the 320M and only piss off half of the people buying that machine. Same thing goes for the alternative with Sandy Bridge and the Intel IGP. It's much easier for Apple to either merge the 13" Pro with the white MacBook into one product where those decisions don't matter, and for those that it does matter Apple has the 15" where it actually is technologically feasible to have a discrete GPU without sacrificing things that "MacBook Pro" customers don't ordinarily.

Take off the Pro moniker from the 13" MacBook Pro, and suddenly it has far less technological expectations attached to it.

So for alternatives?

I wouldn't be surprised if AMD has been working on an integrated style GPU similar to the 320m behind the scenes for Apple. We've seen what they can do with Zactate/Ontario, why are people here so skeptical of their chips

I, at least, agree with you here. They really should consider AMD's offering, at least as far as the low-end goes. They could actually make a lower-end offering in the Mac minis, white MacBooks and hell, even the 13" MacBook Pro that doesn't suck.

Stick with the SB IGP? It's possible, but it seems unlikely, same reason that they stayed with C2D last refresh, they opted for "killer graphics" which Arrendale would not provide.

Remember, these are all speculation. No one here is really qualified to say "they will or won't" do something. That said, there is too much of this going on.

Well sure, it's MacRumors.com, what do you expect. Also isn't that hypocritical when you're doing the same thing?

 

[Hellhammer]

I wouldn't be surprised if AMD has been working on an integrated style GPU similar to the 320m behind the scenes for Apple. We've seen what they can do with Zactate/Ontario, why are people here so skeptical of their chips?

AMD has no license to do chipsets for Intel CPUs so it doesn't matter. It's similar to the NVidia case. Discrete AMD GPU is possible though it would require a redesign of the logic board to fit three major chips in it. It would also have to be a pretty good discrete chip as there is no reason to use a low-end one which is only 10% or so faster than the Intel IGP.

Yes, AMD has been working on new CPUs but Llano was pushed to Q3 and the first chips will be for desktops only.

 

[Yebubbleman]

AMD has no license to do chipsets for Intel CPUs so it doesn't matter. It's similar to the NVidia case. Discrete AMD GPU is possible though it would require a redesign of the logic board to fit three major chips in it. It would also have to be a pretty good discrete chip as there is no reason to use a low-end one which is only 10% or so faster than the Intel IGP.

Yes, AMD has been working on new CPUs but Llano was pushed to Q3 and the first chips will be for desktops only.

I think the AMD sentiment involved a switch to AMD processors as well, and frankly, I can get behind their graphics division's (ATI's) IGPs far better than I can get behind Intel's, and let's face it, NVIDIA isn't making another IGP to go in a Mac unless Intel slaps their name on it and integrates it in with one of their upcoming processors. (which is certainly possible, but not worth banking on the quality of). AMD's current CPUs aren't Sandy Bridge amazing, but they are definitely better than what the low-end machines (13" Pro, White MB, mini, and MBA) have had all this time.

 

[Hellhammer]

AMD's current CPUs aren't Sandy Bridge amazing, but they are definitely better than what the low-end machines (13" Pro, White MB, mini, and MBA) have had all this time.

I wouldn't say so. Their current CPUs are worse than C2Ds in clock for clock and the fastest 25W dual core is 2.6GHz. Sure, there are sub-2GHz triple and quad cores with TDP of 25W but seriously, it would look ridiculous if 13" had quad core and 15" had dual core.

 

[Yebubbleman]

I wouldn't say so. Their current CPUs are worse than C2Ds in clock for clock and the fastest 25W dual core is 2.6GHz. Sure, there are sub-2GHz triple and quad cores with TDP of 25W but seriously, it would look ridiculous if 13" had quad core and 15" had dual core.

If they were slower, I don't think it'd look THAT ridiculous, though Phil Schiller would have a challenge in marketing it, sure. Though clock for clock doesn't seem to be the way to gauge it anyway seeing as the higher end 13" MacBook Pro has a higher clocked Core 2 Duo than the lowest model 15" MacBook Pro's Core i5. While Core 2 Duo is ancient history by today's standards, I'd imagine that AMD's current offering is at least better than that, GHz aside.

 

[Hellhammer]

If they were slower, I don't think it'd look THAT ridiculous, though Phil Schiller would have a challenge in marketing it, sure. Though clock for clock doesn't seem to be the way to gauge it anyway seeing as the higher end 13" MacBook Pro has a higher clocked Core 2 Duo than the lowest model 15" MacBook Pro's Core i5. While Core 2 Duo is ancient history by today's standards, I'd imagine that AMD's current offering is at least better than that, GHz aside.

See this comparison. It compares similarly clocked Core 2 Duo and AMD Phenom II. The current mobile chips from AMD are based on the same K10 micro-architecture as the Phenom in that test.

AMDs don't have Turbo so sub-2GHz triple or quad core would make most things slower than they were on C2Ds since most tasks are still single-threaded.

 

[freddy-b]

i serious dont think so.. sandy bridge is too new for apple.. and they never release macs with new hardware...

i doubt. i seriously doubt. i can do a bet wid anyone. i doubt.

LOL! how many times have i said doubt?

 

[Yebubbleman]

See this comparison. It compares similarly clocked Core 2 Duo and AMD Phenom II. The current mobile chips from AMD are based on the same K10 micro-architecture as the Phenom in that test.

AMDs don't have Turbo so sub-2GHz triple or quad core would make most things slower than they were on C2Ds since most tasks are still single-threaded.

Hmm, for some reason, I remember seeing the Phenom IIs as being somewhere between the speed of the Core 2 and the Core i5 on MaximumPC somewhere. Maybe I'm thinking a newer generation of Phenom II. Either way, notice the price difference between those processors? Even if we have Core 2 performance on the low-end Macs, being able to be guaranteed an IGP that doesn't suck could be all the more worth it. Though I'd still be a little bit shocked if Apple made the switch to AMD CPUs in any facet.

 

[Hellhammer]

Hmm, for some reason, I remember seeing the Phenom IIs as being somewhere between the speed of the Core 2 and the Core i5 on MaximumPC somewhere.

They most likely compared higher clocked Phenom with lower clocked C2D, or triple/quad core Phenom with C2D.

Maybe I'm thinking a newer generation of Phenom II.

Still the same K10 micro-architecture

Either way, notice the price difference between those processors? Even if we have Core 2 performance on the low-end Macs, being able to be guaranteed an IGP that doesn't suck could be all the more worth it.

C2D + NVidia combo provides pretty much the same things although I would bet it is better than AMD + IGP combo would be.

Though I'd still be a little bit shocked if Apple made the switch to AMD CPUs in any facet.

I'm trying to bash that possibility all the time

 

[Yebubbleman]

I'm trying to bash that possibility all the time

Ah, an anti-AMDer, eh? Frankly, I think it silly to only ally with one or the other. Partner with both and just use whatever makes the most sense at the time just like Apple seems to do with their choices of discrete GPUs on iMacs, Mac Pros, and 15-17" MacBook Pros. Though it's probably not that simple.

 

[Hellhammer]

Ah, an anti-AMDer, eh? Frankly, I think it silly to only ally with one or the other. Partner with both and just use whatever makes the most sense at the time just like Apple seems to do with their choices of discrete GPUs on iMacs, Mac Pros, and 15-17" MacBook Pros. Though it's probably not that simple.

Not really. I'm just tired of seeing this hope for AMD even though that would be a downgrade (which most people do not understand). If AMD really was a better choice than Intel, I would be praying for it all the time.

Llano might change the game but the delays aren't too promising. Currently it's Q3 at the earliest, so Apple has to do something for the MBPs before that, meaning that we most likely won't see AMD CPUs (or APUs like they call them) in MBPs anytime soon.

AMD is a killer in graphics though. I really hope Apple uses AMD for MBP instead of NVidia

 

[Yebubbleman]

Not really. I'm just tired of seeing this hope for AMD even though that would be a downgrade (which most people do not understand). If AMD really was a better choice than Intel, I would be praying for it all the time.

Llano might change the game but the delays aren't too promising. Currently it's Q3 at the earliest, so Apple has to do something for the MBPs before that, meaning that we most likely won't see AMD CPUs (or APUs like they call them) in MBPs anytime soon.

AMD is a killer in graphics though. I really hope Apple uses AMD for MBP instead of NVidia

Realistically, for the MacBook Pro line, I'd say that we'll get Sandy Bridge and either an NVIDIA GeForce GT 4 or 5 series discrete GPU or an AMD Radeon HD 6600M discrete GPU on the 15" and 17" and the 13" MBP will either merge feature-sets into the next "MacBook" or it'll be discontinued altogether. With three similarly powered 13" laptops, it makes sense to remove the one that would provide the most controversy over the proposed combination(s) of innards, especially when you can position one of the other two to take its customer base.

 

[c0l3a5h3r]

Probably

Apple would be stupid not to put in sandy bridge processors. You hear the outcry. Apple would lose a lot of sales. Also Intel discontinued The Core 2 Duo Processors so apple would have to find a new processor to put in. You can probably guarantee that sandy bridge processors will be in the new macbooks

 

[Mangos86]

Apple would be stupid not to put in sandy bridge processors. You hear the outcry. Apple would lose a lot of sales. Also Intel discontinued The Core 2 Duo Processors so apple would have to find a new processor to put in. You can probably guarantee that sandy bridge processors will be in the new macbooks

Agreed

 

[Yebubbleman]

Apple would be stupid not to put in sandy bridge processors. You hear the outcry. Apple would lose a lot of sales. Also Intel discontinued The Core 2 Duo Processors so apple would have to find a new processor to put in. You can probably guarantee that sandy bridge processors will be in the new macbooks

You won't see them in any of the machines that can't/don't-already have a discrete GPU in them (i.e. Mac mini, MacBook Air, white MacBook, 13" MacBook Pro) if the IGP doesn't have any OpenCL support. Apple is way too invested in that stuff. One more round of Core 2 Duo makes sense for the Mac mini, white MacBook, and, if it times right, the MacBook Air as well. I don't think it does for the 13" MacBook Pro, and given both that and its internal resemblance to the white MacBook, I think Apple will likely kill it altogether to avoid the "why the hell does it not have a Core i chip in it" outcry, which wouldn't be anywhere near as loud on the other three machines.

Meh.

At which specifically?