Would Sandy Bridge go into the 13"

[shawmanus]

I think they will only update 15/17 and wait for Llano mobile APUs for 13". I am sure Llano will be the 1st AMD chip in a Mac. It should be used in 13", MBA and mac mini.

Only other option is wait for Ivy bridge which as 16 EU, in built memory plus other enhancements for GPU. May be that will be a better IGP solution with intel cpu(which should destroy Llano on CPU intensive benchmarks).

 

[Yebubbleman]

I think they will only update 15/17 and wait for Llano mobile APUs for 13". I am sure Llano will be the 1st AMD chip in a Mac. It should be used in 13", MBA and mac mini.

Only other option is wait for Ivy bridge which as 16 EU, in built memory plus other enhancements for GPU. May be that will be a better IGP solution with intel cpu(which should destroy Llano on CPU intensive benchmarks).

Not updating the 13" Pro until either option becomes available is an option, though doing that with both it and the other three machines currently riding the Core 2 Duo/GeForce 320M train is much less of an option. All four could retain the Core 2 Duo and GeForce 320M until either Ivy Bridge and/or Llano become a viable replacement, though I'm skeptical that Apple would do that without some kind of guarantee from either Intel or AMD of OpenCL support in their respective supplied IGPs.

 

[shawmanus]

I believe Intel will support OpenCl for IGP from Ivy Bridge onwards(currently the support is through CPU).

AMD always supported OpenCL so that should not be a problem.I think Llano would be the likely candidate considering SB/IB would be way superior on CPU side and so Apple would be able to diffrentiate MB and MBP.

 

[Yebubbleman]

I believe Intel will support OpenCl for IGP from Ivy Bridge onwards(currently the support is through CPU).

AMD always supported OpenCL so that should not be a problem.I think Llano would be the likely candidate considering SB/IB would be way superior on CPU side and so Apple would be able to diffrentiate MB and MBP.

Well, if the 13" MacBook Pro is getting it, then the white MacBook and Mac mini are getting it too. The Air will get the ultra-portable version. My guess is that the 13" MacBook Pro isn't long for this world, in which case, you could be right about AMD supplying that low-end. Though at that point, Apple could do one final generation of Core 2 Duo for the other three machines with nowhere near as much of a complaint as it would for doing so on the 13" Pro.

 

[cheeseblock]

The 13" MBP should be on a higher level than what it is. cheap customers have the white macbook if they don't really care about performance. Maybe some people would like to buy a powerful 13" because that's their preference for laptop screen-size. At least that's my opinion. My C2D 13" MBP isn't bad, and it's the perfect size laptop for me (and my backpack), but i'd like to replace it with a more serious version.

 

[torbjoern]

The 13" MBP should be on a higher level than what it is. cheap customers have the white macbook if they don't really care about performance. Maybe some people would like to buy a powerful 13" because that's their preference for laptop screen-size. At least that's my opinion. My C2D 13" MBP isn't bad, and it's the perfect size laptop for me (and my backpack), but i'd like to replace it with a more serious version.

Same here. I'm also in the market for a new portable Mac. But due to upgrade issues, it won't be an Air (as I see it now). If the MBP 13" gets discontinued, however, I will have to consider a MBP 15" (eventually with SSD) instead. The base MBP 15" costs the same as an ultimate MBA 13". The former is more upgradeable, more powerful and provides more screen real estate than the latter (1680x1050 vs 1440x900).

MBP 15" also has backlit keyboard which the MBA Rev D doesn't. Can't believe Apple would skimp on that in a $1000-computer...

 

[Yebubbleman]

The 13" MBP should be on a higher level than what it is. cheap customers have the white macbook if they don't really care about performance. Maybe some people would like to buy a powerful 13" because that's their preference for laptop screen-size. At least that's my opinion. My C2D 13" MBP isn't bad, and it's the perfect size laptop for me (and my backpack), but i'd like to replace it with a more serious version.

Best of luck with that. They're only adopting something better if their graphics options are OpenCL compatible.

Same here. I'm also in the market for a new portable Mac. But due to upgrade issues, it won't be an Air (as I see it now). If the MBP 13" gets discontinued, however, I will have to consider a MBP 15" (eventually with SSD) instead. The base MBP 15" costs the same as an ultimate MBA 13". The former is more upgradeable, more powerful and provides more screen real estate than the latter (1680x1050 vs 1440x900).

MBP 15" also has backlit keyboard which the MBA Rev D doesn't. Can't believe Apple would skimp on that in a $1000-computer...

That's basically my line of thought, except I could care less about the CPU; it's the GPU/IGP I'm more worried about. The 320M was a nice thing to have, and if Sandy Bridge's IGP is a step down in any way, then screw it, I'll upgrade to a REAL MacBook Pro.

 

[Erasmus]

I don't think Apple would dare put a C2D in a new generation of MacBook Pros. It would just be too weak. I think the most likely scenario is that the 13" MBP will just go i5, and use Intel IGP. I don't think the lack of OpenCL will be a consideration, as the IGP isn't really powerful enough to make it worth the effort.

Although I don't think people should give up in the hope that Apple manages a proper discrete GPU (6550-ish) in the next 13" MBP line.

 

[Yebubbleman]

I don't think Apple would dare put a C2D in a new generation of MacBook Pros. It would just be too weak. I think the most likely scenario is that the 13" MBP will just go i5, and use Intel IGP. I don't think the lack of OpenCL will be a consideration, as the IGP isn't really powerful enough to make it worth the effort.

Are you kidding?! Apple stuck with the Core 2 Duo in the last round of 13" MacBook Pros, white MacBooks, Mac minis, and MacBook Airs BECAUSE the GeForce 320M was both way more powerful than Intel's offering and had OpenCL support in droves. They're not going to give up on that in the next round, it's way way way too important for them.

Although I don't think people should give up in the hope that Apple manages a proper discrete GPU (6550-ish) in the next 13" MBP line.

Engineering doesn't work that way, and before you give me a "if they take out the optical drive..." explanation, Apple isn't going to ditch the optical drive on any of their "MacBook Pro" laptops. White MacBook, maybe. "MacBook Pro", definitely not. And if they don't remove something, then they won't have the room needed to do so.

 

[Erasmus]

Are you kidding?! Apple stuck with the Core 2 Duo in the last round of 13" MacBook Pros, white MacBooks, Mac minis, and MacBook Airs BECAUSE the GeForce 320M was both way more powerful than Intel's offering and had OpenCL support in droves. They're not going to give up on that in the next round, it's way way way too important for them.

The 320M was much more powerful than the Arrandale IGP. The 320M is only slightly better than the SB IGP.

Similarly, the Arrandale CPU was only marginally better than the C2D, whereas the SB CPU is significantly better than either.

It's a case of large CPU gain, longer battery life, faster chipset, etc. all for a small GPU downgrade. Simple as that.

Engineering doesn't work that way, and Apple isn't going to ditch the optical drive on any of their "MacBook Pro" laptops. White MacBook, maybe. "MacBook Pro", definitely not. And if they don't remove something, then they won't have the room needed to do so.

You're not an Apple engineer, so don't try and claim you have any more idea than anyone else. Especially as they could remove either the optical drive, or the HDD to do it, or just do something unexpected to make it work. You know, like Apple always tends to do.

 

[Yebubbleman]

The 320M was much more powerful than the Arrandale IGP. The 320M is only slightly better than the SB IGP.

Similarly, the Arrandale CPU was only marginally better than the C2D, whereas the SB CPU is significantly better than either.

It's a case of large CPU gain, longer battery life, faster chipset, etc. all for a small GPU downgrade. Simple as that.

Apple has invested way too much into OpenCL to just drop it in favor of a faster CPU. Sure, Sandy Bridge is fast, but that's not the kind of GPU downgrade that Apple will take easily. If you killed the 13" Pro, the majority of the customers of the remaining three products that still use the Core 2 Duo wouldn't even care that it's still around. The only ones that have anywhere near a significant beef about the continued use of the Core 2 Duo are the 13" Pro customers.

You're not an Apple engineer, so don't try and claim you have any more idea than anyone else. Especially as they could remove either the optical drive, or the HDD to do it, or just do something unexpected to make it work. You know, like Apple always tends to do.

Not to get into a pissing match, but how many 13" MacBook Pro logic boards have you had a close look at? I interact with at least one of 'em per week. I don't know how many YOU take apart for a living, but have you seen the chip layout on that thing? There's not much room there. You have one spot for the chipset, which in the case of that model is also the IGP, and you have another for the CPU. That's it. There's no room for yet a third chip. Period.

They could remove one of the other drive bays, but it'd be unlikely and would likely result in a cost that'd make the 13" Pro too expensive for it to even fit in the line-up anymore. It's a nice idea; I've certainly had it, and I'll shoot it down for the same reason other people shot it down when I had it: it's not realistic, not even for Apple.

 

[Erasmus]

Apple has invested way too much into OpenCL to just drop it in favor of a faster CPU.

I very much disagree. Yes, OpenCL will get big, but it won't be for a while yet. After all, how many apps use CUDA now? The answer is of course pretty much nothing but tech demos.

Also, as I stated before, the 320M is pretty damn weak, and isn't worth the time and effort bussing information back and forth from. Who would want to do GPGPU work on a 320M???

If Apple gave up on OpenCL support for their IGP equipped macs, there would be minimal performance difference, and would not affect the spread of OpenCL in high end computing.

If you killed the 13" Pro, the majority of the customers of the remaining three products that still use the Core 2 Duo wouldn't even care that it's still around.

I'm all for the death of the 13" MBP. I can't believe people whinge so much about the weight and size of the 15", especially when it's just so much more powerful, and just so much better. I can't imagine using a 13" MBP as my only computer (like I use my 15") and if you already have a powerful desktop, and want a small notebook to carry around, the MBA fills that role far better.

You have one spot for the chipset, which in the case of that model is also the IGP, and you have another for the CPU. That's it. There's no room for yet a third chip. Period.

Shrug, there's still plenty of unexplored options. Apple could go with a smaller form factor HDD, or they could make it thicker, or they could custom design a new board somehow that is more space efficient. I thought they did that with the MBA.

I agree it's unlikely the 13" will get a discrete GPU, I just don't think it's impossible.

 

[ScaryMerry]

I'm all for the death of the 13" MBP. I can't believe people whinge so much about the weight and size of the 15", especially when it's just so much more powerful, and just so much better. I can't imagine using a 13" MBP as my only computer (like I use my 15") and if you already have a powerful desktop, and want a small notebook to carry around, the MBA fills that role far better.

It's not so much the size/weight (though it is an added irritation) so much as it is the price. If you step onto a college campus, almost all you see is 13" MBPs. Why? Because we're broke college students that can't afford the 15" (there is a significant price difference) and still need more than 2GB RAM and an SD reader.

 

[Freyqq]

If the Macbook Pros are updated this spring would they upgrade the 13" with Arrondales and the 15 and 17" with Sandy Bridge???

I nobody "knows" for sure, just speculating.

I am waiting to replace my iMac with a 13" Macbook pro. I replaced my 13" black macbook with the iMac and I would love to have the same portability with my new macbook pro, I just want to get out of the C2D era!!

if they dont change the case at all, it should work IF they take out the dedicated graphics. I think sandybridge CPU + GPU = about the same thermals as C2D CPU + NVIDIA GPU.

Or, they could just improve the cooling and allow the battery life to drop a little. I think they really should be putting a sandy bridge i5 in the 13" and improve the cooling even if it has to be slightly heavier and thicker. If the PC manufacturers can do it, and if apple is so great at design, then they can pull it off too.

 

[Yebubbleman]

I very much disagree. Yes, OpenCL will get big, but it won't be for a while yet. After all, how many apps use CUDA now? The answer is of course pretty much nothing but tech demos.

I'm not saying it's big. To me, it seems a little silly at this point. I'm saying Apple has invested a lot in it, and I doubt they'd let any of their machines regress to the point of ditching it in any facet as a result.

Also, as I stated before, the 320M is pretty damn weak, and isn't worth the time and effort bussing information back and forth from. Who would want to do GPGPU work on a 320M???

If it can do anything to assist the CPU even slightly, I'll bet it won't be performance wasted.

If Apple gave up on OpenCL support for their IGP equipped macs, there would be minimal performance difference, and would not affect the spread of OpenCL in high end computing.

We're not talking about high end computing, we're talking about Apple computing! They're planning on utilizing it in future features, which is why it was toted so heavily with Snow Leopard.

I'm all for the death of the 13" MBP. I can't believe people whinge so much about the weight and size of the 15", especially when it's just so much more powerful, and just so much better. I can't imagine using a 13" MBP as my only computer (like I use my 15") and if you already have a powerful desktop, and want a small notebook to carry around, the MBA fills that role far better.

Completely agreed. Though I have to admit I do have a soft spot for the 13" MacBook Pro, despite the fact that I, too, will go with a 15".

Shrug, there's still plenty of unexplored options. Apple could go with a smaller form factor HDD, or they could make it thicker, or they could custom design a new board somehow that is more space efficient. I thought they did that with the MBA.

I agree it's unlikely the 13" will get a discrete GPU, I just don't think it's impossible.

Oh sure. Nothing is impossible in this industry. Well, within the laws of physics that is. I mean, we did switch to Intel after years of bashing it, right?

It's not so much the size/weight (though it is an added irritation) so much as it is the price. If you step onto a college campus, almost all you see is 13" MBPs. Why? Because we're broke college students that can't afford the 15" (there is a significant price difference) and still need more than 2GB RAM and an SD reader.

Broke college students buy PCs, not Macs. If they have to have a Mac, they buy a MacBook and they buy the upgrade RAM aftermarket as it's way cheaper! If you're going to go with the "Broke College Student" argument, it loses weight when you elect to spend more than you actually NEED. As for the SD card slot, again, you are the only college student I've ever met who even uses their SD card slot. Though even then, there are super-cheap card readers out there.

 

[Hellhammer]

OpenCL is pretty much nonsense, especially with an IGP. It might be useful for handful of apps when you have a GPU that has some real power in it, i.e. something else than the Intel IGP. Seriously, the support for OpenCL is almost non-existent. Okay, Apple liked to use it to advertise Snow Leopard but after the launch of SL, nobody said a word about OpenCL. Heck, the buyers of 13" MBP don't even have the tiniest clue what OpenCL is.

Apple doesn't have many plausible choices. C2D is possible but sooner than later Apple would face the same issue as C2Ds won't be available after late this year. Well, Apple could use C2D and wait for Llano but it would be a rather big compromise and maybe even risky (AMD's schedules are a bit loose).

IMO Sandy Bridge is the only good solution. If it means a small loss in GPU power and lack of OpenCL support, then people who want a better GPU must get something else. Every solution has its pros and cons, there is no perfect one available at the moment.

 

[Yebubbleman]

OpenCL is pretty much nonsense, especially with an IGP. It might be useful for handful of apps when you have a GPU that has some real power in it, i.e. something else than the Intel IGP. Seriously, the support for OpenCL is almost non-existent. Okay, Apple liked to use it to advertise Snow Leopard but after the launch of SL, nobody said a word about OpenCL. Heck, the buyers of 13" MBP don't even have the tiniest clue what OpenCL is.

Apple doesn't have many plausible choices. C2D is possible but sooner than later Apple would face the same issue as C2Ds won't be available after late this year. Well, Apple could use C2D and wait for Llano but it would be a rather big compromise and maybe even risky (AMD's schedules are a bit loose).

IMO Sandy Bridge is the only good solution. If it means a small loss in GPU power and lack of OpenCL support, then people who want a better GPU must get something else. Every solution has its pros and cons, there is no perfect one available at the moment.

I'm not saying I even buy into OpenCL. The fact of the matter is that I don't. However, I don't think it was just something they used to advertise Snow Leopard so people would buy it. Nor do I think it was something they just invested time and energy into and then just abandoned. Clearly, as is the case with a lot of the under-the-hood features with Snow Leopard, we'll see SOME feature-set that utilizes the crap out of it in Lion and beyond. They certainly made a point of doing things like that with things like Core Animation, Core Image, and Quartz Extreme. I'm not saying the return will be great on an IGP, because you're right, it won't. All I'm saying is that Apple cares enough about it that seeing them stick with Core 2 Duo for one final round of machines may be something we end up doing. For the Mac mini, white MacBook, and MacBook Air, I could see it happening and only a minority of the target market audiences for each machine being truly upset about it as most low-end Mac customers don't even know what a processor is, let alone which one they have and what it means. As for the 13" Pro, I don't think either option is acceptable, and luckily the 13" Air is the faster machine between the two. The white MacBook is pretty much the same machine with only a few exceptions that could probably be integrated. Apple could kill it right off and have no problem sticking with Core 2 Duo or, as you imply will be their course of action, move to Sandy Bridge temporarily sacrificing a marginal amount GPU power and OpenCL support on the remaining three models.

One of the reasons I think Apple will stick with the Core 2 Duo/320M combination for one generation longer is that while it's one thing to say that one of your products has a step backwards in graphics performance, it's another thing to say that two or three of your products have steps back in graphics performance. Sure the CPU gains will be huge, but I'd imagine that the GPU decrease will still look thrice as bad if it happens to three machines as it would if the 13" MacBook Pro, the white MacBook, and the Mac mini all went to Sandy Bridge Mobile CPUs.

Basically it boils down to the fact that you're right about every option having a drawback and none of them being perfect.

 

[lifeguard90]

apple wont use c2d any more for the mbp at least

 

[Yebubbleman]

apple wont use c2d any more for the mbp at least

If they kill the 13" Pro, it won't. If they don't, I'd say they're more likely to keep it than ditch it, unfortunately.