I'm sure I've read info on this topic in the threads but I'm blowed if I can find it so
with all the discussed restraints of the Air's current and future Intel processors being tied to their dodgy graphics and thus eliminating nVidia from the equation - what do AMD have in the offing (or PA Semi for that matter) that could be successfully paired with nVidia GPU's in future Air's to outperform what we're seeing now?
(shoot - just found it; but as it's 28 pages long perhaps a new thread on similar topic could be a good thing?!)
AMD/ATI have considerably better packages of integrated or dedicated graphics than Nvidia. It's the pairing of AMD CPUs and ATI graphics that so far Apple hasn't gone for so to speak. The problem is the AMD CPUs aren't as energy efficient as Intel CPUs. AMD can provide the same performance but if it means a 5-hour capable AMD or 10-hour capable Intel system, which will Apple choose? AMD has some better and advanced chips in the works as is shown in its projected roadmap. I would also think that Intel benefits from its chips being in Apple's Macs just as Apple probably benefits from stronger sales with Intel chips being in Apple's Macs. Intel is the superior brand with the public. So it's AMD and ATI with less capable CPUs but incredibly more capable GPUs than Intel's Core i5 CPUs that are more capable but its GMA graphics are a joke compared to AMD/ATI solutions whether integrated chipsets or discrete.
I have noticed with Lenovo computers that AMD chips are offered in $100 less configurations than Intel chips in the same model laptops. I would assume that the Intel configurations sell 5X as many. Hell, I would pay an extra $100 for an Intel CPU. Would Apple rather save the $100 or sell more Macs? That is the difference in using Intel CPUs. The problem lies with the chipset underneath the CPU. That is where Apple is struggling since its 5x graphics capabilities from the Nvidia GPU/chipset has been lost to Intel due to licensing... basically Intel deciding it cannot beat Nvidia so it will force it out of the game. Intel's graphics are incredibly inferior to Nvidia's but since Nvidia doesn't have a CPU it has to provide chipsets for Intel CPUs which requires a license.
Pairing Intel CPUs with ATI discrete graphics is a possibility, but probably for cost reasons Apple is trying to avoid Intel's chipsets and adding a discrete GPU in addition. Apple can save a lot of money and provide the level of graphics possible in low-end discrete cards with Nvidia's 320m GPU/chipset system. Look at the Nvidia 310m, a discrete graphics solution by Nvidia that I thought could make it into the "MacFive" - MBA 13" MBP, MB, Mm, and 21.5" iMac. The integrated chipset/GPU the 320m provides better performance than the 310m discrete GPU. So integrated isn't always a bad thing and Apple proves this with the C2D and Nvidia GPU/chipset model. Integrated sucks terribly when there's only 2 GB of system RAM and 256 MB of that is immediately given to the integrated GPU. So Apple decided for cost or TDP and battery reasons that the Core i-series CPU plus Nvidia 310m discrete GPU wasn't possible or was too costly to make the cut. Therefore it introduced a Core 2 Duo 13" MBP using the Nvidia 320m GPU/chipset model again. Apple will have to come up with a real solution soon though, as Intel is done making Core 2 Duos at the end of 2010.
There are already rumors that Intel is considering continuing the C2D with a Core i branding of some sort... Imagine it being called a Core i1 or something??? It's a possibility, and with that Nvidia would be able to still play the game. Or Intel could actually remove the GMA DIE from some chips to keep Apple happy? It's a possibility because Intel could lose Apple entirely if Apple cannot stay happy with Intel's GMA HD offering. The new 15/17" MBPs GMA HD graphics are a joke, but they use very little power as it's included in the 35W TDP of the CPU. So the Nvidia 24W 330GT isn't running when the Intel GMA HD is running. However, the 15/17" MBPs will actually be running graphics slower than the 13" MBPs when their 320m GPU is running.
In the MBA, I would prefer the 310m with 256 MB of its own VRAM, and a 4 GB system RAM configuration, but it's technically not as powerful as the integrated GPU system of the 320m. Here is the TDP problem. The integrated 320m GPU uses 8W and that includes the chipset. The Nvidia 310m discrete solution uses 14W and that's on top of the 25W Core i7-6x0LM CPU I wanted Apple to use in the MBA (the CPU that's the direct replacement for the SL9x00 CPUs already used in the MBAs). Note the differences in powering a 17W C2D SL9x00 with an 8W Nvidia 320m, is a 25W MBA (4W lower than the current MBA). Now the Core i7 at 25W plus a 14W discrete 310m adds up to 39W. We now see the problem is 39W vs. 25W. Which does Apple choose?
Now let's throw ATI's discrete graphics into the picture. The ATI 5430 uses 7W which is HALF the power required of the Nvidia 310m. Also note that the ATI 5430 would destroy Nvidia's 310m. This is why EVERYONE expected Apple to use Core i-series CPUs with ATI GPUs in the new MBPs. Looking at the MacFive, we can see that history shows us Apple likes to use grand EoS to ensure maximum margin for its MacFive computers. So apparently this system was too expensive?
ARM is several years away from being capable to run a computing OS. Then it would require a complete rewrite of the OS X operating system. It's much more likely to come in whatever follows OS X from Apple. In the long run, Apple would have the best bet in creating its own silicon. Apple dreams of getting rid of the CPU battles with PC counterparts. Meaning Apple doesn't want to have to upgrade to Core i7 when it's really not where innovation should come from in computers. Apple can innovate with software and the OS in ARM in 64-core SoC systems that use low power and are stunningly beyond anything we see in today's dual-core processors. It is going to take time to get this technology ready for the power requirements of the computers. I believe the iPad's A8 Cortex chips are a disappointment as is, as the much mightier A9 chips wouldn't have been out of line. I guess people don't consider that it truly takes years to make something like this happen.
The iPad's Apple A4 CPU probably began a thought or design for the iPhone and since the iPad runs iPhone OS and is still capable of running an iPad, the A4 is the only Apple chip and gets the job. But it shows us where Apple wants to go. It wants to design its own SoC systems to eliminate the problems between suppliers like Intel and Nvidia. And who ultimately loses in this battle, the victor and the conquered Nvidia. Nvidia is now out of the Intel game (past C2D anyways), Intel gets bigger now, but Apple leaves the duo as soon as possible because it cannot stand Intel dictating its computers.
Anyways, there are my thoughts on Core series CPUs, Nvidia GPUs, AMD CPUs, AMD's ATI GPUs, and ARM.
