I love the Macbook Air but I would hate it if they released a new one. Especially since this was only out in 10/2010.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
CNET claims June for new MBA release?
- Thread starter FX4568
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
To the poster above me, Apple has been know to downgrade some specs for an "upgrade" and in this case, Intel is forcing there hand. If they want to move onto the i5 chips, they can't used nVidia's GPU which is rated better then Intel built in solution. And since there aren't any other integrated solutions and the Air doesn't have room for a dedicated card, it will likely end up like the 13'' MBP, losing some graphic performance.
Users will need to decided if GPU power or CPU power is more important after this new upgrade, alone with price, as the current MBA will likely drop.
As a current MPA owner, I'm glad Apple is finally moving away from the Core 2 Duo's they have been on for so long. Heck I could upgrade my Mac Mini which was my first Mac from 2006 and I'd have a Core 2 Duo, not quite as new of a C2D and the GPU would be greatly lacking, but I can still upgrade if I want.
But once Apple jumps to Sandy Bridge, even if for a generation of Macs we lose graphic performance, we'll make it up with Ivy Bridge and our CPUs will be more powerful. Plus PC specs won't seem so far ahead.
Although I was shopping for a PC for a department at the University I work for and finding a GPU in a PC that worked with their rendering software was rather hard. PC makers just don't care about GPUs as much as they used to.
Users will need to decided if GPU power or CPU power is more important after this new upgrade, alone with price, as the current MBA will likely drop.
As a current MPA owner, I'm glad Apple is finally moving away from the Core 2 Duo's they have been on for so long. Heck I could upgrade my Mac Mini which was my first Mac from 2006 and I'd have a Core 2 Duo, not quite as new of a C2D and the GPU would be greatly lacking, but I can still upgrade if I want.
But once Apple jumps to Sandy Bridge, even if for a generation of Macs we lose graphic performance, we'll make it up with Ivy Bridge and our CPUs will be more powerful. Plus PC specs won't seem so far ahead.
Although I was shopping for a PC for a department at the University I work for and finding a GPU in a PC that worked with their rendering software was rather hard. PC makers just don't care about GPUs as much as they used to.
I'm a little confused. People want to play games on this?
Would not be my first choice for gaming (not that I play games, but I did do flight sims once)
Is there anything else I should be concerned about? Maybe external monitor resolution? Movies?....I don't think so.
Big problem for intensive video stuff perhaps? but then again; an Air?
Would not be my first choice for gaming (not that I play games, but I did do flight sims once)
Is there anything else I should be concerned about? Maybe external monitor resolution? Movies?....I don't think so.
Big problem for intensive video stuff perhaps? but then again; an Air?
I'm a little confused. People want to play games on this?
Would not be my first choice for gaming (not that I play games, but I did do flight sims once)
Is there anything else I should be concerned about? Maybe external monitor resolution? Movies?....I don't think so.
Big problem for intensive video stuff perhaps? but then again; an Air?
Some of the things I've seen people propose for the MacBook Air are completely ridiculous. There are Pro offerings currently available that meet these requirements. Yet, somehow people have this idea that the MBA should have Pro capabilities, a multitude of connectivity options, and ultra efficiency in an ultraportable form factor.
Doesn't that seem to defeat the point of the system being named MacBook 'Air'?
The i5 can retire more instructions per clock cycle, and so could actually run real software faster at even a lower GHz clock speed than a C2D.
Why are you guys expecting Apple to drop a USB port for the Thunderbolt?
If Apple includes Thunderbolt it will be shared with the Mini DisplayPort. Just like on the MBP's. Which was already present on the MBA so I don't see the need to drop a USB port.
I'm not sure if it will get one though due to the footprint of the new chip on the motherboard.
If Apple includes Thunderbolt it will be shared with the Mini DisplayPort. Just like on the MBP's. Which was already present on the MBA so I don't see the need to drop a USB port.
I'm not sure if it will get one though due to the footprint of the new chip on the motherboard.
Any have a guess guess what this might mean for the 11"? Will that have to be even more of a compromise? I'm worried the C2D/320M might be a better option for me if Apple go for Sandy Bridge and have to cut even more corners on the 11" due to even harsher space/energy drain constraints.
If the CPU option for an 11" bump is only a marginal performance increase (*if* Apple choose to bump this summer), the nVidia GPU seems too good to lose.
I can't/don't need to buy right now but it seems I might be good off planning it a bit.
As for the gaming comments, give it up already. Personally, I want *one* (1) computer and I want to to be as portable as possible. That means both work and entertainment, some of that being the occasional game. And I realize it'll be a compromise. I won't buy it for the sake of gaming but why should that stop me from trying a few of them out?
There are a lot of games out there, some being more playable than others on an MBA. Don't expect everyone to "need"/want max detail at native resolution @60fps. I'm fine with fps dips and low/med details. If it plays it plays. It's as if the MBA could only ever do monochrome text games. Can we stop seeing the world in an "either it'll be the best ***** ever, or it'll blow chunks" kind of way? Things are bit more nuanced than that.
I'm wondering if we are underestimating hardware nowadays. To me it looks pretty nice, *especially* at the "low" end.
If the CPU option for an 11" bump is only a marginal performance increase (*if* Apple choose to bump this summer), the nVidia GPU seems too good to lose.
I can't/don't need to buy right now but it seems I might be good off planning it a bit.
As for the gaming comments, give it up already. Personally, I want *one* (1) computer and I want to to be as portable as possible. That means both work and entertainment, some of that being the occasional game. And I realize it'll be a compromise. I won't buy it for the sake of gaming but why should that stop me from trying a few of them out?
There are a lot of games out there, some being more playable than others on an MBA. Don't expect everyone to "need"/want max detail at native resolution @60fps. I'm fine with fps dips and low/med details. If it plays it plays. It's as if the MBA could only ever do monochrome text games. Can we stop seeing the world in an "either it'll be the best ***** ever, or it'll blow chunks" kind of way? Things are bit more nuanced than that.
I'm wondering if we are underestimating hardware nowadays. To me it looks pretty nice, *especially* at the "low" end.
It's not a marginal increase. The Sandy Bridge 1.4Ghz ULV (expected to be in the new 11") is 40% faster than the C2D LV 1.86Ghz chip that's currently in the base 13" in some benchmarks.
Good to hear, thanks for the heads up. I'll live with the Intel IGP if that's the case.
While these Sandy Bridge processors are considerably faster in lab benchmarks, they offer no discernible real-world improvement for most users. Having used a MacBook Pro with a C2D and then one of the new Sandy Bridge, I couldn't tell the difference.
As MacBook Air owners know, it's all about the SSD speed for improving the experience for everyday users.
As MacBook Air owners know, it's all about the SSD speed for improving the experience for everyday users.
I don't play games, and even I don't want integrated graphics. You can say that an MBA isn't really purpose-built for games (obviously), but I don't know how some people can fervently defend a graphics downgrade.
I owned a rev B white MacBook, and it had some sort of crappy integrated graphics (the first type Apple used). It could easily play videos.......until HD movies and larger format videos became more common. After a year, it couldn't keep up with Youtube. I don't know what changed, but the fans ran like crazy, especially when watching movie trailers at any size above "SMALL". I realize that laptops are never going to be able to keep up with the future, but with the Intel IG being rumoured, you'd be at the cusp of being obsolete. It's already at the bottom-rung of the ladder, so there's no leeway when graphics demands move half a step forward.
You can say that an MBA isn't really purpose-built for games (obviously), but I don't know how some people can fervently defend a graphics downgrade. I owned a rev B white MacBook, and it had some sort of crappy integrated graphics (the first type Apple used). It could easily play videos.......until HD movies and larger format videos became more common. After a year, it couldn't keep up with Youtube. I don't know what changed, but the fans ran like crazy, especially when watching movie trailers at any size above "SMALL". I realize that laptops are never going to be able to keep up with the future, but with the Intel IG being rumoured, you'd be at the cusp of being obsolete. It's already at the bottom-rung of the ladder, so there's no leeway when graphics demands move half a step forward.
Last edited:
]
I am exactly one of those people. I wanted a light laptop that I could game on occasionally while on travel. There is ZERO chance I would have bought an apple if it wasn't for the Air's portability and gaming potential. Hopefully I'll get many years use out of my 13" Ultimate.. but if Apple cripples the Air from a GPU perspective, I'll go back to Windows in a heartbeat on my next laptop purchase.
Don't get me wrong, I love my air and am enjoying OSX.. but not enough to sacrifice my ability to game on it.
Very true. Plus, turbo mode is mostly marketing hype. It should be called turbo fraud. It doesn't work the way it's advertised, ie, most of the time when you need it to. So, what you're really getting is a 1.4 GHZ computer that's advertised as a 2.3 GHZ one. That's taking marketing hype to the extreme. The only way I would buy a computer with one of Intel's turbo hyped CPU's is if the bottom score met my needs. I would never rely on the hyped theoretical upper score in making my decision and in this case 1.4 GHZ doesn't cut it for me.
This one goes out to all the tinfoil hat wearers....you know who you are (secret code inserted here.-..-11..-312).
I think Apple intentionally borked our current 320M graphic power in the 10.6.7 release fiasco. This was intentional. That way when they release the new MBA's with the inferior integrated graphics chipset, they can actually show an IMPROVEMENT in graphic speed.
Seriously. Its true. I read it on the intrawebs.
I think Apple intentionally borked our current 320M graphic power in the 10.6.7 release fiasco. This was intentional. That way when they release the new MBA's with the inferior integrated graphics chipset, they can actually show an IMPROVEMENT in graphic speed.
Seriously. Its true. I read it on the intrawebs.
Intel's marketing only specifies the base processor speed, not the turbo speed. For example, the i5-2537M under discussion here is advertised as a 1.4GHz chip. Guess what? Its base clock speed is 1.4GHz. It can turbo up to 2.3GHz but it is in no way advertised as being a 2.3GHz chip. Here is the product sheet directly from Intel:
http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=54619&processor=i5-2537M&spec-codes=SR03W
I don't play games, and even I don't want integrated graphics.
Then I guess the 320m is no good either since it is integrated.
I don't know how some people can fervently rail against the potential of a 2-generation CPU upgrade.
The real question is - will the back lit keyboard be reintroduced? I sure hope so. Couldn't care less about gaming but I want to see what I type in a meeting room (and don't get started with the whole "learn to type" BS)...
+1 - If the next Rev puts the BL Keyboard back in, I'll be first in line.
Depends on what you were doing. If you're just surfing and Youtube and Facebook, then of course the Core2Duo won't matter vs. the i5.
But if you do anything CPU intensive... convert a FLV to an MP4 to use on your iPad, etc... the i6 will smoke the C2D.
buckeyes1995 said:
These are the comments I least understand.
Apple has basically two choices:
1. Update the MBA sometime in 2010 with SB LV/ULV chips. The CPU will boost, but the Graphics will take a hit.
2. Leave the MBA as a C2D/320M machine for a total of ~18 months till the right Ivy Bridge chips come out. That IGP should be almost equal to the 320M, but I there'll be much better chips than the 320M in early 2012, so I bet all the people whining about the SB IGP will be saying the same stuff about the Ivy IGP.
But let me get this straight: You own a MBA right now. It's got a 320m chip in it that gives you jollies and plays your games. So if Apple was to leave the MBA stagnant for a year and a half, and then update to Ivy Bridge, you'd be happy, etc... but if Apple updated to SB in the middle of that cycle, you'd be pissed, throw you current laptop in the garbage and get a Windows Lappy?
I'm not super-keen on a SB MBA either (unless it has the aforementioned BL Keyboard), but here's a message to all the SB Haters: Apple releasing a SB update to spur Back to School or Holiday Sales in no way invalidates your current MBA. It's not like all the 2010-era MBAs will suddenly explode into a puff of smoke forcing you to use the SB IGP you seemingly hate so much. You can keep using the 320m until the Ivy Bridge MBA comes out in 2012.
thisday said:
The 2011 MBPs all added 10W to their TDP while keeping the same form factor. That's why there's heat issues across the board. The chips we're talking about in this thread are 17W chips - that's the same or less than the current TDP on the LV9400/9600+320M which should keep the heat issues at bay.
I'm a little confused. People want to play games on this?
Would not be my first choice for gaming (not that I play games, but I did do flight sims once)
Is there anything else I should be concerned about? Maybe external monitor resolution? Movies?....I don't think so.
Big problem for intensive video stuff perhaps? but then again; an Air?
I have a 11" MBA. I did not buy it to play games, but for work and ease of travel. BUT... I enjoy having the *option* to play the occasional game if the mood strikes me.
With my Black MacBook gaming was never an option because of the integrated Intel graphics.
I believe many MBA owners are like me and want a MBA that provides them with as many options as possible. Thus it is just a tad disconcerting when there is a good possibility the next generation MBA might reduce the number of options it provides to its owners. Then it again, it might not. Only time will tell. That is part of the fun of speculating on MacRumors.