The point, though, is that the Sandy Bridge MacBook Air will have a much better CPU, but a worse GPU unless Apple does something surprising.
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
The point, though, is that the Sandy Bridge MacBook Air will have a much better CPU, but a worse GPU unless Apple does something surprising.
Okay, I am trying to play a theoretical "game," if we start bringing in factors such as "Apple will work it out," obviously, my whole argument is useless.
We must try to PREDICT what the next MBA will be in terms of WHAT WE HAVE currently.
You are saying that MBA are not meant for gaming and other stuff. I KNOW, i am not saying I will play crysis 2 on max settings, you are placing my argument on the extreme side.
Understand that what im saying is that nearly all of us are casual gamers. we want to play a game here or two, and as High Schooler, I will play more games.
But my point is that even if we get a 40% boost in our CPU, it is near useless.
For example, lets say you have 100/100 in a test. Having a theoretical 40% boost will give you a 140/100. I mean, thats cool. Overkill. That is currently the CPU we have. We have enough to accomplish our tasks, and any more would be an overkill in the things we need our computer to process.
On the other hand, on the GPU side, you have a 80/100 (which is what the NVIDIA 320m is) and we see a 30% performance drop, that will result to a 42.5/100. At lower levels, difference between a 80/100 and 42.5/100 is the difference between a pass and a fail.
Of course, having a better CPU might be fulfilling to you and might give you the sense that you are the "latest in tech," but seriously, it is not about the CPU any more, it is about SSDs, ergonomics, GPU, and ultimately, Software.
We must try to PREDICT what the next MBA will be in terms of WHAT WE HAVE currently.
You are saying that MBA are not meant for gaming and other stuff. I KNOW, i am not saying I will play crysis 2 on max settings, you are placing my argument on the extreme side.
Understand that what im saying is that nearly all of us are casual gamers. we want to play a game here or two, and as High Schooler, I will play more games.
But my point is that even if we get a 40% boost in our CPU, it is near useless.
For example, lets say you have 100/100 in a test. Having a theoretical 40% boost will give you a 140/100. I mean, thats cool. Overkill. That is currently the CPU we have. We have enough to accomplish our tasks, and any more would be an overkill in the things we need our computer to process.
On the other hand, on the GPU side, you have a 80/100 (which is what the NVIDIA 320m is) and we see a 30% performance drop, that will result to a 42.5/100. At lower levels, difference between a 80/100 and 42.5/100 is the difference between a pass and a fail.
Of course, having a better CPU might be fulfilling to you and might give you the sense that you are the "latest in tech," but seriously, it is not about the CPU any more, it is about SSDs, ergonomics, GPU, and ultimately, Software.
If the new AIR is using the same Sandy Bridge processor as the Samsung series 9, you'll be sorely disappointed with its graphics performance.
http://www.laptopmag.com/review/laptops/samsung-series-9.aspx?page=3
3DMark is less than half of the Air (2188 vs 4611)
WOW ran at a miserable 14fps at 1366x768 res compared to the Air that runs at 53fps at 1440x900. Battery life is worse as well.
Well, let's stay with 80286 because every new generation since then has provided no more than 40% boost in CPU.
Wrong math. 30% of 80/100 is 24/100 so you end up with 56/100, not 42.5/100.
I see the current MBA owners make every effort to praise their machine and brand the next one useless. For the casual user the c2d MBA and SB MBA will be absolutely identical. Neither the faster CPU нор the slower GPU will make your web browsing any faster/slower, document editing will be the same. Still the MBA will be your travel companion. Picking a MBA to be the one and only computer in a home environment is kinda ridiculous - for less amount of money one can get an iMac which is far more convenient with its larger screen - for gaming, videos or whatever. Besides, it is very portable, too, i move mine in my home all the time.
I think (most) of us are prejudiced about Intel graphics. When I saw the Intel HD 3000 graphics in the new 13" MBPs, I first thought of the X3100 in my first Late 2007 white MacBook and how much it sucked. Intel's track record with integrated graphics isn't great, but it's improving over time. A lot has changed since those X3100 times.
However, both the NVIDIA 320M and SB Intel graphics are an upgrade to my current 15" MBP's NVIDIA 9400M. I seldom switch to the discrete and I plan on buying a MBA this summer. So for me, either graphics will be an upgrade over the one I currently use.
As long as it's better/faster than my current, the new Core iX CPUs are worth waiting for. Intel IGP isn't better than the NVIDIA 320M but the processor is a lot faster/better. So the slight tradeoff in graphics performance isn't too bad. The Intel HD 3000 is on par with the current graphics. I've looked at Anandtech, Macworld and a whole bunch of other benchmarks. Intel IGP either performs slightly worse or slightly better than the NVIDIA 320M.
However, both the NVIDIA 320M and SB Intel graphics are an upgrade to my current 15" MBP's NVIDIA 9400M. I seldom switch to the discrete and I plan on buying a MBA this summer. So for me, either graphics will be an upgrade over the one I currently use.
As long as it's better/faster than my current, the new Core iX CPUs are worth waiting for. Intel IGP isn't better than the NVIDIA 320M but the processor is a lot faster/better. So the slight tradeoff in graphics performance isn't too bad. The Intel HD 3000 is on par with the current graphics. I've looked at Anandtech, Macworld and a whole bunch of other benchmarks. Intel IGP either performs slightly worse or slightly better than the NVIDIA 320M.
We knew all this Graphics stuff already like a month ago from the Engadget review.
They said the Series 9 gets 25 mins less battery life.
PCMag says the Series 9 gets almost an hour MORE battery life. These reviews are all over the place, and only tell part of the story.
Yes, the graphics (aka Gaming) performance will be less. But it seems on par or better than the 9400m, which people use just fine every day in the 2008/2009 MBA/MB/MBP's.
And regarding Battery life - we have no idea what Voodoo Apple puts into the power optimization of it's laptops.
All we can empirically say at this point is that the (U)LV i5/i7 chips with IGP consume about 21W TDP, which is less than the SL9400/9600+320m combo which some have pegged at over 30W TDP. The laws of physics seem to dictate that since it draws up to 10W less power and would (presumably) have the same battery, a SB MBA would have more battery life than a C2D MBA.
Honest question: Why are there so many comparisons to a GPU (9400M) the Air no longer has? The Intel IGP is still worse than the 320M, which to me is the only relevant point if all we are comparing is the GPU.
Removing options is removing options. At this point it would've made sense to release the new MBA with SB a few months later, than doing what seems like a downgrade on the graphics side. Easy for me to say of course. I don't have a finished design in my shed, ready for release and the choice is to either make money (release with C2D) and possibly losing some (no release, wait for SB).
Luckily, the MBA, especially, doesn't depend on its GPU alone.
It seems that the only way Apple could rationalize bumping to SB is by bringing something new, meaningful, to the table. An hour extra battery life, perhaps. Or new hardware, such as a built in wireless modem (pretty please, make that fit in the 11"). I guess it all depends on how long they can use the C2D versus what they can offer "in return" for going SB.
On the other hand most buyers won't care/notice anyway, which Apple is probably more than aware of.
We now have some actual game results now and it seems even worse than the 50% drop seen in the original review.
Instead of 50% of the performance of the 320M, we now have:
26% at a lower resolution in Wow
34% for Lost planet
Those numbers seem to suggest the ULV SAndy Bridge has even worse graphics performance than the previous generation Nvidia 9400M
it is only 29min. Not sure where you get almost 1 hour from. And it was measured in Windows, so I think this is the most comparable number. Mac OS is known to be better at using less power than Windows. From this, I'd say there would be a marginal increase in battery life by switching to Sandy Bridge - nothing major.
Seems worse actually
TDP is not the whole story .. for example the 2011 i7 2.3Ghz Sandy Bridge Quad Core is supposed to have a TDP of 45W, which is 10W more than the i7
2.66Ghz 2010 model. However, Anandtech measured the 2011 machine using almost 40W more running a CPU intensive task. Something is very weird about the Sandy Bridge TDP numbers.
Those comparisons showing the HD3000 being almost as good as the 320M does not relate to the Macbook Air. The next Macbook Air is likely to use the ULV Sandy Bridge which is hugely underclocked compared to the HD3000 used in the MBP.
+1
I agree. I think the 'gain' in processor speed will be hard to notice. But for many of us, the 'drop' in gpu performance (which is already marginal with the 320m) will be deadly.
If you feel so strongly against a SB update, buy the current MBA and live happily! Nobody can take that away from you. It will continue to function exactly as you expect it to, even if a SB update is released!
Agreed, even though I mainly game on my desktop. I still occasionally play wow and starcraft on my air. The drop in GPU performance would most definitely affect me more than the marginal CPU increase.
I had to finally register to comment on the hypocrisy in this and many other threads like it. Because some people want frame rates for gaming on an MBA, then your needs for GPU performance are valid, and others who don't game but could use CPU performance have invalid needs? Rubbish.
A perfect example is the above. So the C2D rates as a 100/100 for CPU performance and thus any improvement is useless? Really?! Nice to see that you framed the argument such that any improvement you don't see as needed is useless.
On Sunday I combined 6 or 8 short 720p video clips into a 7 minute video for YouTube with a simple title screen and transitions. It took the C2D ~40 minutes to process the video and save in a new format. So you're really going to argue that there is nothing to be gained from a significant bump in processor speed?
For me and many other potential MBA purchasers, a CPU bump from the media processing abilities of the Core i processors would be welcome, and GPU performance over and above the ability to play real-time HD video is useless. We shouldn't be saddled with an out-of-date processor or forced to subsidize "unnecessary" frame rate performance just to appease game-players. And that perspective is as valid as yours.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
Uhm. Your Point is? Everyone has different wants and needs Also nobody said the processor upgrade is useless or "unwelcome". Some people want more fps when doing moderate gaming including myself and I definately won't be welcoming the intel hd into my house. I will be waiting for ivy bridge
txmatt said:
Uhm. Your Point is? Everyone has different wants and needs Also nobody said the processor upgrade is useless or "unwelcome". Some people want more fps when doing moderate gaming including myself and I definately won't be welcoming the intel hd into my house. I will be waiting for ivy bridge
+1, besides, the 13" MBP + 128GB SSD provide far better value-for-money than any present 13" MBA.
The cheaper solution, the 11", tells another story but even then anything past the base model comes so close to the price of a 13" MBP+SSD that it's impractical to get a 11" from a performance point of view, especially when it's equipped with the slow 1.4 C2D. The 1.4 i5 will provide far better performance (certainly far more than 40% of speed boost). We will still be able to watch FullHD movies despite the less capable IGP. Games. Don't tell me you want to play WoW on a 11" monitor.
FX4568 said "We have enough to accomplish our tasks, and any more would be an overkill in the things we need our computer to process.". Overkill means the increased processor speed will not be of any use, or, in other words, useless.
Last edited:
Well, I shall say first of all, welcome to the MacRumors forum
I believe CPU is important to the computer as the GPU is. As current computers are, CPU have set a milestone where most users are not even able to use 100% of the capabilities hidden in such a powerful processor. Now, you were complaining I used 100/100 in the CPU analogy? fine, I will change it. CPU will be 90/100 and GPU is 80/100 as the 30% increase in cpu and 30% decrease in gpu, we will see a difference of 117/100 and 56/100. Am I arguing that there will be nothing to be gained from a bump in processor speed? Definitely not! Who doesnt love the little extra power when we need it? Who doesnt want the latest in tech? What im saying is that the downgrading of the GPU outweights the upgrading of the CPU in terms of OVERALL performance.
Futhermore HT and Turbo dont work 100% of the times.
For you and many other potential MBA purchasers, a CPU bump will be indeed welcomed. But as of me and the I believe majority of MBA owners and will be owners, the difference of processor speed is negligible to a certain extent, but the performance lack of GPU will be noticed the moment we start using the Macbook Air.
You are comparing a cheaper price point by bringing a 128 SSD into the game. You must understand that even though many people have to choose between the 13 MBA and 13 MBP, both of them are made for a different purpose. You can play WoW on a 11" monitor. Why do you chain your MBA to tasks that you only think it will be able to accomplish.
Okay, sorry about my lack of further explanation, but I dont want this to sound personal, but what you are doing is taking my statement to a whole different level. I would like to infer that your intelligence would be above the mark where I dont have to expand on every single statement that I say. When I say that the C2D is enough to accomplish tasks, I am saying that it is good enough for the higher than average person. Handbrakers of course will face a time difference on the processor speed, but as many of us know, not everyone uses Handbrake, and if we do, it is not something we do daily. Processor speed is always welcome, but at the sacrifice of GPU from 320m to the Intel GPU is the difference between the ability to play Crysis on 19.3 FPS at Medium settings and not be able to playing it at all while the performance increase in CPU is the difference between 10-30 minutes in Handbrake.
I want to. Stop projecting. The 11" MBA will become my only computer when I get it in a few months and that includes playing the odd game, possibly including WoW.
Heck, the *iPad* could probably be my only computer with a keyboard dock if it did untethered OS updates and could compile LaTeX documents natively. But you're probably about to burst now so I'll stop.
These are all random/nonsensical figures you've made up FX4568. Outside of gaming, there are prescious few apps that will be affected by a 30% decrease in GPU. Your '100 baseline' beneath which a GPU becomes unusable bears no relation to reality.
This will be even more true as Apple becomes better at optimising for Grand Central dispatch. As an example the new Final Cut Pro X is said to optimise and scale well across all sizes of systems. I'd expect a much faster processor to 'soak up' the GPU drop in this instance.
No. Outside of gaming, a larger proportion of processing is done in the CPU than the GPU, and improving the CPU will yield greater benefits.
You can only really talk for yourself and others in this thread that subscribe to that opinion. What evidence to you have that the majority would notice?
I would expect that most MBA owners aren't hardcore gamers - it's just not that sort of machine. Medium power graphic uses, like productivity apps or watching movies wouldn't be noticeably impacted.
Of course, I don't have any figures to back up that belief either.
Last edited:
These are all random/nonsensical figures you've made up FX4568. Outside of gaming, there are prescious few apps that will be affected by a 30% decrease in GPU.
This will be even more true as Apple becomes better at optimising for Grand Central dispatch. As an example the new Final Cut Pro X is said to optimise and scale well across all sizes of systems. I'd expect a much faster processor to 'soak up' the GPU drop in this instance.
No. Outside of gaming, a larger proportion of processing is done in the CPU than the GPU, and improving the CPU will yield greater benefits.
You can only really talk for yourself and others in this thread that subscribe to that opinion. What evidence to you have that the majority would notice?
I would expect that most MBA owners aren't hardcore gamers - it's just not that sort of machine. Medium power graphic uses, like productivity apps or watching movies wouldn't be noticeably impacted.
Of course, I don't have any figures to back up that belief either.
Well, I wish I had a program to back up such GPU CPU usage, but I do not, so whether you believe my point is up to you.
I have NO idea as of how GCD affects GPU. The only thing that my mind connected the GDP to a GPU is when the GPU has an Open CL, Open CL is like GDP but not quite. GDP can be summarized as "GCD lifts the programmer from the burden of dealing with shared memory, threads, locks and semaphores which usually results in a great amount of pain." GCD does not direct GPU burden into the CPU. If it did, why doesnt Apple further continue on this technology? Wouldn't it be more efficient to Apple to develop this technology so far that GPUs are obsolete and instead of placing GPUs in a system, they could use extra battery? or extra RAM? GDP only takes advantage of multi core systems, but it certainly does not take the burden of GPU.
If it does, I would honestly like to know, as knowledge is always good.
Yea, I see the point where you are coming from. Neither of us know whether or not MBA owners have bought it for mild gaming or not, but hardcore gamers are certainly not in the radar of MBA buyers. But do not confuse hardcore gamers with games that tend to fall in the "hardcores." Almost all games could be run in MBA, of course few of them wont. But as of 90% of games, the 320M will. Again, do I have numbers to back it up? I certainly dont, but there was a chart somewhere that compared over 30 games with 320m and Intel 3000HD used in MBP 13", and the 13" could play less than the 320m ones. Why do I keep up bringing games as GPU comparisons? Because as my lack of knowledge shows, games are the ones that stress the most out of GPUs in my usage.
Welcome!
CPU and GPU are both important. There is one critical difference between CPU and GPU though and thats this:
A user can usually wait on on the CPU with no impact other than the fact that they had to wait. Using your example. You waited 40 minutes. A CPU that that was twice as fast might have reduced your wait to 25 minutes. A CPU that was half a fast would have increased your wait time to maybe 75 minutes. The only consequence of CPU speed is time in general. There is rarely a difference in the final product.
GPU is different, GPU is often used to perform realtime calculations (Game or movie frames). Because the frames are related to a specific point in time, a difference is GPU performance can make the difference between usable and unusable. For that reason, people that like, want or need GPU performance tend to be focal.
In my experience, poor GPU performance bugs me more than poor CPU performance. You can't just wait for the GPU to get done, like you can with a CPU. There does have to be a balance though.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
Well said
Penn Jennings said:
Well said