Nobody said the Intel HD 3000 cannot drive 1440 x 900 or even a 27" ACD. The thing is, the more pixels it's driving the lower the overall capabilities will be to perform graphics processing.
Not exactly sure what you mean by "graphics processing". If you're talking about gaming fill rates and FPS, then yes, I agree. But other than 3D Modelling or First person shooters, there's so far nothing else that the HD3000 can't do on a 27" screen that a 320m can.
A bunch of people are using the 13" MBP running low resolution, with standard voltage CPU, and comparing that it's how the MBA will perform. In reality, using other computers with low and ultra low voltage, we can see it could be a 45% to 65% loss in graphics processing capabilities. It primarily will affect gaming, 3D modeling, OpenCL, and other GPU tasks but it will also affect capabilities of "normal" tasks when driving higher resolutions.
What are these normal tasks? The Intel HD 3000 ULV will play 1080p video just fine. It was confirmed by Engadget. We also have no idea what juju Apple's gonna pull (the Full Voltage Intel HD 3000 works much better in OSX than it does in Windows).
Also, at least in this thread, Hellhammer and I specifically are not falsely comparing the Full Voltage HD3000 to the 320m. Hellhammer's already posted benchmarks of the ULV/LV HD3000 and compared it to the 9400m and 320m and showed that it's not a 65% loss - even in gaming.
I honestly feel the MBA has afforded people things they love, and with Intel's IGP certain GPU intensive tasks are simply not possible. ... Thunderbolt is great, but I believe the MBA brand will suffer badly when people go to load games and apps purchased from the App Store that worked fine on their Nvidia Mac and no longer work on MBAs with Intel's IGP. I don't believe it makes any sense.
That is unfortunate, I agree. But at this point, there's not much other choice. Apple can do one of two things:
1) Update the MBA in 2011 with SB. Gaming will suffer, but everything else should get better (CPU speed, RAM, Battery life, etc...)
2) Don't go SB, but wait for Ivy Bridge in 2012. To me this makes less sense, as Apple will have left their new "signature" portable stagnant for ~18+ months. Not a good thing to do business-wise while
sales are slowing when you look at year over year business).
I also think that a Sandy Bridge MBA for the most part will appeal mostly to people who are new to Mac, have older Mac Portables, or are trying to choose between a 13" MBP and a MBA. The primary audience for a 2011 MBA will not be those who bought 2010 MBA's. They'll be less than a year old, and people won't be clamouring to upgrade, IMHO.
This'll alleviate much of the "I just bought Star Wars: Knights of the Republic on the App Store and I didn't check the system requirements, and I can't play it on my new MBA!"
All I said is Intel's IGP isn't going to cut it when Retina displays hit the Macs. I also talked about long-term not short term as you're suggesting. I would bet money Retina ACDs are out within five years and Intel's IGP will not drive it.
But you're talking about a theoretical/futuristic "Retina Display" mac, not being able to be driven by today's Integrated Graphics card. (And as Hellhammer points out - the 320m won't be able to drive it either!)
The 13" 2011 MBA (if/when it comes out) will not have a Retina Display. The 27" ACD and 27" iMacs of 2011 don't have a Retina Display either. The Intel HD 3000 will drive both of those display perfectly fine. So where's the problem? So if Apple comes out with a 2x resolution Cinema in 3-5 years the Intel HD 3000 of 2011 won't drive the display of 2015? Neither will the 320m. And we're so far into the theoretical at this point, is there really any point to the discussion? I could also argue that the brand new iMacs of 2011 - their AMD Radeons won't be able to drive the theoretical 3D Touch Displays of 2015 either... but who cares?
Arguing that the Intel HD 3000 is a bad GPU 'cause it won't drive displays 5 years from now is pointless, IMHO. Especially 'cause the 320m won't drive those displays either!
Even the Nvidia 9400m from nearly three years ago could drive two 24" ACDs in addition to the native display on the MBA. It just required an adapter from Cinemate.
That is pure BS. 9400M is nowhere near as fast Intel HD 3000, even if it was heavily underclocked. The 9400M was underclocked as well BTW.
So if the 9400m could drive two 24" ACDs, then the 9400m can as well. The Intel HD 3000 (even the ULV/LV ones) should perform about on part with the 9400m. It was proven earlier in this thread.
Scottsdale said:
You are so defensive of Intel's worthless IGP, disgusting policies of anti-competitiveness, that it's a waste of time to even debate you over these issues.
Not in the least. I agree with you that this Intel/Nvidia thing has been bad for everyone. And I've seen both myself and Hellhammer agree that it'd be amazing if we could have an Intel/AMD and Intel/Nvidia solution in the MBA. But the reality is at this point, we can't. And I know you want Apple to switch to AMD, but I don't see that happening.
Is Intel a monopoly? Yes. Is it bad for consumers? Yep. Does that mean Apple should just leave the MBA stagnant for ~18 months and waste profit potential? Nope.
and let's judge the SB MBA if/when it comes out and we can see how it performs vs. the 320m.
