I predict the next MBP refresh will make the 13.3 MBA a hard sell

[doberman211]

i dont mean nonsense in understanding the chips i am fully capable in that its the companies. and don't knock my post because you think it sounds stupid because its not.

 

[Fraaaa]

Do you not understand that Apple isn't using Core i-series CPUs because it cannot use them without switching over to the Intel IGP as the graphics solution and an Intel chipset, or use a discrete GPU. Apple loves the Nvidia GPU/chipset, but Intel is trying to bully Nvidia out and force Apple to use Intel's IGP and chipset.

Apple would definitely prefer using Core i-series CPUs as people want them, but it doesn't want to stick its users with only the Intel IGP as the sole graphics non-solution. When Apple switches beyond C2D it will have to use Intel's IGP, or a discrete GPU, or AMDs CPU/GPU/chipset.

Intel's marketing is making everyone think they need a Core series CPU, but Apple is looking out for its Mac users whether they know it or not. We are much better off with a C2D CPU and Nvidia 320m than we are with a Core i7 CPU and Intel's IGP as the sole graphics non-solution.

Any ways back to the point, Apple cannot use the Nvidia 320m along with a Core i-series CPU unless it negotiates a deal to allow Nvidia to make GPUs/chipsets to work with Core i-series CPUs. It isn't likely as Intel is playing big dog/unfairly.

Am I wrong that Sandy Bridge will solve this problem?

 

[aberrero]

Yes.

Sandy bridge is the same design/problem as arrandale. The only real difference is that the integrated graphics on sandy bridge are quite a bit faster, so maybe Apple will choose to just use the integrated.

 

[Fraaaa]

Yes.

Sandy bridge is the same design/problem as arrandale. The only real difference is that the integrated graphics on sandy bridge are quite a bit faster, so maybe Apple will choose to just use the integrated.

Well, if the new IGP is still under performing compare to the current cards that Apple ships I think they hardly will make the switch.

 

[Scottsdale]

Am I wrong that Sandy Bridge will solve this problem?

Yes, you are wrong. You are reading a bunch of irrelevant crap about how Intel's IGP does on Windows. OpenGL is about 4x more capable on Windows than OS X. Windows has graphics figured out way better than OS X does. Windows systems can use less graphical power and produce a way better solution than OS X can with more powerful graphics. It takes a 320m GPU to run OS X about the same as Intel's IGP does on Windows. If Apple were to only use Sandy Bridge IGP with OS X, we would get about 1/3 to 1/4 the graphics performance that we get with the current Nvidia 320m. Intel's IGP works much much better on Windows.

Until Apple improves its system, drivers, and OpenGL performance issues and catches up with Windows, it will take a more powerful GPU to give OS X the same type of performance capabilities. I am not just talking games here, as Apple has had problems with Intel's IGP in the past. The original MBA with its Intel 3100 IGP couldn't even play a video without overheating. People had to go buy CoolBook and undervolt their CPUs also. The bottom line is Apple needs to spend some of its $50B to improve the graphics system in OS X if it wants to use Intel's low end IGP in low end Macs.

The bottom line is, do not believe anything you read about Intel's IGP in terms of how it would perform on OS X until you see actual research of real Macs running OS X with Intel's IGP. SJ even came out and said that users were much better off with C2D and Nvidia GPUs rather than losing massive graphics performance by downgrading to Intel's IGP. Now, if you want an MBA and plan to run Windows 7 on it, sure the Intel IGP will be great. However, if you want to run OS X on your $1800 MBA you need a real GPU that isn't on board the Core i-series CPUs.

In addition, that can be proved in the past by running Windows on an original MBA... it ran graphics intensive stuff fine until OS X was challenged to do the same tasks. We also see it with stuff like Adobe Flash. Before Apple allowed the low-level h.264 access, Adobe's Flash ran 4x faster in Windows on the exact same Macs. The same thing can be seen in gaming. It's not that the Intel IGP itself is crap, but it's crap when paired with OS X right now. Until that all changes, you don't want an Intel IGP with your MBA.

 

[molala]

I know they're all the same size but for me the three 13" laptops are very different. My perfect machine would have been the 13" MBP with an anti-glare option. Or the MBA with a kensington lock slot. People have different priorities and are willing to compromise different things, that's what keeps the three lines selling.

MBP - for people who like glass, firewire, SD card slot, kensington lock, backlit keyboard, optical drive
MBA - glass-less screen, light weight, SD card slot
MB - for people who like the classic Apple white plastic, kensington lock, optical drive

 

[KPOM]

Yes, you are wrong. You are reading a bunch of irrelevant crap about how Intel's IGP does on Windows. OpenGL is about 4x more capable on Windows than OS X. Windows has graphics figured out way better than OS X does. Windows systems can use less graphical power and produce a way better solution than OS X can with more powerful graphics. It takes a 320m GPU to run OS X about the same as Intel's IGP does on Windows. If Apple were to only use Sandy Bridge IGP with OS X, we would get about 1/3 to 1/4 the graphics performance that we get with the current Nvidia 320m. Intel's IGP works much much better on Windows.

What are the main issues? Why is Windows so much better than OS X at graphics? Is it Quartz? Is it Apple's reliance on OpenCL? Was Microsoft just that good when it developed DirectX?

 

[fyrefly]

Yes, you are wrong. You are reading a bunch of irrelevant crap about how Intel's IGP does on Windows... If Apple were to only use Sandy Bridge IGP with OS X, we would get about 1/3 to 1/4 the graphics performance that we get with the current Nvidia 320m. Intel's IGP works much much better on Windows.

While you're definitely correct that Windows Graphics Drivers are much more mature and refined than OSX's, I'm seriously doubting that you can accurately claim that Sandy Bridge IGPs will be 1/4 the performance of the 320m with OSX. Especially since you later say:

The bottom line is, do not believe anything you read about Intel's IGP in terms of how it would perform on OS X until you see actual research of real Macs running OS X with Intel's IGP.

Should you then follow your own advice and wait to see what the OSX drivers for the Sandy Bridge Graphics are like?

I would *love* it if Intel would get down off their high horse and drop their monopolistic lawsuit against NVidia. Is that gonna happen? Nope. Nvidia has even given up on making Chipsets to support Intel processors now. I also disagree that Apple will move to an AMD-based solution, even for part of their laptop lineup. I don't see them switching camps like that - as Intel would probably screw them out of the higher end chips if they went to AMD for the lower-end/mobile chips.

I also think Arrandale's IGP was "good enough" for the 15/17" MBP, when it was combined with a Discrete 330M Nvidia chip. But honestly, for 90% of regular surfing, e-mailing, word processing (which is what the MBA is generally designed for) the Intel IGP will be more than sufficient (especially if Apple can fix it's drivers).

Commenters in this MBP i5/i7 thread have said the Arrandale "HD Graphics" on the MBP perform at about 50% of the level of the 9400m. Als note that this is using OSX.

If Sandy Bridge's IGP performs twice as well as the Arrandale IGP (as Anandtech says it should), then we could conceivably get 9400m-level graphics performance out of the Sandy Bridge IGP, working at less the power requirements as the separate C2D+320M TDP. (SL9600+320m = ~25W TDP). i7-2600UM processors are said to be 18W TDP.

Would I *prefer* a discrete NVidia choice? Yep. But Core2Duos are EOL-ing as of Q1'2011 and Apple's gonna need to move to something... I think Sandy Bridge will be enough of a performance boost (both CPU and GPU) to compromise with no Nvidia/AMD chipset.