Saw this review/article on bit-tech regarding the new arrandale GMA HD GPU.
Link What do you guys think about this being the GPU for the MBA? Seems like a much better jump from the older integrated GMA chips, but still not quite up to par with the 9400.
As far as I see it, this looks like the only option for notebooks that don't have the space or ability to dissipate the heat of a dedicated card. Unless I'm missing something..?
So the MBA wouldn't be able to drive the 30" Apple Cinema Display. Bad solution all around. This would be a terrible option for Apple to go with.
No. It's horrible.
The 9400M makes the Air a capable gaming system. Hell, I run CoD: MW2 on this thing with high texture settings and get no frame drops.
With the Intel GMA HD, I can forget about running any games at all. I can forget about CUDA or OpenCL also.
Using Intel video cards is a cheap method for notebooks designed not to be gaming systems or for the business world. They have a relatively low power consumption and less heat generation. However, if you look at the lower end video cards such as 9400M or even 9300M, they have nearly the same trade off but much better performance. However the pricing would be a lot higher vs the Intel Options.
You're right. The whole point Apple went with Nvidia chipsets and GPU was to take advantage of OpenCL and other technologies it developed with Snow Leopard. Is Apple really going to throw its hard work out the window and accept the IGP? I don't think so.
I think they should disable the on-chip GPU and stick with the 9400m. If there was any way to get them to work together, that would be awesome.
Not possible with Core series CPUs. Intel claims Nvidia has no license to create for its Core architecture CPUs, and Nvidia accepted Intel's decision and quit making chipsets for anything beyond Penryn Core 2 Duo CPUs.
That article was the reason I initially posted.. what do you think about it?
I was hoping that this new chip would be a bit better for gaming. I realize that 3DMark isn't the end all, but it gets a better 3dmark05 score than the 9400m. Wonder if better drivers would allow this chip to perform better & really open up its potential?
Would it really be better for ANYTHING? We gain 20% theoretical CPU boost and lose nearly 60% of graphics power... What about taking advantage of the GPU and utilizing OpenCL and other tech? Could Apple's OS X really perform better than Windows even? Has Apple ever been king at writing great drivers? When we compare the 9400m between Windows 7 and OS X, Windows shows massive improvements over OS X. In my opinion, Apple doesn't write good drivers... most of the time.
It's better than the old Intel GMA 4500MHD. That's about it to be honest. It'll pass for HD playback and battery life but no games.
That's the problem though. Would it really pass for HD playback within OS X? Remember the original MBA? Remember the problems with the 3100 and Merom CPU? I don't think HD playback is guaranteed with the 4500HD and OS X.
I guess whether it is good or bad depends entirely on what you use your MBA for. The gamers (as noted above) are probably not going to be too happy. As for me, if it causes it to run a little cooler so I get less fan noise and uses less power so I can get a few more minutes out the battery I will be quite pleased.
Will you really be pleased if your MBA cannot playback an HD movie? What about the future, do you really want to lose the whole point we "upgraded" to Snow Leopard for? If OpenCL cannot take full advantage, you lose more than just a video game. We're not just talking video games and video playback people, we're talking about a system that is technologically behind the MBA introduced in October 2008. What about all of the apps that will be written in the future that don't focus on graphics but still could utilize the 9400m for its processing capabilities.
Make no mistake about it... and don't believe Intel, this is a huge step in the WRONG direction. It will severely limit the MBA's capabilities and the future of the MBA.
From the review, it doesn't look to be AS bad as I would've thought based on people's posts around here..
One thing I'm not clear on though, is whether or not the processers in the system with the 9400m in that review are equivalent to those with the intel GMA setup? From what I can, the ones using the nvidia GPU have slower, C2D chips? So an i5/7 with the 9400m should be substantially better than the numbers posted in that review.
I think you're reading into the review exactly what Intel wants you to think. If Apple goes along with this, we are all screwed... except those of us who just want to use the MBA for writing a book and reading email. Even Flash was torture to the first MBA with its Intel integrated graphics. If you think this solution isn't bad, you're not seeing the whole picture.
Remember, 9400M is now two years old. Yes, there are faster options now, but the integrated graphics in the laptop i3/i5/i7 are roughly equivalent. Any games that run on 9400M will run on "Intel HD Graphics", minus a single-percent frame rate in some games, and even plus a single-percent frame rate in others.
You are reading what they want you to believe. The Intel IGP is at least a 60% loss in complete capabilities over the "15-month old" not two year old 9400m.
Okay, let's say it is OpenCL compliant, if the processing capabilities are 60% lower, what do you think that means for how it takes advantage of OpenCL? Means it will do 40% of what the 9400m would do.
Your post was too long and too naive. You're going to lose a hell of a lot more than the "nothing" you have described. Intel wants you to believe this too. It's simply not true. HD video playback, MAYBE on OS X... we don't know. Remember that OS X is not as capable as Windows at many things.
I pray to God that nobody at Apple was as naive as you when deciding what to do about the graphics problem with Intel's Core architecture. We all better hope that Apple figured out that a dedicated ATI solution might cost more but would be the only thing not going backwards to the tech used before the 9400m was implemented in the MBA. It's not just the MBA we're talking about here people. Apple uses the 9400m in every Mac except the Mac Pro!
This is a big problem. What we saw Apple do to counter this problem in the iMacs was to continue utilizing Penryn CPUs on its lower end offerings. It did this so it could continue taking advantage of the Nvidia 9400m. It has invested heavily into the technologies capable of the 9400m, and it's not just going to throw it away.
I will HAPPILY take Penryn at 2.13 GHz with Nvidia's 9400m or any new Nvidia solution (like 105m) over Arrandale CPU with Intel's IGP as sole graphics solution. And you all should study this a hell of a lot more if you think Intel's IGP will be acceptable for anything more than using your MBA as a word processor!
- 1 MILLION... I am speaking for the fans who don't know any better here... those who haven't read about this... those who don't want to accept what Intel says as gospel... those who want someone to stand up for their MBA's future and are too busy to do it for themselves.
If Apple goes with this in the MBA, there better be a BTO option allowing a real graphics solution to be in the higher end MBA.
I can just see it now... going back to the same thing we had with the original MBA... and all the hours I preached for people to not fall into the same trap as I did. The hours spent explaining why NOT to buy the original MBA and to instead spend a little more and get the machine that was 5x as capable
Apple will not do this. It makes no sense. Sticking with Penryn and Nvidia makes far more sense for this last update... until it gives Apple ample time to figure out how to move forward with the next update.
