Intel GMA HD - thoughts on use in MBA?

[MacModMachine]

i do believe putting in intel HD (even though its comparable to the 9400M ) is a step backwards.

i will have to call it quits on the air if they throw in intel video.

 

[spaceballl]

I think this graphics chip is an inevitability for the MBA. Apple's top priority with this thing is to get it as thin as possible. For 80% of the people out there, the intel integrated graphics chip is all they need, and by using this, Apple no longer needs an extra discreet chip, helping them cut down on power usage / space usage / heat. I'd love an even thinner MBA with better battery life. That's my focus, not "gaming," which to be fair, sucks on a MBA even w/ the 9400M. I have an iPhone / PS3 for gaming. I don't need a MacBook Air for one.

 

[Scottsdale]

You keep missing my point, don't you? Which is: Would you critically analyze performance figures (or other types of reports) no matter what their conclusions were?

Don't bother replying as you'll miss the point of this post too.

Do I have to reply to every point in your whole post? No. Your whole point is the loss of graphics power. My whole point is that Apple has downgraded components in the past.

But then again, nothing in your last post refutes my point.

And no, my 4 GB of RAM comment has nothing to do with your quote, if you even read my post.

Whatever you might think, I wish Intel had an IGP that could compete with anything Nvidia has to offer. There is no conspiracy here to lower Intel's stock price. I wish the inclusion of the IGP with Arrandale CPUs could offer the same performance as even Nvidia's 9400m (15-month-old). If Intel could compete, even closely, it would be advantageous to stick with 25W TDP between both the CPU and IGP. For example, the Core i7 CPU that may replace the current MBA CPU is 25W including IGP over the current MBA at 17W Penryn + 12W Nvidia GPU. Obviously saving 4W would be advantageous and promote better battery life/lower usage. The problem is not only is Intel's IGP a possible 60% loss in performance, its loss is over a 15-month-old GPU.

It's too bad that Intel's IGP with Core architecture CPUs is essentially a joke. I believe the real results would show/prove that, but I definitely hope I don't get a chance to prove you wrong. For me it is all about the actual results not what we're hopeful for. Intel has been a poor performer in the past when it comes to its IGP; it's not like I am just making this up as I go. Apple moved to Nvidia to improve the graphics performance by 5x. When it did that, it furthered the concept by integrating OpenCL and Grand Central Dispatch into its OS (Snow Leopard) to further take advantage of cores and untapped processing power.

While Apple could decide to "downgrade" with Intel and its IGP, I don't think there is any merit for assuming it has done this in the past with regards to something it has invested so heavily in. Apple has marketed not only its Macs but also its OS in taking advantage of the graphics, so "downgrading" here would be confusing for certain. If it had not ever adopted Nvidia, and if it had never developed Snow Leopard to take advantage of untaped power in the graphics system, then maybe Intel's IGP would make sense. This is more than a downgrade, it's a huge loss of system performance.

Like I said before, I can see another Core 2 Duo with Nvidia or a new Core i7 with an ATI solution, before I see Apple downgrading the MBA so far. Remember that Apple will probably migrate all Macs (except Mac Pro) into the solution if it's a new one... as every Mac except the Mac Pro currently uses the 9400m. With the last iMac update, Apple showed its willingness to continue using the 9400m even though it was over a year old.

I even see leaving the MBA as is until it can figure out the correct decision to move forward with. Perhaps the rumors are true and Apple even required Intel to provide CPUs without its IGP. The IGP is going to end up being problematic for Intel in the long run, as it's anti-competitive for certain. Forcing Nvidia out is going to prove costly one way or another.

 

[Scottsdale]

i do believe putting in intel HD (even though its comparable to the 9400M ) is a step backwards.

i will have to call it quits on the air if they throw in intel video.

That's just it, the Intel IGP is NOT comparable to even the 15-month-old 9400m (that doesn't even consider a bump to its successor). There's no proof the MBA wouldn't suffer similar problems as did the original MBA. It's probably the end of the road for me too, if Apple only includes Intel's IGP. That's sad to say for certain. I will probably actually migrate over to Sony and Windows 7 when my current MBA becomes impractical versus other available PC ultraportables.

I think people aren't considering the fact that the MBA really is marketed towards being a primary computer for the business user who doesn't need a professional grade computer. We are the ones who will pay extra for the convenience of a lighter and thinner MBA. For me, I don't need the MBA to go thinner, have a smaller display, or weigh less. All I need is the capability for the MBA to remain my primary computer that can do all of my computing needs - AS MY CURRENT MBA CAN PERFORM. It cannot go backwards.

If the MBA's price tag was sub-$1000, and if the tablet wasn't being produced, the Intel IGP direction could make sense if the MBA was changed to market to those wanting a secondary Mac. I still think people are confusing the fact that so many ended up with the MBA being their secondary Mac because Apple dumped them for $999; they're all missing the point that a $1799 MBA isn't marketed as a secondary Mac.

 

[Scottsdale]

Neither. Maybe you guys are just bitter that you can't refute my arguments…and instead make other comments that have no relation to my points (or yours).

Honestly now, tell me if you own some Intel stock??? LMAO!!!

 

[iMacmatician]

Honestly now, tell me if you own some Intel stock??? LMAO!!!

I said "neither."

 

[jimboutilier]

- 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.

1) Where are the benchmarks that suggest a 60% loss in performance, or even some antidotal evidence?
2) As to long and naive posts, isn't that the pot calling the kettle black ;-)
3) My RevA was a great machine that never had any over heating or core shutdown issues and I never had any performance issues with it in daily business use for about a year. The new chipset is two generations beyond that so its hardly "back to the same thing" even if you were not happy with the original. And the RevC MBA is not 5x as capable as the RevA even if you only consider Video - which was by far the largest increase and is only 4x.
4) The new Intel GPU is OpenCL compliant and the few numbers I've seen indicate it produces about the same performance as what we have today and uses less power. Yes they could be lying.
5) I would expect a current cpu speed bump rather than a migration to Airedale this year on the MBA but other features are more important to me so it won't bother me one way or another as long as what I've read so far about it turns out to be anywhere close to true.

 

[jimboutilier]

Yeah, I thought the original MBA was a polarizing machine. It seems the NEXT one thats not announced or specced is even more controversial.

Even more ironic the few benchmarks/tests available that all show pretty good performance from the Intel GPU are considered evidence that its a poor performer.

Supposition posing as fact, opinion posing as analysis, ad homonym and intellectually dishonest attacks on the reasonable posts, and complete illogic. What a thread. Must be a full moon or something.

 

[Anonymous Freak]

Yeah, I thought the original MBA was a polarizing machine. It seems the NEXT one thats not announced or specced is even more controversial.

Even more ironic the few benchmarks/tests available that all show pretty good performance from the Intel GPU are considered evidence that its a poor performer.

Supposition posing as fact, opinion posing as analysis, ad homonym and intellectually dishonest attacks on the reasonable posts, and complete illogic. What a thread. Must be a full moon or something.

Yeah, I stopped arguing. You'd think this was an abortion debate......

 

[Scottsdale]

1) Where are the benchmarks that suggest a 60% loss in performance, or even some antidotal evidence?
2) As to long and naive posts, isn't that the pot calling the kettle black ;-)
3) My RevA was a great machine that never had any over heating or core shutdown issues and I never had any performance issues with it in daily business use for about a year. The new chipset is two generations beyond that so its hardly "back to the same thing" even if you were not happy with the original. And the RevC MBA is not 5x as capable as the RevA even if you only consider Video - which was by far the largest increase and is only 4x.
4) The new Intel GPU is OpenCL compliant and the few numbers I've seen indicate it produces about the same performance as what we have today and uses less power. Yes they could be lying.
5) I would expect a current cpu speed bump rather than a migration to Airedale this year on the MBA but other features are more important to me so it won't bother me one way or another as long as what I've read so far about it turns out to be anywhere close to true.

Your reply is quite unnecessarily accusatory and insulting... I am not going to reply to that anymore, as to say I hope I don't have to prove anyone right after tomorrow. Let's hope Apple is smarter than the consortium in this thread (myself included).

 

[robeddie]

Yeah, I thought the original MBA was a polarizing machine. It seems the NEXT one thats not announced or specced is even more controversial.

Even more ironic the few benchmarks/tests available that all show pretty good performance from the Intel GPU are considered evidence that its a poor performer.

Supposition posing as fact, opinion posing as analysis, ad homonym and intellectually dishonest attacks on the reasonable posts, and complete illogic. What a thread. Must be a full moon or something.

The main tests referenced in the first page of this thread indicated that the Intel GMA was a clear measure slower than the 9400, and on the one test where it was faster, that was because it lacked a bunch of the graphic detail that the 9400 produced.

There are plenty of people who only look at CPU performance and don't really care all that much about GPU performance, and that's fine. It's just that some of us here were hoping for an actual ADVANCE in GPU performance as well.

I bought the rev. B MBA because of the jump in graphics power. I would buy a newer model for the same reason.

So, all that some of us are saying is that a step back in graphics performance (or sideways if you're being really really generous with the Intel GMA) would be a deal killer for some of us who otherwise would be interested in buying the next model of the MBA.

 

[Thunder82]

The main tests referenced in the first page of this thread indicated that the Intel GMA was a clear measure slower than the 9400, and on the one test where it was faster, that was because it lacked a bunch of the graphic detail that the 9400 produced.

There are plenty of people who only look at CPU performance and don't really care all that much about GPU performance, and that's fine. It's just that some of us here were hoping for an actual ADVANCE in GPU performance as well.

I bought the rev. B MBA because of the jump in graphics power. I would buy a newer model for the same reason.

So, all that some of us are saying is that a step back in graphics performance (or sideways if you're being really really generous with the Intel GMA) would be a deal killer for some of us who otherwise would be interested in buying the next model of the MBA.

I agree with you 100%. While i still might consider buying a new Air (if it gets bumped to arrandale & 4GB of memory) I would still consider the GMA chip a big time downgrade.

I know we'll all see what happens in a few hours, but I'm just really hoping Apple has found a way to bypass all of this Intel mess.

 

[applesupergeek]

wow...you guys got your mac's in a twist....and right before a huge media event....


im very disappointed.

Sorry for that. We got our mac signals crossed, but some people are getting overly defensive of intel without bothering to reply to some valid points, and just muck about.

Your reply is quite unnecessarily accusatory and insulting... I am not going to reply to that anymore, as to say I hope I don't have to prove anyone right after tomorrow. Let's hope Apple is smarter than the consortium in this thread (myself included).

Ignore him buddy.

 

[Anonymous Freak]

Sorry for that. We got our mac signals crossed, but some people are getting overly defensive of intel without bothering to reply to some valid points, and just muck about.

Funny, I'm seeing the exact opposite. People going "INTEL GRAPHICS SUCKED THREE YEARS AGO, THEREFORE THEY SUCK NOW, BENCHMARKS ARE FAKED, APPLE WOULD BE STUPID BEYOND BELIEF TO GO WITH INTEL GRAPHICS! SHUT UP -- YOU ALL SUCK!"

Okay, not quite that bad. But like I said, it feels like an abortion debate in here.

 

[Scottsdale]

Ignore him buddy.

Yes, I most certainly will. I will never reply to any of his posts ever again. I obviously am not making anything up, as we all know where Intel has been and where it is now with its inferior IGP. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out that whether Intel's IGP is 30% slower or 60% slower than the 9400m, it's nowhere near where the Nvidia GPU was 15 months ago.

Today good news was no news at all about the MBA. I hope that Apple takes its time and comes up with the best solution that moves forward with "progress" and an MBA that we ALL can really love.

 

[jimboutilier]

Your reply is quite unnecessarily accusatory and insulting... I am not going to reply to that anymore, as to say I hope I don't have to prove anyone right after tomorrow. Let's hope Apple is smarter than the consortium in this thread (myself included).

When you frequently make extreme or controversial posts, stating suppositions, opinions and gross exaggerations as fact, without offering any proof and which available sources of facts seem to dispute, you should expect to be asked questions or corrected.

I made no accusations. I asked you for a data source for your claim of a 60% performance loss when the only common sources (even those in this thread) imply a vastly smaller performance difference.

You made a number of factual errors that are clearly disputed by Apples own specifications and I pointed those out.

I'm sorry if you don't like it or found it accusatory. I was merely questioning what appeared to be disinformation or correct facts that appeared to be in error. If I get a fact wrong (and have) I would expect someone to correct me (and they have) and if I make exaggerations or state opinions or suppositions as fact I would hope someone would call me on that as well.

 

[iMacmatician]

Your reply is quite unnecessarily accusatory and insulting... I am not going to reply to that anymore, as to say I hope I don't have to prove anyone right after tomorrow. Let's hope Apple is smarter than the consortium in this thread (myself included).

Translation: I disagree with those points, but can't refute them. But they're still wrong!

Sorry for that. We got our mac signals crossed, but some people are getting overly defensive of intel without bothering to reply to some valid points, and just muck about.

What? I addressed and refuted each and every one of your points (and Scottsdale's that I chose to address), you refuted none of my points, and started accusing me of ridiculous things!

Funny, I'm seeing the exact opposite. People going "INTEL GRAPHICS SUCKED THREE YEARS AGO, THEREFORE THEY SUCK NOW, BENCHMARKS ARE FAKED, APPLE WOULD BE STUPID BEYOND BELIEF TO GO WITH INTEL GRAPHICS! SHUT UP -- YOU ALL SUCK!"

Don't forget the huge conspiracy involving anyone who favors Intel in any way. The only fanboys in this thread are applesupergeek and Scottsdale, and their posts prove that.

When you frequently make extreme or controversial posts, stating suppositions, opinions and gross exaggerations as fact, without offering any proof and which available sources of facts seem to dispute, you should expect to be asked questions or corrected.

I made no accusations. I asked you for a data source for your claim of a 60% performance loss when the only common sources (even those in this thread) imply a vastly smaller performance difference.

You made a number of factual errors that are clearly disputed by Apples own specifications and I pointed those out.

I'm sorry if you don't like it or found it accusatory. I was merely questioning what appeared to be disinformation or correct facts that appeared to be in error. If I get a fact wrong (and have) I would expect someone to correct me (and they have) and if I make exaggerations or state opinions or suppositions as fact I would hope someone would call me on that as well.

Do you remember that time when he said he had "sources" that claimed a MacBook Air revamp in September 2009 or so, and when people doubted his source, he got mad and threw all kinds of accusations at them. Well we know how reliable that source was.

 

[Bosman]

Ok, I am throwing this out there and it no doubt could be turned into confetti within 2 posts buttttt. I was reading from my iPhone an article at tuaw.com that Jobs raved about how the processor screamed and the graphics were incredible...ok i only remember the screamed part but something was said about the graphics and it left me with an impression that maybe the air line could get a beefed up integrated chip from PMI Semi rather than do the Intel w/ integrated graphics. If the ipad is supposed to run an HD movie without a prob imagine what a beefier chip could do for the air...

 

[Anonymous Freak]

Ok, I am throwing this out there and it no doubt could be turned into confetti within 2 posts buttttt. I was reading from my iPhone an article at tuaw.com that Jobs raved about how the processor screamed and the graphics were incredible...ok i only remember the screamed part but something was said about the graphics and it left me with an impression that maybe the air line could get a beefed up integrated chip from PMI Semi rather than do the Intel w/ integrated graphics. If the ipad is supposed to run an HD movie without a prob imagine what a beefier chip could do for the air...

Even the highest-end 'integrated device' GPU pales in comparison to even the lowest-end 'integrated computer' GPU.

The only possible exception is the GPU in the low-end Atom netbooks. It's pretty bad. Even the ultra-mobile PCs (smaller than 'netbook',) have a GPU that is slightly better than the GPU in the standard Atom netbooks.

 

[Bosman]

Even the highest-end 'integrated device' GPU pales in comparison to even the lowest-end 'integrated computer' GPU.

The only possible exception is the GPU in the low-end Atom netbooks. It's pretty bad. Even the ultra-mobile PCs (smaller than 'netbook',) have a GPU that is slightly better than the GPU in the standard Atom netbooks.

Tell me then you have not seen the keynote before replying to me on this. I saw fast responsive hd graphics on a 1.5 lb device with every possible feature buit into one chip that pretty much blew my mind. Now take that new integrated speed/IO/GPU/CPU and beef it up for a large portable device then i imagine things are getting pretty amazing. Apple has stated in the video now that they are chip makers. I am thinking we will see more chips moving into more products if they are making that claim. I for one did not see stutter in any video they played. I for one wont rule it out either.

 

[Scottsdale]

Translation: I disagree with those points, but can't refute them. But they're still wrong!

What? I addressed and refuted each and every one of your points (and Scottsdale's that I chose to address), you refuted none of my points, and started accusing me of ridiculous things!

Don't forget the huge conspiracy involving anyone who favors Intel in any way. The only fanboys in this thread are applesupergeek and Scottsdale, and their posts prove that.

Do you remember that time when he said he had "sources" that claimed a MacBook Air revamp in September 2009 or so, and when people doubted his source, he got mad and threw all kinds of accusations at them. Well we know how reliable that source was.

Not true. What I said was that my source had revealed some prototype information and that I expected it to be accurate. I even remember that it was "thought to be" a MacBook Air that was shaped "differently," it was plastic or carbon fiber and thought to have an Atom or ULV CPU. It definitely wasn't the MBA I wanted! Why would I make that CRAP up? It might have been the next MB or maybe not. Irrelevant. It was the wrong information for the MBA and the timing wasn't even right. Perhaps that exact MBA is coming out tomorrow! You don't know! I don't know. It doesn't matter!

However, I had a good reason to trust my source. The prior release of the 24" LED ACD, my friend had almost exactly described to me BEFORE the release. He described the new 24" or 27" LED ACD that would incorporate "docking station like" functionality; it happened nearly exactly a few days later. My friend also said "different" sized displays were either coming out or "different" sized iMacs were coming out... didn't happen until October 2009 iMac update! BUT IT DID HAPPEN EVENTUALLY! The information from the October update that I thought might be correct wasn't, and I fully admitted it 100%. So what's wrong with that? I learned my lesson, and I am not sharing any "perceived factual" information that I receive from that source with anyone here publicly ever again. I will continue sharing with members that I communicate with via PM or email. None of which have criticized me for sharing "wrong" information.

What I have also learned is some prototype information never makes it to the final launch. I have even been told Apple will put real parts inside fake cases and totally trick any unsuspecting person. Maybe the source is seeing that and deciding the wrong ones that are supposedly real.

In all truth, my source has correctly identified about 35% of what was actually on specific products as to their dates released, but has been about 75% accurate on accessory products that go with the computers. And my source is the family member of someone that works at Apple on keyboards, mice, displays, and etc. It's all second-hand/hearsay and I even disclosed that.

I actually believe my source shared truthful information about what the next MBP is going to be updated with, but I am not going to share that with anyone because it MIGHT be wrong; then you will come on here and imply that I am "fabricating" information. That's certainly not correct, I may be listening to the wrong information, but I didn't pull it out my arse! In addition, I have NO DATES FOR ANYTHING! It's all stuff seen on campus. It's not like someone is opening a box a week before and listing the specs from the side and sending me a list... and I never implied that.

What about all of the analysts and insiders who get their wrong information all of the time... do you go tell them they're liars and require them to site their sources! BAD INFORMATION HAPPENS! GET OVER IT! Go tell off John Gruber or the New York Times the next time they post information that they think is correct but eventually is revealed to be incorrect! It's not a crime to be wrong about what information you choose to believe. It might make you lose credibility for future predictions if you keep getting it wrong over and over again.

Bottom line, lesson learned... I won't share with you. Now go make your derogatory statements elsewhere. Quite frankly, it's disgusting! It's disgusting that if I don't want to reply to bogus ridiculous crap, from people who think Intel's IGP is equivalent in any way to the 9400m, I get called out. My ridiculous move is trusting a source that doesn't know facts and sharing information that might be correct or might not. Bottom line, I am 100% correct that Intel's IGP is NOT EQUIVALENT to Nvidia's 9400m. What percent is the Intel IGP behind? Does it matter? I say 50 to 60% processing power behind. Maybe you think my information is incorrect, but I am not calling you a liar for believing what you do. I just plain think you're wrong. That's it! I am not going to try to ruin your name or reputation over it! Intel will come up with some skewd number and some people will believe it... go ahead, be that way. The only way we will be able to figure the EXACT PERCENTAGE of the differences between the graphics is to get a MBA with a C2D and an MBA with its Core i# and list all of the graphics benchmarks. When considering these "facts" you're seeing in calling the 9400m and Core i# IGP "EQUIVALENT," are you also reading OS X as the OS used to benchmark? That's another huge flaw with your concept of these two chips being the same. Compared to Windows, Mac is incredibly inefficient at running video playback, Flash, and etc. So only providing Windows results is NOT the proper way to compare graphics on OS X.

And I don't know why anyone would say the Intel IGP included with Arrandale is EQUIVALENT in ANY WAY to the 9400m or its successor. It's not! And the article listed at the start of this thread doesn't say that either. Finally, I don't have to document every article I read stating Intel sucks and site my source to you.

I agree to disagree with you. I don't care that you are on the other side of the fence. That's your own issue. I am passionate about the MBA, and I don't want its capabilities lost by trusting Intel's graphics again. I don't want to prove you wrong, as I don't want to see the Arrandale and its IGP as the only solution in the mBA. I would pray to God you're right if Apple puts only Intel's IGP in the next MBA. Finally, I admit when I make mistakes, and ever replying to you in the first place was a BIG MISTAKE as it simply wasn't worth my time.

 

[Scottsdale]

Ok, I am throwing this out there and it no doubt could be turned into confetti within 2 posts buttttt. I was reading from my iPhone an article at tuaw.com that Jobs raved about how the processor screamed and the graphics were incredible...ok i only remember the screamed part but something was said about the graphics and it left me with an impression that maybe the air line could get a beefed up integrated chip from PMI Semi rather than do the Intel w/ integrated graphics. If the ipad is supposed to run an HD movie without a prob imagine what a beefier chip could do for the air...

I absolutely believe that, and I have suggested that as a possibility. At this point, the iPad looks pretty incredible given a 1GHz Apple A4 and whatever graphics it is using (has that been disclosed)??? I completely believe that Apple's dream is to cut out Intel completely with its own chips for all of its Macs, iPods, and iPhones. I suppose even that the MBA might be the first Mac to have an Apple designed CPU.

I believe that an Apple solution could be lightyears ahead of Intel's Arrandale with only IGP. I do think we're a year off from that happening. However, we could see one last Penryn C2D update with Nvidia for the MBA and low end MBPs. Then that would give Apple eight months to determine the best way to deal with the Intel IGP "problem." It might take longer than that, but Apple needs to give itself time and demand that Intel provide CPUs without IGPs that are CRAP! Yes, I will call the Intel Arrandale IGP crap because no matter what it's worse than the 15-month-old Nvidia 9400m... and nobody should have to go 15-months backwards AND BEYOND for tech in a new computer!

 

[iMacmatician]

What about all of the analysts and insiders who get their wrong information all of the time... do you go tell them they're liars and require them to site their sources! BAD INFORMATION HAPPENS! GET OVER IT!

They do not get mad when someone doubts the validity of their sources, or even the sources themselves (as what happens all the time in forums). Unlike you.

Bottom line, lesson learned... I won't share with you. Now go make your derogatory statements elsewhere.

Pot calling the kettle black (as you see I am not the first to say that to you), especially when both kettles aren't even black.

Quite frankly, it's disgusting!

Obviously you can't respectfully disagree with anyone with a different opinion from yours, especially if it's MBA related, calling them "disgusting" and such. You know what that reminds me of? Yeah, those posts concerning your "source" before September.

I say 50 to 60% processing power behind.

Exactly. Throwing out your own opinion. Link me to a source that says that. Remember, I used to state 9400M = 2x GMA HD = 4x previous GMA, and yes that was from a source (which was fairly old and that's why I've stopped saying it).

Maybe you think my information is incorrect, but I am not calling you a liar for believing what you do. I just plain think you're wrong.

Not necessarily incorrect. Just unsourced.

Intel will come up with some skewd number and some people will believe it... go ahead, be that way.

Didn't I mention independent reviewers in that one post?

The only way we will be able to figure the EXACT PERCENTAGE of the differences between the graphics is to get a MBA with a C2D and an MBA with its Core i# and list all of the graphics benchmarks.

Nobody is asking for exact percentages. We are asking for approximate percentages. A range of 10% is good enough.

And I don't know why anyone would say the Intel IGP included with Arrandale is EQUIVALENT in ANY WAY to the 9400m or its successor.

Because they have looked up sources?

Finally, I don't have to document every article I read stating Intel sucks and site my source to you.

So give a few instead. Articles will help me; long posts won't.

I agree to disagree with you. I don't care that you are on the other side of the fence. That's your own issue.

Where in this thread have I advocated the use of the Intel IGP in the MBA?

I am passionate about the MBA,

To the point of fanboyism.

Finally, I admit when I make mistakes, and ever replying to you in the first place was a BIG MISTAKE as it simply wasn't worth my time.

Good, so you won't reply to this post. Or for that matter, why did you make this post anyway?

Likewise, I'm done here. (At least that's what I hope, because I don't want to waste my time with irrational fanboys.) I'll just quote one of the most reasoned posts in the last two pages.

Yeah, I thought the original MBA was a polarizing machine. It seems the NEXT one thats not announced or specced is even more controversial.

Even more ironic the few benchmarks/tests available that all show pretty good performance from the Intel GPU are considered evidence that its a poor performer. Not just a poor performer but a very poor performer

Supposition posing as fact, opinion posing as analysis, ad homonym and intellectually dishonest attacks on the reasonable posts, and complete illogic. What a thread. Must be a full moon or something.

 

[alxths]

Can't everyone just find some common ground? We'd all like to have the best performance possible for the lowest price possible. If this next update doesn't provide much of a performance boost, that's unfortunate, but at least there are other options out there.

Who remembers the good ol' G4 days? I paid around $2400 after taxes for a 12" powerbook whose performance was atrocious compared to what the PC world could offer. It was worth it then, because OS X was much more pleasant to use than windows, not to mention that apple seemed to be the only company at the time that knew how to design elegant notebooks.

At least now, even with integrated graphics, the MBA will still be a very capable computer compared to what else is available. Personally, I'd rather see a price cut than an ATi or nvidia gpu. And if I don't like the next update, at least the PC makers have learned a thing or two about aesthetics at this point.. not to mention that windows 7 is just as usable as OS X.

 

[Bosman]

I absolutely believe that, and I have suggested that as a possibility. At this point, the iPad looks pretty incredible given a 1GHz Apple A4 and whatever graphics it is using (has that been disclosed)??? I completely believe that Apple's dream is to cut out Intel completely with its own chips for all of its Macs, iPods, and iPhones. I suppose even that the MBA might be the first Mac to have an Apple designed CPU.

I believe that an Apple solution could be lightyears ahead of Intel's Arrandale with only IGP. I do think we're a year off from that happening. However, we could see one last Penryn C2D update with Nvidia for the MBA and low end MBPs. Then that would give Apple eight months to determine the best way to deal with the Intel IGP "problem." It might take longer than that, but Apple needs to give itself time and demand that Intel provide CPUs without IGPs that are CRAP! Yes, I will call the Intel Arrandale IGP crap because no matter what it's worse than the 15-month-old Nvidia 9400m... and nobody should have to go 15-months backwards AND BEYOND for tech in a new computer!

I believe it was the very last part of the keynote when sj ran a video that had his team of developers state everything was on one chip. The statement about apple now being chip makers was not tounge in cheek in my opinion. It's kinda like someone going to the store and buying a sweet camera with pro lenses and saying they are pro photographers. No, I think Apple was sending a message to the world at many points in that video. I think it was the last 10 min.