New faster, Intel ULV CPUs in Core i3, i5, i7 variants announced. Will MBA get one?

[ermir4444]

I think the only way the MacBook Air will get updated during WWDC is a MAJOR REVISION and most likely a CASE REDESIGN. If it was to get the minor update it would have happened with the MBP update in April or with the white MacBook in May.

Apple needs to do a CASE REDESIGN, and redesign the heat-sink in order to have a Arrandale ULV or maybe LV processor and an ATI card with a bigger battery.

I think the only reason MB Air has such a bad battery life is due to ununiform thickness of the case. The battery sits on the thinnest part. In order for Apple to improve on this is to make a uniformly thick MacBook Air like the 13" MacBook Pro but with 0.5 thickness (barely bigger than a USB slot).Think a much thinner MacBook Pro 13" This case would have a lot of advantages:

1 - Better Processor i5 or i7 and dedicated ATI GPU (better heat-sink due to more volume inside the case and maybe 2 fans)
2 - Better battery life (More space inside the case for a much better battery)
3 - More ports ( Since the case is uniform you could have 2 usb ports in the side and maybe an sd card slot and battery metter)

Imagine Jobs coming on stage and saying we have a much thinner MacBook Air (0.5 vs 0.76) with a much faster processor (i5, i7) and killer graphics (ATI dedicated) with a 7 hour battery life. I mean people will sell kidneys to buy this thing. Can someone do a quick photoshop on a 0,5" thick MacBook pro with all the ports except firewire, ethernet and dvd drive.

 

[halledise]

Apple isn't going to go backwards to a "PATA" HDD. It would use SATA-II just as it has with v 2,1 MBAs.

I absolutely disagree that Apple would have two completely different chipsets. This is what you're suggesting, and that makes zero sense from a cost perspective. It costs more to keep two product run setups possible. It costs more to buy half of two different products. It costs more to integrate drivers from two different sets of hardware. It costs more to keep OS X upgraded with double the products to keep current.

If Apple has to solder RAM to the board even, it will probably just have one board with same RAM amounts in both low-end and high-end MBA.

Sorry, but we can look at how efficient Apple's MacFive is and how Apple uses one system to keep as many customers happy as possible. It actually would cost more money to make two different MBA's as you're suggesting than just to give every would be low-end MBA the same components as used in high-end model. This just isn't the way Apple does business, and we can see it with all of its Macs. Hell, Apple uses one strategy across five Macs to maximize its economies of scale advantages.

I see low-end and high-end MBAs as differing from each other by CPU clock speed with two CPUs that fit in same board, multiple drive sizes, maybe RAM if RAM slots, and other components not soldered to the logic board.

A C2D MBA means both get C2D and Nvidia GPUs. A Core i7 MBA means both get Core i-series CPUs and the same chipset. Now there could be a Core i5 in low-end and Core i7 in high-end but both would use same exact chipset.

Apple is king at ROI and that means one process and one component setup for as many Macs as possible.

point taken.

 

[tim100]

Hi there. Long time no see. Nice to see you back here.

Hey, you're thanking the wrong person for posting this thread. According to Timmy100 he or she deserves the credit for posting this as was posted with a link to a post 12 minutes before my thread creation of the topic. Nevermind that there was no information and just a link with his, he was indeed FIRST.

You should actually be thanking TimTom100 or maybe thank Engadget if you want to thank who truly posted this information FIRST.

In fact, I think MacRumors should delete this thread and credit it to Jim100.

LMAO!

Nice to see you again!

thanks.

 

[jdechko]

The lower energy requirements of the Nvidia 320m could allow Apple to de-throttle the SL9x00 OR give it same performance and permit maybe an extra 15% battery performance between charges. In addition, I was thinking what about throttling the Nvidia 320m. We don't need full performance of the 320m on the MBA. Even if it were a true 20% bump over the 9400m at full clock speed it would be a great experience for the MBA.

I view those updates to be the minimum that Apple can get away with for the Air. I think it would be a great update if they did all of that.

As an AAPL shareholder, I would be irritated to know Apple isn't updating its Macs when the tech is available just because it wants to focus its energy on the damned iPad and iPhone OS.

As an AAPL shareholder, I'd be irritated if I thought Apple wasn't making decisions to increase it's profits. Shareholders should be interested in Apple making lots of money (by staying relevant). You're both a shareholder and a very interested customer. You're speaking more as an Apple consumer (or borderline fanboy--but that isn't meant to be a slam at you).

 

[ludavico]

Agreed. Not earth-shattering, but good enough. Like the prices too.

 

[Jobsian]

Aaaah, yes, i saw this press release by intel earlier and immediately thought of this forum, great stuff! Excellent discussion so far

I think the only way the MacBook Air will get updated during WWDC is a MAJOR REVISION and most likely a CASE REDESIGN. If it was to get the minor update it would have happened with the MBP update in April or with the white MacBook in May.

Apple needs to do a CASE REDESIGN, and redesign the heat-sink in order to have a Arrandale ULV or maybe LV processor and an ATI card with a bigger battery.

I think the only reason MB Air has such a bad battery life is due to ununiform thickness of the case. The battery sits on the thinnest part. In order for Apple to improve on this is to make a uniformly thick MacBook Air like the 13" MacBook Pro but with 0.5 thickness (barely bigger than a USB slot).Think a much thinner MacBook Pro 13" This case would have a lot of advantages:

1 - Better Processor i5 or i7 and dedicated ATI GPU (better heat-sink due to more volume inside the case and maybe 2 fans)
2 - Better battery life (More space inside the case for a much better battery)
3 - More ports ( Since the case is uniform you could have 2 usb ports in the side and maybe an sd card slot and battery metter)

Imagine Jobs coming on stage and saying we have a much thinner MacBook Air (0.5 vs 0.76) with a much faster processor (i5, i7) and killer graphics (ATI dedicated) with a 7 hour battery life. I mean people will sell kidneys to buy this thing. Can someone do a quick photoshop on a 0,5" thick MacBook pro with all the ports except firewire, ethernet and dvd drive.

This closely mirrors my thoughts.

I'll be honest, I want a major revision, but in the past I hadn't predicted one realistically lest I be disappointed, however now I truly believe it to be a more likely option than a minor revision, some of the reasons mentioned here and in other threads.

My own preference is for the strongest ultra low voltage processor Core-i7 because of it's low tdp and subsequently heat. I want to be able to use the air COMFORTABLY. I don't always have my notebooks on hard table tops. Lap surfing, bed surfing, sofa surfing, etc

Remember, these aren't only more powerful than C2Ds by the numerical clock speed but also by their 30% clock-per-clock gains.

I think we may see one. I certainly hope it!

As for an ATI card, well I would enormously desire one, I think the actual chances are somewhat low but I really, truly hope I'm wrong

 

[halledise]

probably a naive query, but how come everyone specifies the i7 all the time and the i5 and i3's don't even get a look-in?

 

[tim100]

i want bettet battery life 10 hrs and a glass track pad. how many think the ipad is the mba replacement?

 

[fyrefly]

probably a naive query, but how come everyone specifies the i7 all the time and the i5 and i3's don't even get a look-in?

'Cause the i3 and i5 UM processors are all clocked at ~1Ghz. And Turbo boost makes them up to 1.5-1.86Ghz, so it's hardly an upgrade (plus, with the intrgrated "Intel HD Graphics" thrown into the chip - the graphics are a DOWNgrade from the 9400M).

All this talk of a 9X00ULV update with Nvidia 320M puzzle's me. If that update was to happen - it would have happened already - IMHO. When the so-called "MacFive" went 9400M, all the Portables went at the same time.

Since Apple has not updated the MBA (when it's even updated the MacBook with the 320M) I'm hoping that they've been holding out for the 660UM-type chips to do something better with.

EDIT: I also don't this that the MBA is a competitor for the iPad. Two different interfaces and two different ways of computing. How many here have a MBA and an iPad? I do. And they're both great for DIFFERENT reasons, IMHO. The MBA is a real computer with full Mac OSX - and the iPad (which I love dearly) is still in it's infancy (at least, productivity software-wise). I'm a writer - as I suspect many who have MBAs are - and I can work for HOURS on my MBA - not on the iPad. The iPad is great, but just not "there" yet. I can definitely see the two lines merging sometime down the line - but right now they serve different niches, imho.

 

[halledise]

ArsTechnica's Point of View - Don't Hold Your Breath

'New Intel ULV processors still a bad fit for MacBook Air'
By Chris Foresman

Intel finally took the wraps off its latest ULV mobile processors, aimed directly at the ultra-thin portable category. However, these new processors don't present a clear upgrade path for the MacBook Air, leaving Apple with no good choices to make when it comes to refreshing its own ultra-thin laptop.

The most likely candidate from Intel's latest Core i3, i5, and i7 mobile processors is the Core i5-540UM. Though its nominal speed rating is only 1.2GHz—much lower than the current MacBook Air's ULV Core 2 Duo at 1.86GHz or 2.13GHz—it can boost a single core up to 2GHz when conditions are right for Turbo Boost. Both cores are also hyperthreaded, so some performance advantages still exist on certain hyperthreading-friendly workloads even when running at a lower clockspeed.

However, there's a slight potential performance disadvantage to going this route compared to the Core 2 Duos currently used. According to Intel's specs for the 540UM, the processor comes with 4MB of cache, down from 6MB. This shrunken cache, when combined with hyperthreading, could be a recipe for some thrashing-induced slowdowns on more highly threaded workloads.

The cache issue is pretty trivial, though, compared to the choices Apple faces for graphics. Like the rest of Intel's Arrandale-class mobile processors, these newest ULV models are still saddled with the fair-to-middling Intel HD integrated graphics processor stuck right on the processor package. This updated IGP is certainly an improvement over previous Intel offerings, but it won't cut it as far as Apple is concerned—the IGP is roughly comparable to Apple's last-generation NVIDIA 9400M integrated graphics, and isn't compatible with OpenCL.

Apple might consider trying to jam in a discrete mobile GPU and use its automatic graphics switching technology. However, the package for the CPU alone—along with the Intel IGP that Apple doesn't even want—is twice the size of the small-outline Core 2 Duo used in current MacBook Air models. When the required small-form-factor chipset is included, that doesn't leave room on the MacBook Air's tiny logic board for a discrete GPU. And, even if Apple were to try and make space for all that, it would likely take up some of the precious space needed for battery capacity. A discrete GPU could negate a chunk of the power savings that the new processors offer, too, presenting Apple with a battery life double whammy.

Because Intel is still battling NVIDIA in court over whether it has the necessary license to make chipsets for Intel's latest processors, Apple can't pair these new Core i5 processors with the new NVIDIA 320M used in the new 13" MacBook Pro and white MacBook. That means Apple would have to stick with Core 2 Duo processors, and it doesn't appear that Intel is producing any newer small-outline versions. There would be a small performance improvement—especially paired with a likely RAM boost to 4GB—but not likely enough for current MacBook Air users to justify an upgrade.

Short of convincing Intel and NVIDIA to settle their differences, getting Intel to make a Core i5 processor without an IGP, and mating that to an NVIDIA 320M, Apple doesn't really have any options to offer a compelling upgrade to the MacBook Air. Future Intel processors in the Sandy Bridge family will have the IGP further integrated by packaging it on the same die as the CPU itself; if Intel includes OpenCL support for those IGPs, Apple might have a viable upgrade path. Then again, Apple may not be willing to wait that long; it might just pull the plug on the MacBook Air entirely.

 

[Scottsdale]

probably a naive query, but how come everyone specifies the i7 all the time and the i5 and i3's don't even get a look-in?

Until now, only the Core i7 brought two ULV CPUs. It provided a low-end and high-end MBA solution. In addition, until now there was one Core i5 ULV and there were ZERO Core i3 ULV CPUs.

The more important focus in my opinion is the Intel stated replacement CPU for the SL9x00 CPU is the Core i7-6x0LM. Apple has always used a high quality CPU in the MBA, it's just that people don't realize it. The MBA has a quick clock speed for energy used, and it has double the L2 cache that C2D CPUs have in low-end MBPs and MBs.

It would seem most likely that Apple would use the Intel replacement CPU for the MBA. These Core i7-6x0LM CPUs are fast. They run at faster clock speeds than the current 1.86 and 2.13 GHz. The Core i7-640LM runs at 2.13 GHz and boosts to 2.93 GHz.

We all should want these Core i7 CPUs. There are no Core i3/i5 CPUs that compete with these CPUs either. These are now 25W TDP chip designs. However, they include the GMA IGP. The hope by Intel is that Apple would use these chips with its own chipset and leave Nvidia out of the picture. I think that Apple is disgusted with the Intel GMA IGP as they went C2D in the 13" MBP and MB.

Plus, now we're understanding from the rumors in Asia that the MBA will use a Core i7 ULV CPU that overclocks the CPU by turning off the GMA IGP DIE. This makes sense to use a ULV CPU if the clock speed can compete with current MBA CPUs. So a 2.13 GHz Core i7 is going to provide more power than the current C2D at 2.13 GHz plus it would ideally be truly running at the clock speed full time. The current C2D CPUs used in the MBA are marketed at 1.86 and 2.13 GHz, but they rarely ever run near their stated clock speeds.

'New Intel ULV processors still a bad fit for MacBook Air'
By Chris Foresman

Intel finally took the wraps off its latest ULV mobile processors, aimed directly at the ultra-thin portable category. However, these new processors don't present a clear upgrade path for the MacBook Air, leaving Apple with no good choices to make when it comes to refreshing its own ultra-thin laptop.

The most likely candidate from Intel's latest Core i3, i5, and i7 mobile processors is the Core i5-540UM. Though its nominal speed rating is only 1.2GHz—much lower than the current MacBook Air's ULV Core 2 Duo at 1.86GHz or 2.13GHz—it can boost a single core up to 2GHz when conditions are right for Turbo Boost. Both cores are also hyperthreaded, so some performance advantages still exist on certain hyperthreading-friendly workloads even when running at a lower clockspeed.

However, there's a slight potential performance disadvantage to going this route compared to the Core 2 Duos currently used. According to Intel's specs for the 540UM, the processor comes with 4MB of cache, down from 6MB. This shrunken cache, when combined with hyperthreading, could be a recipe for some thrashing-induced slowdowns on more highly threaded workloads.

The cache issue is pretty trivial, though, compared to the choices Apple faces for graphics. Like the rest of Intel's Arrandale-class mobile processors, these newest ULV models are still saddled with the fair-to-middling Intel HD integrated graphics processor stuck right on the processor package. This updated IGP is certainly an improvement over previous Intel offerings, but it won't cut it as far as Apple is concerned—the IGP is roughly comparable to Apple's last-generation NVIDIA 9400M integrated graphics, and isn't compatible with OpenCL.

Apple might consider trying to jam in a discrete mobile GPU and use its automatic graphics switching technology. However, the package for the CPU alone—along with the Intel IGP that Apple doesn't even want—is twice the size of the small-outline Core 2 Duo used in current MacBook Air models. When the required small-form-factor chipset is included, that doesn't leave room on the MacBook Air's tiny logic board for a discrete GPU. And, even if Apple were to try and make space for all that, it would likely take up some of the precious space needed for battery capacity. A discrete GPU could negate a chunk of the power savings that the new processors offer, too, presenting Apple with a battery life double whammy.

Because Intel is still battling NVIDIA in court over whether it has the necessary license to make chipsets for Intel's latest processors, Apple can't pair these new Core i5 processors with the new NVIDIA 320M used in the new 13" MacBook Pro and white MacBook. That means Apple would have to stick with Core 2 Duo processors, and it doesn't appear that Intel is producing any newer small-outline versions. There would be a small performance improvement—especially paired with a likely RAM boost to 4GB—but not likely enough for current MacBook Air users to justify an upgrade.

Short of convincing Intel and NVIDIA to settle their differences, getting Intel to make a Core i5 processor without an IGP, and mating that to an NVIDIA 320M, Apple doesn't really have any options to offer a compelling upgrade to the MacBook Air. Future Intel processors in the Sandy Bridge family will have the IGP further integrated by packaging it on the same die as the CPU itself; if Intel includes OpenCL support for those IGPs, Apple might have a viable upgrade path. Then again, Apple may not be willing to wait that long; it might just pull the plug on the MacBook Air entirely.

The author here doesn't truly have a clue. First, Apple does have a direct upgrade path to the CPU that is meant to replace the C2D SL9x00 CPUs used in the MBA. It's called the Core i7-6x0LM. Instead of a low voltage CPU being 17W TDP as the SL9x00 it's now a 25W TDP in the Ci7 LM CPUs. However, they offer a 4W TDP savings over the 17W when adding in the 12W 9400m GPU.

What the author also doesn't realize, as apparently not able to read, is the reports coming in from those behind the rumors are the Core i7 ULV CPUs being overclocked. These privy with the information know exactly how the CPUs are being overclocked because the GMA IGP is turned OFF. When the GMA IGP is turned off, there is no need for power to be reserved for GMA IGP and therefore allow the ULV CPUs to be overclocked full time. So, now we can take the boost speed, and NOT make it the full-time overclocked speed, as that is when running one core. However, it will be faster than the 1.33 GHz the chips are currently clocked at. So we take a 1.33 GHz CPU and run it at 2+ GHz with GMA IGP DIE turned off.

Maybe this is an older article? Otherwise this author just isn't using the information behind the reports showing how a ULV is an upgrade path nor is the author looking at Intel's own stated upgrade path for the SL9x00 C2D CPUs the MBA already use.