Even if Intel graphics show some comparable speed in synthetic benchmarks and specs, it will never get a support near like Nvidia or AMD meaning that it will be useless...I mean if you do not use computer for any graphics than it will be ok as a "basic screensaver viewer", but for anything else it will be a big downgrade if that release happens.
I have read the clock speed of the IGP on low and ultra low voltage SB will equate to a 40% loss from the IGP used in the standard voltage SB.
There was a rumor last Summer that Apple was working on using a new i7 ultra low voltage CPU, and make that work by disabling the IGP and running over clocking while using turbo in addition to basically reach max clock speeds of the CPU since none of the power needs reserved for the IGP. Apple recently added support for a bunch of AMD GPUs. I hope that Apple can take an approach like the one rumored and use either a 7W AMD discrete GPU or better. This would still allow Intel Thunderbolt and chipsets...
Quite honestly, I don't get all of those defending Intel, the company, its tactics, or its IGP. The MBA has had the Intel IGP before and it was a disgusting Mac mainly due to the Intel IGP. Nvidia came in and saved the low end Macs by offering a real graphics solution to the problems of Intel's IGP. Yes the current IGP is better than the old IGP, but it's nothing compared to Nvidia's GPU we have now... and these ridiculous results that show the Intel IGP as even close are tailored to show positives. I would like to see some real world scientific test models in place BEFORE graphics systems are released to show exactly what they are instead of hand picking apps or processes that the IGP does okay at and using that to compare it to the prior and other GPUs. I have a feeling based on everything I have read that overall the Intel IGP is a lot less capable especially when running at much lower clock speeds as required in low and ultra low voltage variants.
People also keep bragging that Apple has to update the MBA because it is the future of the Mac, but they're not making any sense because it doesn't need a new CPU to be current or amazing. Sure, the tech geek that wants the latest Intel CPU holds his or her ground waiting for this SB update, but how many MBA buyers fit this category? 5%? My guess is that or less. I love tech, but I also know a good thing when I see it, and the current MBA is the most incredible Mac ever. Sure I want a backlit keyboard, again. Sure I would want RAM and storage updates. Heck, I would even want the SB CPU if it didn't force upon us a completely ridiculous IGP.
I believe anyone who needs SB shouldn't buy an MBA anyways, and if they realized exactly what the IGP means perhaps they would change their tunes. Even the 13" MBP IGP numbers are showing it drive a low resolution display... Why does everyone think Apple kept that low Res display in the 13" MBP? I think it could be to get the numbers of the IGP as close to possible via some skewed tests to the real GPU Nvidia offered with C2D.
And people that say Apple will not sell MBAs unless it updates them to SB don't review how Apple actually sells its consumer grade Macs. The average Mac buyer, who isn't buying a Mac Pro or MacBook Pro, doesn't give a darn about what it has in it... they only want it to fulfill their needs and seem faster than the computer they're upgrading from. The vast majority of buyers who get to use an MBA vs an MBP in the store would probably wonder why the MBP is so slow!
In addition, I know a bunch of "geeks" who own MBAs and don't want Intel's Sandy Bridge in the MBA if it means Intel's IGP is the sole graphics non-solution. It only seems to be those brainwashed by Intel's marketing, those who only care about running a CPU intensive app that isn't a target user of the MBA, or those who simply don't understand or care to know about graphics who actually want this Intel IGP. I believe if Apple put the current SB in low and ultra low voltage variants in the MBA with sole use of the Intel IGP for graphics the MBA's brand image would suffer tremendously.
Most people don't even realize the Intel IGP in the MBA at low and ultra low voltage is going to run at a much slower clock speed and yield much lower results than the standard voltage SB in the 13" MBP. A lot of misinformation and people simply not thinking about it... I think Apple has to have more foresight than this, and the 13" MBP is targeted at a pro user who needs to run a CPU intensive app, who wants that SB CPU and if they need solid graphics they know they will need the 15" or 17" MBP with real graphics capabilities.
The MBA is targeted at the consumer who wants it to just work whether they're playing a simple game, running HD movies, or operating standard apps... And the Nvidia GPU along with C2D will provide a better overall well rounded experience than Intel's SB if IGP is forced upon it... Add in an AMD GPU and we have a different story. I would welcome it if that could happen, but we don't think so because Apple stuck the MBP 13" buyers with Intel. Usually I would say Apple would use the exact same strategy, but for right now the strategy doesn't make sense for the MBA.
The people on this forum are not the average MBA buyers, as there are far too many people willing to waste their time on these forums because they actually care what is in their equipment rather than how those Macs work for them and complete their desired tasks. I think Apple knows its target market well enough to only update its Macs when it makes sense. I think it makes more sense to update the iMac, Mac Pro, MacBook, Mac mini, iPhone, and iPods before it's the MBA's turn again. Would I love a SB MBA in June with Lion installed, sure, but only if it has a real GPU to go with it.
I want better for the MBA than Intel's IGP can provide, and MBA buyers should want more too! They have a lot more capabilities in the Nvidia 320m than the SB IGP would provide in low and ultra low voltage variants... Apple knows this, and I believe that Apple would rather solve the problem than roll with it and tarnish its MBA brand, again. The original MBA was a failure until October 2008 when Apple introduced the Nvidia 9400m which solved all of the problems the Intel IGP caused. Apple is too smart to not learn from its prior mistakes, and the original MBA was a gigantic mistake and it was all the Intel IGP that caused the massive disappointment.
Apple will wait for a real solution even if it takes a little longer. In addition, Apple is updating its Macs once annually so a natural update cycle would be October not June. October makes the most sense and it gives Apple time to solve the problems whether it's writing better drivers, using a discrete GPU, using AMD CPUs, or simply waiting for Ivy Bridge. Apple cares about the experience and the MBA provides plenty of experience and will still be current in mid 2012.
