Reasons why I think there will be a refresh in June...

[TrollToddington]

You are failing to consider any of the real variables and market conditions that have forced Apple down this path.

Like I said, I none of us are aware of the real market conditions and strategies Apple uses and technology is not the only variable here.Besides, SB was not available in Oct 2010 and they would have been forced to use much more energy consuming components. At least, that's what I gather through reading these forums. I am not a technical geek so forgive me if what I've ritten is a BS.

There is zero doubt that Apple would love progress with CPUs but doesn't care for Intel's dirty games and prefers a well-rounded MBA over Intel's joke of an IGP.

But they already did it with the MBP.

It is like using a Porsche 911 Turbo engine but eliminating steering and adjustable throttle. Sure it would be faster but would it be better for the consumer.

Which consumer? I don't really care for a fast IGP. Not a serious gamer here, nor a heavy photoshop user. I am a musician.

Huh, iMac and MBA? Whatever you say then...LOL.

And why not. I am a customer and I don't care how they will do it.

 

[Scottsdale]

Like I said, I none of us are aware of the real market conditions and strategies Apple uses and technology is not the only variable here.Besides, SB was not available in Oct 2010 and they would have been forced to use much more energy consuming components. At least, that's what I gather through reading these forums. I am not a technical geek so forgive me if what I've ritten is a BS.

But they already did it with the MBP.

Which consumer? I don't really care for a fast IGP. Not a serious gamer here, nor a heavy photoshop user. I am a musician.

And why not. I am a customer and I don't care how they will do it.

The market conditions with C2D, Nvidia GPU/chipsets being forced out, and the future are all known to all of us. Apple didn't use Arrandale in October 2010, because it couldn't pair it with an Nvidia GPU. Until Intel at least compares with a 2.5 year old Nvidia model, Apple shouldn't make the move. All of this is known to everyone. Steve Jobs has even personally said that the Nvidia benefits paired with C2D were a better all around Mac experience. The MBP 13" got the IGP because Apple is just going to sell the upgrade to 15" and 17" MBPs for all of the "real" pros who need a real GPU.

However, the IGP in the standard voltage SB used in the 13" MBP is running much faster than the IGP running in the low and ultra low voltage variants of SB. This comes down to a chip by chip basis. The MacBook and Mac mini can both handle standard voltage chips, so those would be next. Unless Apple makes a miracle happen and can run a std voltage SB CPU/IGP in the MBA it doesn't make sense... even then, it probably doesn't.

You are one of the small minority that cares what CPU branding is in your consumer grade Mac. The vast majority just want it just works, and the MBA for the vast majority is going to be the fastest Mac they have ever used even with their "lowly" CPU, in your eyes. You're not the average if you care so much... and I would suggest you just go buy your MBP then if you want standard voltage CPU, worthless IGP, low resolution 13" display, 50% heavier, and a lot thicker mobile Mac.

Whatever... enjoy your thoughts. Pointless to debate with someone who cannot look at what Apple and the market has done and why...

 

[Hellhammer]

Steve Jobs has even personally said that the Nvidia benefits paired with C2D were a better all around Mac experience. The MBP 13" got the IGP because Apple is just going to sell the upgrade to 15" and 17" MBPs for all of the "real" pros who need a real GPU.

Why 13" MBP didn't stay with C2D + 320M combo if it provided better experience, even according to Steve? Apple could done what they did in 2010 and force people who care about the CPU to buy 15" and 17" MBPs. For some reason, Apple decided to go with Sandy Bridge in 13", even though it meant a loss in graphics performance. The most logical move is to do the same for MBA.

However, the IGP in the standard voltage SB used in the 13" MBP is running much faster than the IGP running in the low and ultra low voltage variants of SB. This comes down to a chip by chip basis. The MacBook and Mac mini can both handle standard voltage chips, so those would be next. Unless Apple makes a miracle happen and can run a std voltage SB CPU/IGP in the MBA it doesn't make sense... even then, it probably doesn't.

But from marketing standpoint, they are the one and the same. ULV and LV chips have the same Intel HD 3000 as the SV chips have. Apple doesn't tell you the clock speeds, or tell you that "hey, this is the same chip but it's actually much slower". In their site, it will be the same Intel HD 3000 as in MBPs. A consumer can't see any difference between them. The fraction of people who do some research and may find out that they are not equal is irrelevant.

You are one of the small minority that cares what CPU branding is in your consumer grade Mac. The vast majority just want it just works, and the MBA for the vast majority is going to be the fastest Mac they have ever used even with their "lowly" CPU, in your eyes.

And Sandy Bridge won't change that. It will work just like your current MBA does. Even if MBA had a Pentium in it, it would most likely feel as fast. However, even the dumbest customer can see that the MBA has C2D, which is probably something that his 5-year old Acer has, while all other laptops have iSomething. From a marketing standpoint, Sandy Bridge makes more sense than C2D, even if it was slower in real world. It's new and in consumers' eyes, new equals better.

Whatever... enjoy your thoughts. Pointless to debate with someone who cannot look at what Apple and the market has done and why...

It doesn't matter who you argue with, it is pointless because none of us knows anything. You, just like we all, try to make step on Apple's boots and speak with Steve's mouth.

 

[TrollToddington]

You are one of the small minority that cares what CPU branding is in your consumer grade Mac. The vast majority just want it just works, and the MBA for the vast majority is going to be the fastest Mac they have ever used even with their "lowly" CPU, in your eyes. You're not the average if you care so much... and I would suggest you just go buy your MBP then if you want standard voltage CPU, worthless IGP, low resolution 13" display, 50% heavier, and a lot thicker mobile Mac.

Whatever... enjoy your thoughts. Pointless to debate with someone who cannot look at what Apple and the market has done and why...

So, because it's a consumer grade I should not care what CPU there is in the computer? What the... The question is if the computer can run my software or not.

It's pointless to debate with someone who uses generalizations in their post. "Vast majority" - it seems you have access to some statistical data. Of all people I know everyone has (access to) another mac in addition to the MBA so that the MBA is not their fastest mac. Are we all from the small minority and how come isn't there someone from the majority?

Of course I do care about what I am buying, it's my money, not yours. The software I am going to use requires a faster processor than the one found in the 11" and if I wanted a 13" I'd get a MBP anyway.

Anyway, enjoy your superior knowledge. I am certain you are able to foresee what hardware the next MBA will adopt.

 

[neteng101]

Of all people I know everyone has (access to) another mac in addition to the MBA so that the MBA is not their fastest mac.

Open your eyes wider - plenty here have given up using bigger Macs (either MBPs or iMacs) and almost solely or solely use their MBAs. It is my fastest Mac and I came from a 15" MBP (lots of other 15" MBP users switching to the MBA if you look around these forums).

I suspect for a vast majority of daily tasks, the MBA will be better than any iMac... given the SSD. If you've never used a good SSD-based machine, you don't know what you're missing. CPU is mostly idle for the super majority of people around... unless you're rendering video all day long and such.

Doesn't mean Apple shouldn't improve on the MBA though, and in time it will happen too. But using the C2D is not really felt even though it is a weak point in the system right now. The only people that care are the paper spec freaks, and those that are doing heavy duty lifting... which will always be the realm MBPs. The case to get a 15/17" MBP for that is now stronger than ever.

 

[TrollToddington]

neteng,

I agree with you regarding the daily tasks - of course, an SSD system should handle them much better. However, I need a 11" Air to be able to do a specific task - I'm ok with being in the minority.

 

[JBG87]

i think im gonna get the next 13 ultimate refresh

i hope its in october like it always is i dont see why they would start pushing dates back just because the iphone

 

[TheXFactor]

I'm enjoying (or soon to be) my 13" Air. I might be dead in 3 months. If there's a refresh, it won't matter. I'll sell this one and get a new one.

 

[Ridley]

Unless Apple makes a miracle happen and can run a std voltage SB CPU/IGP in the MBA it doesn't make sense... even then, it probably doesn't.

That isn't true... at least not from what I've read elsewhere on these forums. Taken from vingochr

"11 Inch MacBook Air
The current 11" MBAs have 1.4 and 1.6GHz Intel Core 2 Duo CPUs with GeForce 320M iGP, with a TDP for CPU/iGP combo is 10+12=22W.

Therefore, most logical processors are the ultra low power Sandy Bridge mobile processors, i5-2537M, i7-2617M and i7-2657M. At current price points, it makes sense to go with the i7 chips, the i7-2617M and i7-2657M at 1.5 and 1.6GHz each. These are dual core and two-threads-per-core (2C/4T) and have a TDP of 17W, 5W less than currently required. "
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1103979/

He has a great breakdown of both the 11 and 13 inch in his post, I really recommend reading that link.

From my own thoughts, Apple needs to have some sort of plan for updating the MBA. I hear people all the time talking about how Sandy Bridge is crap and its Ivy Bridge ftw, and all sorts of nonsense. Ivy Bridge doesn't even have a release date yet! No one even knows if its 2010 or 2011... perhaps not even Intel! In my opinion it makes no business sense for Apple to skip Sandy Bridge because they have no guarantee how long they'd have to wait.

In my opinion June looks about right for an update because to skip it and wait for Ivy Bridge would be too long, and updating to Sandy Bridge in October would be too short before an Ivy Bridge model.

 

[Hellhammer]

That isn't true... at least not from what I've read elsewhere on these forums. Taken from vingochr

"11 Inch MacBook Air
The current 11" MBAs have 1.4 and 1.6GHz Intel Core 2 Duo CPUs with GeForce 320M iGP, with a TDP for CPU/iGP combo is 10+12=22W.

Therefore, most logical processors are the ultra low power Sandy Bridge mobile processors, i5-2537M, i7-2617M and i7-2657M. At current price points, it makes sense to go with the i7 chips, the i7-2617M and i7-2657M at 1.5 and 1.6GHz each. These are dual core and two-threads-per-core (2C/4T) and have a TDP of 17W, 5W less than currently required. "
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1103979/

Standard voltage chips = 35W

Scottsdale was talking about those since they have a faster IGP. You also forgot the PCH which takes ~4W so the TDPs are pretty much equal.

 

[Scottsdale]

Standard voltage chips = 35W

Scottsdale was talking about those since they have a faster IGP. You also forgot the PCH which takes ~4W so the TDPs are pretty much equal.

Exactly, the low and ultra low voltage SB IGPs are a completely different game and produce far inferior results to the standard voltage IGP.

I believe Apple's position will be to use C2D and Nvidia until it can at least find an equivalent solution in terms of graphics... Apple is huge on promoting graphics, and anyone can go look at its website and see the marketing position and technology strategy graphics plays in the big picture.

And people have to stop saying, well they used SB in the 13" MBP, as it's a completely different IGP producing completely different results than those that would make their way into the MBAs.

Apple has even used graphics as a big OS X strategy and advantage pushing OpenCL and has recently expressed an interest in gaming. It is a part of every consumer Mac sold, and the fact that the 13" MBP has it means nothing in the grand scheme. Apple is looking to upsell MBP buyers to 15" and 17" models with real graphics. The 13" doesn't even have a hi resolution display like the MBA, and it seems to me it's because the 13" MBP is focused at the mobile professional who needs CPU for intensive stuff and probably has a real GPU in another Mac for the horsepower... While the MBA can serve as the average consumers complete and sole computing system!

 

[gri]

No, the MBA is designed for ultimate portability. The MacBook is the consumer Mac.

IF Lion requires 4 G RAM basic than the MBA needs an update as all their base models run on 2G - however, it may just be a spec bump right there... More likely is that Lion runs with 2G of RAM just fine... Any developers here that can comment?

 

[gri]

Sandy Bridge is a compromise. No Ivy Bridge, no care. That's why I pulled the trigger on the current model last week.

I think I remember comments to that effect one generation back... ""Current model is a compromise, pulling the trigger when SB is there..."

And I predict we will see comments like"Ivy Bridge is a compromise, I will put the trigger when NowhereBridge is out..." (or whatever the name is)

No ofense to your decision though. You have to get it when you need it. I did the same with the now old MBA a year ago. Serves me well, a bit slow but has a BL KB (which I love).

 

[gri]

- Lion, summer 2011.
- iMacs, anytime in the next 6 months. CPUs are available. Minor change really.
- MBPs just had an update, they're bang up to date with SB CPUs and Thunderbolt. No refresh until the end of the year, or even start of 2012.
- iPad 2 literally just came out. The iPad 3 has another year before it lands.
- Mac Pros have long, long refresh times and are heavily CPU dependent. They need socket 2011 first, which puts them on for a Q4 2011 launch.

So basically your list just collapsed to Lion and iMacs by the end of summer, with the MBPs and Mac Pro heading towards Q3/Q4 or 2012. Certainly not stopping an MBA update.

MacMini?

 

[Hellhammer]

IF Lion requires 4 G RAM basic than the MBA needs an update as all their base models run on 2G - however, it may just be a spec bump right there... More likely is that Lion runs with 2G of RAM just fine... Any developers here that can comment?

Lion runs fine on Macs with Core Duo which are limited to 2GB of RAM (requires a modified file though but that is because of the Core Duo, not because of RAM). SL requires 1GB so I can't see Apple quadrupling that amount. In the end, plenty of current Macs ship with 2GB and it would be ridiculous if they didn't support Lion.

It does love RAM though, so the more, the better.

I think I remember comments to that effect one generation back... ""Current model is a compromise, pulling the trigger when SB is there..."

And I predict we will see comments like"Ivy Bridge is a compromise, I will put the trigger when NowhereBridge is out..." (or whatever the name is)

Haswell is the successor of Ivy Bridge BTW. But yeah, I agree with you. Ivy Bridge will deliver another poor IGP if you compare it to discrete chips. It might beat 320M but I don't think that is a huge achievement, or a reason to wait for it.

Everything with the Intel IGP is and will be a compromise.

 

[HiddenGem]

Lot of talk about SB in the next refresh.

What about Thunderbolt?

 

[Ridley]

Standard voltage chips = 35W

Scottsdale was talking about those since they have a faster IGP. You also forgot the PCH which takes ~4W so the TDPs are pretty much equal.

Thanks Hellhammer, I misread what was being said there. Appreciate the clarification.

 

[KPOM]

Haswell is the successor of Ivy Bridge BTW. But yeah, I agree with you. Ivy Bridge will deliver another poor IGP if you compare it to discrete chips. It might beat 320M but I don't think that is a huge achievement, or a reason to wait for it.

Everything with the Intel IGP is and will be a compromise.

That may be true, but if the Ivy Bridge IGP is faster than the 320m, then anyone using the current MacBook Air will experience a speed bump by virtue of the faster CPU. The issue with the Sandy Bridge is that it will have a faster CPU, but not everyone will have a faster overall experience because the IGP is slower.

I like the "Bridge to Nowhere" reference to Haswell.

 

[fyrefly]

Exactly, the low and ultra low voltage SB IGPs are a completely different game and produce far inferior results to the standard voltage IGP.

Yep, the HD 3000 in the MBP's give a 3DMark06 score of ~5100 while the ULV version in the Samsung Series 9 gives a score of ~2200. Whether Apple could squeeze an LV version (with 100Mhz more graphics power) into the 13" MBA remains to be seen.

And people have to stop saying, well they used SB in the 13" MBP, as it's a completely different IGP producing completely different results than those that would make their way into the MBAs.

Sure, people should stop confusing the SB IGP with the SB LV IGP. But... You also need to stop saying:

Apple didn't use Arrandale in October 2010, because it couldn't pair it with an Nvidia GPU. Until Intel at least compares with a 2.5 year old Nvidia model, Apple shouldn't make the move.

If we're only going on the Engadget 3DMark06 score (which is all anyone has to go on right now) to bash the SB LV IGP, then you also have to admit that the SB LV IGP beats the 9400m.

So the SB LV IGP is 1/2 the 320M but beats the 9400m (under windows) and could easily get better under OSX with better drivers/power optimization.

I'm not saying that makes the LV IGP amazing - but if everyone has to stop confusing the LV IGP with the Regular IGP, then you should stop spreading the FUD that the LV IGP is worse than the 9400m.

 

[Hellhammer]

Yep, the HD 3000 in the MBP's give a 3DMark06 score of ~5100 while the ULV version in the Samsung Series 9 gives a score of ~2200. Whether Apple could squeeze an LV version (with 100Mhz more graphics power) into the 13" MBA remains to be seen.

There is no reason why an LV version wouldn't fit in 13". It has TDP of 25W plus ~4W for the PCH so that is a total of 29W. Current LV C2Ds have TDP of 17W but the 320M adds TDP too. Its TDP is unknown but seeing that 9400M had 12W, it's quite safe to assume that it is something similar, so current MBA has also 29W. A watt this or that way isn't that essential.

So the SB LV IGP is 1/2 the 320M but beats the 9400m (under windows) and could easily get better under OSX with better drivers/power optimization.

Anand said in his review that the Intel HD 3000 performs very well under OS X, compared to what it does in Windows.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4205/the-macbook-pro-review-13-and-15-inch-2011-brings-sandy-bridge/8

Numbers under Windows aren't that relevant because the drivers are totally different. Good drivers can easily boost the performance by tens of percents.

 

[Uliman]

56 days until June!

 

[krimsen]

Lot of talk about SB in the next refresh.

What about Thunderbolt?

Give me thunderbolt and a FireWire adapter / dock and I'll take a C2D MBA any day

 

[jamesryanbell]

I think I remember comments to that effect one generation back... ""Current model is a compromise, pulling the trigger when SB is there..."

And I predict we will see comments like"Ivy Bridge is a compromise, I will put the trigger when NowhereBridge is out..." (or whatever the name is)

No ofense to your decision though. You have to get it when you need it. I did the same with the now old MBA a year ago. Serves me well, a bit slow but has a BL KB (which I love).

I didn't know Sandy Bridge would be crippled by integrated graphics before it came out.

 

[gpat]

MacBook Air refresh:

11"
i5 2537M (1.4 GHZ) 64GB SSD, 2GB RAM
i5 2537M (1.4 GHZ) 128GB SSD, 4GB RAM

13"
i5 2537M (1.4 GHZ) 128GB SSD, 4GB RAM
i7 2617M (1.5 GHZ) 256GB SSD, 4GB RAM

15" (you heard that right)
i7 2617M (1.5 GHZ) 256GB SSD, 4GB RAM
i7 2657M (1.6 GHZ) 512GB SSD, 8GB RAM

Some underclocking/undervolting would not be absurd. 256GB option for the 11", up to 8GB for 13" and 15".
i5 TDP < C2D TDP + 320M TDP, so 11" gets 6 hrs of battery, 13" gets 8 hrs and 15" gets 12 hrs. 15" also could get ATI 6470m for the 1680x1050 resolution. What do you think?

Just my 2 cents.

 

[MacFever]

MacBook Air refresh:

11"
i5 2537M (1.4 GHZ) 64GB SSD, 2GB RAM
i5 2537M (1.4 GHZ) 128GB SSD, 4GB RAM

13"
i5 2537M (1.4 GHZ) 128GB SSD, 4GB RAM
i7 2617M (1.5 GHZ) 256GB SSD, 4GB RAM

15" (you heard that right)
i7 2617M (1.5 GHZ) 256GB SSD, 4GB RAM
i7 2657M (1.6 GHZ) 512GB SSD, 8GB RAM

Some underclocking/undervolting would not be absurd. 256GB option for the 11", up to 8GB for 13" and 15".
i5 TDP < C2D TDP + 320M TDP, so 11" gets 6 hrs of battery, 13" gets 8 hrs and 15" gets 12 hrs. 15" also could get ATI 6470m for the 1680x1050 resolution. What do you think?

Just my 2 cents.

Sound like a plan.... I like this prediction.

come on apple release it in April...what are you waiting for.... lol release before LION so they will run even better.

Note: Apple likes to release a new laptop or desktop when they are releasing an upgrade to the OS so that it gives even more of a feel that it's significantly faster than the previous version OS. They could release a new iMac, Mini or AIR. I still prefer to have the AIR now. lol can't wait longer for the sandy bridge.