Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Reasons why I think there will be a refresh in June...
- Thread starter SR71
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
Duno if this is a solutions, or if thunderbolt is fast enough yet.
SB ULV i series for the MacBook air, for less graphics intensive people, then thunderbolt with external graphics for the graphics people
Duno if this is a solutions, or if thunderbolt is fast enough yet.
SB ULV i series for the MacBook air, for less graphics intensive people, then thunderbolt with external graphics for the graphics people
If there was a 15" version my money would FLY out of my pocket...but I seriously doubt that will happen.
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.
New iMac for sure with OS X Lion. Maybe the MacBook will be updated with it.
Let's remember that the update cycle for Macs is approaching 1+ years now rather than =8 months. In addition, the MBA could keep the vast majority of buyers happy until Mid 2012 when real solutions from Intel provide at least comparable IGPs.
I really think an update is likely before June, but June 2012! I think Apple would like to update before the holidays if it were possible.
I also think that the real problem is the IGP in low and ultra low voltage variants, and I don't believe even if Apple updates the Mac mini and MacBook to Sandy Bridge that it means they will update the MBA to SB with sole use of its IGP for graphics. The 35W STD voltage CPU has an IGP 2x as capable as the ULV IGP in SB.
I still like the idea of running a ULV CPU full out, disabling the IGP, and using an ATI discrete GPU. It only makes sense if it fits, and it might even be one of those things where the 11" MBA gets a different solution than the 13" MBA. It just seems to me that Ivy Bridge is the Intel solution, OR there were rumors of AMD making the jump for Apple. AMD has some incredible upcoming CPUs with built in IGPs that are LITERALLY 5X the performance of the SB IGPs. They are a ways out, but Apple could easily announce them... sure Thunderbolt is the problem with that strategy.
I would most likely believe that Apple uses C2D and Nvidia 320m in the MBA the latest, and updates them straight to Ivy Bridge as soon as available in Early 2012. I believe Intel would focus on getting Apple those chips and chipsets as soon as possible since Apple now buys Intel chipsets for the low end Macs. I think there was a lot to the phrases that Apple would be using the Nvidia GPU/chipset model for a long time... I believe the MBA is the Mac that makes the most sense to keep it for the longest. I believe the vast majority that want the Intel SB CPU have no clue what happens when they get the MBA they're requesting... and I believe it would tarnish the MBA brand, again. Intel just doesn't have a winner with SB IGP in low and ultra low voltage variants... and no matter what driver is used it's not going to compete with Nvidia's offering even given its age.
I don't love Nvidia, but I do hate Intel's IGP, business practices, and ethical/moral code. I believe they bring a worthless value proposition to Apple and its Mac consumers... it's just that they also bring incredible marketing that persuades people to believe their lies and encourages people that the only way to improve a computer is with a new CPU... failing to disclose that it requires use of its own chipset, own IGP, and requires the consumer to use an inferior IGP just to get that 30% CPU bump vs. same clock speed. I really wish the JD would have stepped into the situation, because we all lose.
We could have all been winners had Intel not played anti-competitively, had it honored its contractual agreements with Nvidia, and we would have Core i7 CPUs in our MBAs right now paired with an Nvidia GPU/chipset. Consumers COULD HAVE won, but none of us did the right thing and stepped in and forced an investigation in what would have brought consumers the fair value of competition in the free world. It's sad, really. But most people don't even want to think about that, as it's too much I suppose.
While I agree that I don't understand how Intel got away with basically ignoring the Nvidia lawsuit and then making them drop it, I fail to realize how general consumers could have affected things? Pushing the DOJ to launch anti-trust? How many millions of letter/signatures on a petition would that have taken?
If Nvidia had kept fighting, and gotten/pleaded users to unite under them, I could see something maybe happening. But Nvidia basically trashed Intel in the press, and then capitulated. Lame.
BTW, all this AMD talk has got to stop. Apple's not gonna switch to AMD. For what? The AMD Zacate chip that they've shown (The E-350) gets the same crap graphics performance as the SB IGP.
http://www.notebookreview.com/default.asp?newsID=5940&p=2
So why would they ignore SB in favour of a chip that's slower and has just as crap graphics? (If we're going on 3DMark06, which is all we have to go on.)
If Nvidia had kept fighting, and gotten/pleaded users to unite under them, I could see something maybe happening. But Nvidia basically trashed Intel in the press, and then capitulated. Lame.
BTW, all this AMD talk has got to stop. Apple's not gonna switch to AMD. For what? The AMD Zacate chip that they've shown (The E-350) gets the same crap graphics performance as the SB IGP.
http://www.notebookreview.com/default.asp?newsID=5940&p=2
So why would they ignore SB in favour of a chip that's slower and has just as crap graphics? (If we're going on 3DMark06, which is all we have to go on.)
Because AMD has more than Zacate up its sleeve. The new Llano chip has much better graphics performance. The initial report is that this chip would lag in cpu power vs. sandy but dust it in graphics.
Llano @Arstechnica
I cannot help but doubt a full switch, but then it depends on where apple really thinks the consumer is going. Spreadsheets and web surfing would be fine on a phenom-class core. Gaming with a better gpu mated with a decent cpu would also be fine. If you can edit movies on an ipad2 why not Phenom-class/based machine? So maybe, just maybe.....
Money talks. Intel is paying NVidia 1.5 billion $. Court fights are never cheap so sooner than later one of them must give up. If Intel's main aim was not to give x86 for NVidia, then it's pretty damn hard to force Intel to give it. In the end, they are business partners. Too much fighting is bad for both.
Also, NVidia is working on Denver which is an ARM based CPU project.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4122/intel-settles-with-nvidia-more-money-fewer-problems-no-x86/1
sweet...
Lol at those who said a refresh wasn't gonna happen, these things are going to be immensely powerful. 8 GB RAM option? Even better; in fact, who the heck needs the new SB MBP? this thing is a beast. Now the cherry on top would be a backlit keyboard...
Finally can jump on the MBA, after skipping this year's.
I think the line between Pro and Air is going to blur and eventually disappear, with the Air becoming the prosumer notebook, and the Pro being relegated to the heavy worker niche / guys needing optical drive/plenty of storage/loads of connectivity. The others are going to ditch the extra gear for improved mobility, SSD, and hi-res screen.
There is no way the ULV i7s will get as powerful as the regular ones, but their power is still going to be more than enough for the average 13" Pro user - by a long shot.
There is no way the ULV i7s will get as powerful as the regular ones, but their power is still going to be more than enough for the average 13" Pro user - by a long shot.
In all honesty, when looking at the main reason now for Apple to push out an update for the AIR would be to add their latest ultimate connectivity port....the Thunderbolt. I think that alone would push them to update the AIR's sooner than later.
They will want their whole line of Mac's to have this port to push it forward in the industry.
And the AIR is the best machine for Thunderbolt because of it's limited port options already and having this ultra fast connectivity option.
They would not just add the Thunderbolt, but take the opportunity to include the new chips as well. But the Port will be the main reason to update the AIR and all the other Macs sooner than later...before 2011 is over I'll bet all the Machines will have Thunderbolt.
They will want their whole line of Mac's to have this port to push it forward in the industry.
And the AIR is the best machine for Thunderbolt because of it's limited port options already and having this ultra fast connectivity option.
They would not just add the Thunderbolt, but take the opportunity to include the new chips as well. But the Port will be the main reason to update the AIR and all the other Macs sooner than later...before 2011 is over I'll bet all the Machines will have Thunderbolt.
But I can't see Intel being okay with Apple switching to AMD for just one lineup (the MBA, say). So it'd *have* to be a whole-hog switch, no? And for what?
I also can't see Apple advertising "2X the Graphics!* *PS: Also 2/3rds the processor speed... sorry guys."
Apple's never had a focus on gaming. They're certainly building that up with iOS, but then transitioning all that iOS stuff to Mac via the App store. You can't tell me that Angry Birds and Plants vs. Zombies (two top selling games in the Mac App Store) need more than a SB Integrated Graphics, nor do they merit a change to AMD to get better graphics and less processor.
Re: Editing movies, that's fine. But iMovie requires more CPU for rendering than it requires Graphics card Power, no? And FCP is a different matter, as FCP pros should be using MBPs, not MBAs.
Yeah, Nvidia capitulated, like I said. They got a big payoff from Intel, rather than having to pay more lawyers, etc... and fight Intel. For their perspective, I get it. From a consumer perspective, it's still crap, as now Nvidia gets a big cash payout, we get crappier integrated graphics and Nvidia just develops and makes $$ off of stuff like Tegra2 and Denver instead of innovating in the IGP space.
My bigger piss of isn't necessarily Nvidia, as you said, they're in business, and Intel is (like it or not) ultimately someone they have to work with. But where was the DOJ? Intel already controls 80% of the CPU market and the IGP licensing debacle undoubtably gives them more of a stranglehold on that market. Is this not monopolistic? Is that not at least veering dangerously close to an anti-trust area?
To sum it up, I'd say:
a) the probability of a refresh in June is about 80%. The Air is obviously going to be Apple's flagship machine, and they want it launched together with their new OS, Lion. For the same reason, the iMacs and MacBooks are going to be updated either before (most likely) or after June. They want people to use the Air and show it around, it's free marketing. That includes students, for the Back to School promotion.
b) The new Air is probably going to have SSD sizing from 64GB to 256GB, just like now. I can see 512GB as a stock feature/BTO only on the 15" Air, because adding more flash memory sticks is more cost efficient than having the same number of sticks with more capacity, so 512GB is going to take more space in the chassis.
c) The new Air is obviously going to get either 17W sandy bridge CPUs on every model, or 17W on the 11" and 25W on the 13" (and 15"?). This should give major boosts on both performance and battery in every case. An ipotethical 17W 13" Air could also get up to 10hrs of battery.
d) Graphics is going to be the HD3000. If a 15" is actually launched, they could give it an ATI in order to sustain the massive 1680x1050 res.
e) The Air is getting Thunderbolt. So obvious it isn't even fun.
f) Prices will likely remain the same as profit margin for Apple increases. Getting an Air for 999$ is a good psychological barrier, Apple has no reason to drop it to 949$.
g) RAM is probably going to be bumped to 4GB for every model, except maybe for the 11" low-end. Apple likes people to spend more for the higher rig, remember the Combo Drive days. 8GB BTO is also a remote possibility.
h) The 15" is probably not going to happen, but it could be an AWESOME flagship for Apple. It could easily get AT LEAST 12h of battery on low-power i7, have massive screen resolution, a ****load of power, discrete ATI graphics, and big enough SSDs. They could also sell it very easily for 1999$ on the 4GB/i7/256GB model, and get a sick profit margin.
i) 3G connectivity. I'd give it about a 20% chance.
What do you think?
a) the probability of a refresh in June is about 80%. The Air is obviously going to be Apple's flagship machine, and they want it launched together with their new OS, Lion. For the same reason, the iMacs and MacBooks are going to be updated either before (most likely) or after June. They want people to use the Air and show it around, it's free marketing. That includes students, for the Back to School promotion.
b) The new Air is probably going to have SSD sizing from 64GB to 256GB, just like now. I can see 512GB as a stock feature/BTO only on the 15" Air, because adding more flash memory sticks is more cost efficient than having the same number of sticks with more capacity, so 512GB is going to take more space in the chassis.
c) The new Air is obviously going to get either 17W sandy bridge CPUs on every model, or 17W on the 11" and 25W on the 13" (and 15"?). This should give major boosts on both performance and battery in every case. An ipotethical 17W 13" Air could also get up to 10hrs of battery.
d) Graphics is going to be the HD3000. If a 15" is actually launched, they could give it an ATI in order to sustain the massive 1680x1050 res.
e) The Air is getting Thunderbolt. So obvious it isn't even fun.
f) Prices will likely remain the same as profit margin for Apple increases. Getting an Air for 999$ is a good psychological barrier, Apple has no reason to drop it to 949$.
g) RAM is probably going to be bumped to 4GB for every model, except maybe for the 11" low-end. Apple likes people to spend more for the higher rig, remember the Combo Drive days. 8GB BTO is also a remote possibility.
h) The 15" is probably not going to happen, but it could be an AWESOME flagship for Apple. It could easily get AT LEAST 12h of battery on low-power i7, have massive screen resolution, a ****load of power, discrete ATI graphics, and big enough SSDs. They could also sell it very easily for 1999$ on the 4GB/i7/256GB model, and get a sick profit margin.
i) 3G connectivity. I'd give it about a 20% chance.
What do you think?
Last edited:
It does suck, no doubt about that. The next thing we can hope for is that AMD gets back to the CPU business or look forward to ARM solutions such as the NVidia Denver (NVidia said it will be meant for all devices from smart phones to servers). And with this I mean that they must really challenge Intel, in all areas. Currently AMD can't fight against Intel in way too many areas. In some categories, they do better (e.g. low-end servers) but in most categories Intel dominates, especially in performance per watt, which is very important when it comes to laptops.
I think we may not know the real details and reasons behind the Intel and NVidia case. Could be that it's far more complicated, or even simpler than it is now.
I'm biased because I'm hoping hard for the June refresh since I've been holding off on buying. That said, there are a lot of people that buy Apple machines during the "back to school" program. I reckon Apple is getting the greatest penetration in that demographic anyway.
Not sure how Apple wants to approach it, but for a student, I think the new MBPs (especially the 13 inch is currently EVERYWHERE on college campuses) would be the better buy. It is more recently updated, with more storage for music, photos, etc, and you've got the extra horse power if you think you might do CAD or editing in college. People here always say that consumers in general aren't aware of the chip difference, core 2 duo vs i5 or whatever. However I bet many college kids are. As such, an averagely informed person like this probably knows the marketing message (from Intel that you need an i something) rather than the true technical details that are discussed here on the forums.
I also reckon the MBAs are a much higher margin for Apple. Again in my biased opinion, a June update might be a good move financially since October is outside of the back to school season.
Furthermore, I don't understand the crowd here that says that Apple will wait for Ivy Bridge, a chip that has no definite release date and will probably be released around 1Q 2012, but who knows! That is incidentally, the same time of year that SB was released in 2011. And yet its completely feasible to integrate the unreleased, mythical Ivy Bridge chip for a June 2012 release, but impossible for SB to make it in before October? I've read a lot of people here saying that June 2011 is too soon of a release (at about 8 months) saying October is more likely. Yet wouldn't an Ivy bridge update in June 2012 be about the same time? SB October 2011 to IB June 2012? Unless its going to be October 2011 SB, to October 2012 IB in which case, see my point above about students, who pretty much only buy laptops.
Not sure how Apple wants to approach it, but for a student, I think the new MBPs (especially the 13 inch is currently EVERYWHERE on college campuses) would be the better buy. It is more recently updated, with more storage for music, photos, etc, and you've got the extra horse power if you think you might do CAD or editing in college. People here always say that consumers in general aren't aware of the chip difference, core 2 duo vs i5 or whatever. However I bet many college kids are. As such, an averagely informed person like this probably knows the marketing message (from Intel that you need an i something) rather than the true technical details that are discussed here on the forums.
I also reckon the MBAs are a much higher margin for Apple. Again in my biased opinion, a June update might be a good move financially since October is outside of the back to school season.
Furthermore, I don't understand the crowd here that says that Apple will wait for Ivy Bridge, a chip that has no definite release date and will probably be released around 1Q 2012, but who knows! That is incidentally, the same time of year that SB was released in 2011. And yet its completely feasible to integrate the unreleased, mythical Ivy Bridge chip for a June 2012 release, but impossible for SB to make it in before October? I've read a lot of people here saying that June 2011 is too soon of a release (at about 8 months) saying October is more likely. Yet wouldn't an Ivy bridge update in June 2012 be about the same time? SB October 2011 to IB June 2012? Unless its going to be October 2011 SB, to October 2012 IB in which case, see my point above about students, who pretty much only buy laptops.
Last edited: