Sandy Bridge Official Release - 17W MBA compatible Processors!

[size100]

I'll take 2 generations of CPU upgrade for a gpu hit.

 

[Hellhammer]

Came here to post this. While the new processors are noticably quicker, what we gain in CPU we lose in GPU. There isn't enough room on the logic board to stick both a Sandy Bridge CPU and a mobile GPU package.

If Apple does decide to start manufacturing the MacBook /Pro/Air line with these CPUs, expect to be taking a step backwards with Intel's integrated graphics.

See the article I linked. Intel IGP ain't that bad this time but it will likely be worse than 320M in MBA since LV and ULV parts feature a lower clock speed than the CPU used in those tests. However, the CPU upgrade will be fairly big since Nehalem provided 15% clock for clock upgrade over C2D and now SB provides another 15% clock for clock over Nehalem. HT and Turbo might make it even bigger. Thus the CPU gain should be a lot bigger than the loss in GPU

 

[fswmacguy]

Thus the CPU gain should be a lot bigger than the loss in GPU

On a day-to-day basis, I use more of the GPU than the CPU. (By that, I mean I rarely stress the CPU, however the GPU is usually my main bottleneck)

That's not to say the Sandy Bridge processors aren't fantastic- I'm considering building a desktop with the new CPUs in due course- I'm just implying that Intel's integrated GPU isn't anywhere near as good as a dedicated GPU.

Intel has figured out that they can manufacture a processor/GPU combo for cheaper and are taking advantage of it. They know that the mobile business-type will never worry about benchmarks: thus their consumer target audience.

 

[KPOM]

See the article I linked. Intel IGP ain't that bad this time but it will likely be worse than 320M in MBA since LV and ULV parts feature a lower clock speed than the CPU used in those tests. However, the CPU upgrade will be fairly big since Nehalem provided 15% clock for clock upgrade over C2D and now SB provides another 15% clock for clock over Nehalem. HT and Turbo might make it even bigger. Thus the CPU gain should be a lot bigger than the loss in GPU

Effectively, that would put the 1.5GHz Core i7 roughly on par with the 2.13GHz Core 2 Duo before Turbo Boost. Plus we'd get hyperthreading, which would help applications optimized for multiple cores.

 

[ditosou]

hummm

I love my MBA 11".

 

[size100]

On a day-to-day basis, I use more of the GPU than the CPU.

Doing what?

 

[Hellhammer]

On a day-to-day basis, I use more of the GPU than the CPU.

May I ask what apps do you use then?

Intel has figured out that they can manufacture a processor/GPU combo for cheaper and are taking advantage of it. They know that the mobile business-type will never worry about benchmarks: thus their consumer target audience.

That is true. The IGP is just fine for the people it is targeted at. People who need better GPU will likely fork out some extra money for a computer with discrete GPU anyway (talking about PCs here, Apple is a different story).

Effectively, that would put the 1.5GHz Core i7 roughly on par with the 2.13GHz Core 2 Duo before Turbo Boost. Plus we'd get hyperthreading, which would help applications optimized for multiple cores.

Yeah, but like I said earlier, Apple would likely use 25W parts in 13", thus the base clock would be 2.1GHz or 2.3GHz with +3GHz Turbo. I think that starts to be pretty nice bump in CPU speed.

 

[lucashungaro]

See the article I linked. Intel IGP ain't that bad this time but it will likely be worse than 320M in MBA since LV and ULV parts feature a lower clock speed than the CPU used in those tests. However, the CPU upgrade will be fairly big since Nehalem provided 15% clock for clock upgrade over C2D and now SB provides another 15% clock for clock over Nehalem. HT and Turbo might make it even bigger. Thus the CPU gain should be a lot bigger than the loss in GPU

But even with a higher CPU performance, isn't the GPU going to be a bottleneck in some applications and games despite that?

Earlier this year we had some rumors about Apple going with AMD. The fact that the MBA uses and "old" Intel processor can be a sign of that change. AMD processors currently delivers less performance than Intel ones, but the company owns ATI, so…

 

[KPOM]

But even with a higher CPU performance, isn't the GPU going to be a bottleneck in some applications and games despite that?

In some applications, yes, and also in OS X itself. However, the question is whether the Sandy Bridge CPU/IGP will deliver, on the whole, similar or even better performance than the current Core 2 Duo/320m combo. My guess is that the MacBook Air is not aimed at hard core gamers, and thus Apple may be willing to trade a few FPS on WoW or Starcraft in order to boost CPU performance for those of us using Office 2011, or encoding on iTunes, or anything else that would benefit from the faster CPU.

The issue with the Arrandale (previous Core i-series) chips is that the IGP was so bad that it would have run OS X and graphics-intensive applications unacceptably slow. If the Sandy Bridge IGP is at least acceptable, and it appears to be so, then Apple may be tempted to run with it as the sole solution for the MacBook Air.

 

[nick9191]

Yeah just as the X4500 was supposed to rival Nvidia's IGP. I'll believe it when I see it.

These Airs are fast, thanks to a combination of an excellent IGP and an SSD drive. Having a, for the most part, unnecessarily faster CPU baring in mind the target audience of this product, and trading off for a bunch of stupid ass graphical glitches and loss of basic functionality such as not being able to watch Youtube in HD, is not in Apple's main interest. Not to mention the ever increasing importance of GPGPU.

Let's recap the main target audience of this machine:
Someone who travels a lot and needs an extraordinarily lightweight machine.
Someone who needs to perform every day tasks with their machine.

Someone who does anything other than basic usage should not be looking at a MacBook Air, it is simply not a suitable computer.

Far too many people seem to overestimate their requirements. If you genuinely feel you're not overestimating your requirements then the odds are, an Air is not for you. At the end of the day a 1.4ghz Core 2 Duo is more than enough for 95% of the population.. hell, a 1Ghz G4 is more than enough for 95% of the population (inb4 2/3 of all statistics are made up on the spot).

Still I suppose that's 21st century capitalism, people buying a bunch of stupid crap they don't need with money they don't have. And that's why in a few months, we'll receive a new Air that has a processor most of it's users wont need and an IGP that I'm willing to bet, sucks ass and will, just like it's predecessor lack the ability to perform basic graphical functionality. Glad I bought the current one.

 

[KPOM]

Yeah just as the X4500 was supposed to rival Nvidia's IGP. I'll believe it when I see it.


Let's recap the main target audience of this machine:
Someone who travels a lot and needs an extraordinarily lightweight machine.
Someone who needs to perform every day tasks with their machine.

To be fair, Anandtech has some specs that seem to bear out that the Sandy Bridge IGP is at least acceptable. Whether it truly "beats" the 320M is subject to interpretation.

I've been using a MacBook Air since the original version with X3100 (later the 1.86GHz with the NVIDIA 9400m and Samsung SSD, and now the "ultimate 13"). I skipped the Rev C and am likely to skip the Rev E. Arguably I didn't "need" the Rev B, and having purchased the Rev B, probably could have held out for the Rev E, but I do have the luxury of being able to afford nice technology.

Attempting to look at this from Apple's perspective, I can see why the Sandy Bridge chips would be attractive. A lot of people, rightly or wrongly, have a hard time seeing beyond the CPU since that's what people have been programmed to look at first for the last 30 years. Sandy Bridge allows Apple the ability to adopt the Core i-series, apparently while retaining an acceptable level of GPU performance. It provides some level of compatibility with OpenCL, albeit in a less-than-ideal way, which lets it continue to build OpenCL compatibility into OS X. And it appears to fit within Apple's power/battery requirements. It seems like a no-brainer for the next 13" MacBook Pro and the Rev E MacBook Air.

 

[Stingray454]

From what I've read, it seems the IGP performance of the new processors will be somewhere between the 310M and 320M - ie almost as good as the current ones in the Air, but not quite.

I'm not quite sure how to feel about this. I got the fully loaded 11" because of the fantastic portability when traveling or staying with friends / in my summer house. The C2D can handle and of the normal tasks with ease, the only area where I notice a slight lack of power is when playing games. I know it's not a gaming computer, but I do enjoy to casually play WoW, Starcraft or similar sometimes.

Purchasing the next revision of computer that will give me LESS performance than my current sure feels wrong, and I guess many others would feel the same. If that's the case, it'll damn better have backlit keyboard!

 

[fyrefly]

In some applications, yes, and also in OS X itself. However, the question is whether the Sandy Bridge CPU/IGP will deliver, on the whole, similar or even better performance than the current Core 2 Duo/320m combo. My guess is that the MacBook Air is not aimed at hard core gamers, and thus Apple may be willing to trade a few FPS on WoW or Starcraft in order to boost CPU performance for those of us using Office 2011, or encoding on iTunes, or anything else that would benefit from the faster CPU.

You're right. And Apple will make the decision based on the fact that the Sandy Bridge CPU will "feel" faster to 90% of users, even with the IGP that performs the same as the 320M.

The issue with the Arrandale (previous Core i-series) chips is that the IGP was so bad that it would have run OS X and graphics-intensive applications unacceptably slow. If the Sandy Bridge IGP is at least acceptable, and it appears to be so, then Apple may be tempted to run with it as the sole solution for the MacBook Air.

I have to disagree here. The Arrandale IGP runs OSX just fine, and I bet at least 50% of the current Core i5/i7 MBP owners never feel the 330M coming to life, and are just fine with the Arrandale IGP.

That's not to say that it's a good GPU, but still, it's fine at running OSX (tho not OpenCL).

trading off for a bunch of stupid ass graphical glitches and loss of basic functionality such as not being able to watch Youtube in HD, is not in Apple's main interest. Not to mention the ever increasing importance of GPGPU.

Really? The Current 11" MBAs have trouble playing 1080p YouTube from what I've read... so not sure that would be such a trade off.

You also seem to contradict yourself... saying:

Someone who does anything other than basic usage should not be looking at a MacBook Air, it is simply not a suitable computer...At the end of the day a 1.4ghz Core 2 Duo is more than enough for 95% of the population.. hell, a 1Ghz G4 is more than enough for 95% of the population (inb4 2/3 of all statistics are made up on the spot).

1) Have you used a 1Ghz G4 lately? My dad and Brother both have G4 1.25Ghz Mac Minis and they are not snappy computers at all. More than 1 or two tabs in Safari and you get beachball heaven. God forbid you want to want *anything* on YouTube.

2) If 95% of people could easily use a G4 (which is IMHO debatable), then why can't those same 95% of people easily get away with an Intel IGP that's bound to be more powerful than any GPU that was bundled with the G4.

3) I will agree with you that most people over-estimate their needs. The 1.4Ghz Core2 MBA has shown that most people don't need more than that. But when every computer at BestBuy is a "Core iX" (even i3's that are not that much faster - if at all - than a core2) and the MBA is at Core2, I'm sure that loses Apple business.

that's why in a few months, we'll receive a new Air that has a processor most of it's users wont need and an IGP that I'm willing to bet, sucks ass and will, just like it's predecessor lack the ability to perform basic graphical functionality. Glad I bought the current one.

I highly doubt the Sandy Bridge IGP will be as terrible as you say. What about those that still have MBA's that are "perfectly good" with the 9400m. The Sandy Bridge IGP will be better than that, given the benchmarks so far. So what would you say to them?

 

[toxic]

the GPU issue is overblown. it can play HD content without glitches, and that's all it really needs to do.

OpenCL arguments at this point don't stand at all. it's been almost a year and a half since SL came out, and how many applications support it? I bet zero. even Aperture 3, Apple's own software that came out 6 months later, doesn't support it.

 

[Hellhammer]

Earlier this year we had some rumors about Apple going with AMD. The fact that the MBA uses and "old" Intel processor can be a sign of that change. AMD processors currently delivers less performance than Intel ones, but the company owns ATI, so…

Currently AMD has nothing similar in terms of CPU power. Llano's release was pushed to Q3 as its production won't start until July. Even then, there will be only few desktop CPUs, no mobile variants, yet.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/di...lano_Production_to_Initiate_in_July_2011.html

If that piece of news is right, my bet is that Intel will be out with Ivy Bridge before we see a good mobile Llano from AMD. It's sad but true

 

[trondah]

I don't see why people are so upset about the GPU, OpenGL performance in OSX is pretty ****** anyways.

 

[emotion]

At least AMD APUs support Direct Compute and OpenCL.

Can't see Intel being able to avoid doing that with Ivy Bridge at least.

 

[KnightWRX]

To be fair, Anandtech has some specs that seem to bear out that the Sandy Bridge IGP is at least acceptable. Whether it truly "beats" the 320M is subject to interpretation.

*sigh*, no it's not. It doesn't. End of story. Intel lawyered out the competition so they are free to be the only ones providing an IGP, and Anand in typical ignorant fashion provided them with a CPU bound benchmark that showed more the power of a quad core i7 than the IGP. It still barely managed to beat out a 320M + Core 2 Duo, which is sad really.

The IGP by itself, in GPU bound settings as shown by other tests Anand did and that others ran, sits below a the 320M we currently have. If nVidia had been allowed to make the IGP for SB, the graphics would have been much better than this.

There is no subject to interpretation. Intel screwed us all again on graphics performance.

As others have pointed out, and what has been the scenario in the computer industry for the last 15 years (well, since the 3Dfx days really!) is that people do not stress the CPU much. Most people have a need for a fast GPU and a moderately fast CPU. That's because the biggest stress test most computers get these days are 3D games. The GPU is what matters. That's what you stress the most. If it is the bottleneck, then having a Quad Core i7 in a MBA doesn't matter, especially if the new Quad Core i7 MBA with Intel HD 3000! doesn't outperform a 320M and Core 2 Duo.

I don't see why people are so upset about the GPU, OpenGL performance in OSX is pretty ****** anyways.

Yeah, so let's just make it worse by tossing in a crap GPU. Good call there buddy!

 

[Hellhammer]

and Anand in typical ignorant fashion provided them with a CPU bound benchmark that showed more the power of a quad core i7 than the IGP.

The IGP by itself, in GPU bound settings as shown by other tests Anand did and that others ran, sits below a the 320M we currently have.

Why do you call him ignorant when he did provide some other tests too? It's completely normal to provide low and medium graphics performance. Would you prefer that he only provided us with medium benchmarks where most games ran below 30FPS which for most gamers is unacceptable?

Even in medium benchmarks, the difference isn't more than 1-2FPS

If nVidia had been allowed to make the IGP for SB, the graphics would have been much better than this.

Well, cows would fly if they had wings. We can continue this "if" game forever but what does it help? Nothing. All we got now is the Intel IGP unless Apple can add a discrete GPU. Whether it's nice or not, that is a whole new question but we have heard your opinion. A better IGP or Nvidia IGP would have been nice but again, all we got is the Intel thingy.

That's because the biggest stress test most computers get these days are 3D games.

I would say photo editing is catching up unless it has overtaken gaming already. Okay, it may not be as intensive as gaming but a faster CPU definitely speeds it up.

The test does basic photo editing; there are a couple of color space conversions, many layer creations, color curve adjustment, image and canvas size adjustment, unsharp mask, and finally a gaussian blur performed on the entire image.

Maybe it's time to point a finger at Apple as well and ask why can't they give us a discrete GPU. Other manufacturers can do it fine so why can't Apple? Okay, maybe not in MBA but it's a different story, Intel IGP is fine for that but in 13" MBP at least. It can't be too hard to stick in a low-end discrete chip.

 

[KPOM]

End of story. Intel lawyered out the competition so they are free to be the only ones providing an IGP, and Anand in typical ignorant fashion provided them with a CPU bound benchmark that showed more the power of a quad core i7 than the IGP. It still barely managed to beat out a 320M + Core 2 Duo, which is sad really.

Yeah, so let's just make it worse by tossing in a crap GPU. Good call there buddy!

There is nothing stopping NVIDIA or anyone else from producing a discrete GPU for a notebook computer running a Core iX chip. What Intel did was assert that its previous chipset license to NVIDIA was valid only for its Core 2 Duo chip. Their argument is that they want to place more features directly onto the CPU, and that it would not be feasible to continue licensing chipset design IP to third parties. To use a car analogy, they are saying it's a bit like refusing to license carburetor design in order to switch to fuel injection. Whether it's true or not is debatable, but NVIDIA, which has IP of its own that it licenses to Intel, concluded not to take it up with anti-trust authorities and to settle out of court.

IOW, it's over. Get over it. I know we'd all like to speculate on how well a Core iX might perform with an NVIDIA IGP, but we won't find out. Intel has shown us the new chips, and they appear to deliver a decent degree of total system performance. It's now up to Apple to decide the route they want to take. They can't stick with Core 2 Duo forever, so the question is whether they go with Sandy Bridge stock, redesign the MacBook/MacBook Air/MacBook Pro 13 to accommodate a discrete GPU, hold out for Ivy Bridge, which promises further IGP improvements, or consider AMD, which still allows third party IGP (and has better IGP of its own than Intel) but which is behind on the CPU side.

 

[KnightWRX]

Well, cows would fly if they had wings. We can continue this "if" game forever but what does it help? Nothing. All we got now is the Intel IGP unless Apple can add a discrete GPU.

Doesn't mean we have to be impressed nor praise Intel for a "job well done on the graphics!" though.

I would say photo editing is catching up unless it has overtaken gaming already. Okay, it may not be as intensive as gaming but a faster CPU definitely speeds it up.

Photo editing is as much a niche as Unix shell scripting. For what most folks do (remove red eyes, crop and resize pictures), the CPU capacity has been top notch for about 10 years now. 3D games always push the envelope. Things like StarCraft II, Diablo 3 from Blizzard are always big hits and some of the big titles we do see on the Mac and they require GPUs, not CPUs to run.

There is nothing stopping NVIDIA or anyone else from producing a discrete GPU for a notebook computer running a Core iX chip. What Intel did was assert that its previous chipset license to NVIDIA was valid only for its Core 2 Duo chip. Their argument is that they want to place more features directly onto the CPU, and that it would not be feasible to continue licensing chipset design IP to third parties.

nVidia has always and still produces dedicated GPUs for notebooks. I don't see why this is even in the equation. The problem is with smaller form factor notebooks that require more integrated solutions for both cooling and space reasons. What Intel did was a dick move* and now we're stuck with sub-par performance. I will get over it, but if Apple moves forward to Intel's stuff, I will move my money elsewhere.

Again, it's not because we're stuck with Intel's crap that we have to be happy about it or sing songs of praise to Intel for even allowing us mere mortals to bask in the glory of their sub-par graphics offering.

 

[fswmacguy]

nVidia has always and still produces dedicated GPUs for notebooks. I don't see why this is even in the equation.

Nvidia has already said that the Sandy Bridge's bundled IGP is "basic graphics". I don't think they're pleased by Intel's attempt to push Nvidia's GPU off of the logic board.

http://hothardware.com/News/Nvidia-Fears-Not-Sandy-Bridges-Basic-Graphics/

 

[KPOM]

nVidia has always and still produces dedicated GPUs for notebooks. I don't see why this is even in the equation.

You missed my point entirely (big surprise). My point is that Intel isn't eliminating all graphics solutions from Sandy Bridge notebooks. All they are doing is not allowing other integrated graphics processors.

The problem is with smaller form factor notebooks that require more integrated solutions for both cooling and space reasons.

Those are design decisions that manufacturers need to make. Had Intel not moved away from Prescott/Pentium 4, we'd be running 10GHz monsters that need large, advanced cooling systems just to turn on. I'm skeptical that Apple can't fit a discrete GPU into the next MacBook Pro 13, particularly if they eliminate the optical drive or switch to a blade SSD. The MacBook Air has always been about compromise for space, and the first model had Intel Integrated Graphics only, so a return isn't out of the question.

What Intel did was a dick move* and now we're stuck with sub-par performance. I will get over it, but if Apple moves forward to Intel's stuff, I will move my money elsewhere.

Like where? AMD has better graphics performance but slower CPU performance. Perhaps some of this is a matter of Apple optimizing OS X, as well. Flash content runs better on Windows than it does on OS X. Part of that is Adobe, but part of that is Apple.

 

[KnightWRX]

You missed my point entirely (big surprise). My point is that Intel isn't eliminating all graphics solutions from Sandy Bridge notebooks. All they are doing is not allowing other integrated graphics processors.

And you keep ignoring mine, which is the big picture. Before OEMs had 3 choices :

- Intel IGP
- nVidia IGP
- nVidia/ATI dedicated

Now they are left with 2 :

- Intel IGP
- nVidia/ATI dedicated

Thank you Intel for eliminating the middle ground : The good performing yet space saving nVidia IGP!

Those are design decisions that manufacturers need to make.

That's not a design decision, it's an anti-competitive move.

Like where?

A vendor that doesn't think the size of a laptop should dictate if it is high end or low end. I like the portability that 13" offers, yet I want good graphics/high resolution nowadays. Apple is notorious for only giving you those in a 15" or 17" package. Other vendors see otherwise and if Apple decides to move back to Intel graphics, other vendors will see my money for next purchase. I have no qualms with going back to Linux for my software needs.

You seem to have a need to defend Intel in all of this. This discussion is going nowhere. You will never admit that Intel did something bad here and that they failed to compete on a product level. Nothing you say will make me impressed about Sandy Bridge's GPU. I think at this point, I have no choice but not to respond to you anymore.

 

[Hellhammer]

And you keep ignoring mine, which is the big picture. Before OEMs had 3 choices :

- Intel IGP
- nVidia IGP
- nVidia/ATI dedicated

Now they are left with 2 :

- Intel IGP
- nVidia/ATI dedicated

Thank you Intel for eliminating the middle ground : The good performing yet space saving nVidia IGP!

But before the Intel IGP was not integrated into the CPU. Now you would have it anyway, with or without 3rd party IGP.

That's not a design decision, it's an anti-competitive move.

That is true, nothing is stopping Intel from letting Nvidia to do chipsets. However, sooner than later 3rd party IGPs will be unnecessary. With Nehalem, Intel moved the memory controller into the CPU. With Westmere, they moved the GPU in there. I would expect that within couple of years, Intel will move the PCH into the CPU. Okay, now that they got what they wanted, i.e. Nvidia gave up, it may not happen that soon but if Nvidia would still be in the chipset business, I bet it would have just boosted Intel's will to move everything into the CPU to make 3rd party stuff useless.

It's just business for Intel. All they care about is the profit.

Yayy 15 000th post