Sandy Bridge Official Release - 17W MBA compatible Processors!

[KnightWRX]

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

And that matters because ? At least OEMs would still have the option since a chipset is still required for now. They could at least offer better graphics than the Intel dud, while still saving space on VRAM and a 3rd chip. Of course, if what you want is a SoC, that doesn't exactly lend itself to that goal very well, but I doubt laptops would ever be what they are today as SoCs, at least in the short term.

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.

And it wouldn't be a problem if Intel offered a competitive offering that was up to date. We wouldn't be having this conversation of the SB GPU was up to par, wasn't half emulated in software by the CPU and wasn't barely fast enough to compete with last year's offering on low detail CPU bound scenarios only, backed up by 2 more cores than the competition.

Maybe at the end of the day, after all their failures since the i740 saw the light of day as "The AGP Reference!", Intel should just learn that they can't do it, cave in and use their huge capital to purchase someone who can.

 

[rnauman821]

KnightWRX, we're tired of Core 2. That is all.

No offense but that is a cop out. Just because intel comes out with some new shiny toy doesn't mean the product from last year is somehow a fossil.

Intel still can't make a graphics chipset to save themselves. I hope they don't jump to the iX series processors until Intel stops shipping total ****.

 

[emotion]

Intel's driver is not just profit. There's a genuine need to get rid of the bottleneck between CPU and GPU. That is their driver. It just so happens this is also a very competitive market. It's dog eat cat!

btw. Intel own 16% of the graphics company that powers the iOS devices. As it happens Apple own 10%. Make of that what you will but if the future is low powered and mainly ARM based these threads will look silly in 12-18 months

 

[Hellhammer]

And that matters because ?

Most OEMs would likely stick with the Intel IGP or go with discrete GPU. Sure, some might go with the nVidia one in small laptops to save space but I doubt it would be that many. If 320M is so superior, why is Apple the only one who uses it? If C2D + 320M is better than iX + Intel IGP, why doesn't other OEMs use it? That is something that makes no sense IMO, or at least requires a good explanation. I don't think 9400M was very popular among other OEMs either.

I'm not saying we shouldn't have the option for nVidia IGP but it looks like Apple is the only one who is really interested about it.

 

[KnightWRX]

Most OEMs would likely stick with the Intel IGP or go with discrete GPU. Sure, some might go with the nVidia one in small laptops to save space but I doubt it would be that many. If 320M is so superior, why is Apple the only one who uses it?

The 2 Dell laptops I had before my 2008 UB MB had nVidia IGPs.

 

[Eidorian]

No offense but that is a cop out. Just because intel comes out with some new shiny toy doesn't mean the product from last year is somehow a fossil.

Never read another benchmark or product review again.

 

[blackburn]

Anyway looks like we can't buy and intel cpu without bringing its sucktastic graphics either desktop either notebook. And looks like crappy drm made it's way to the cpu too. Why the hell technology sucks so much these days

edit: unless you pull the big bucks, looks like my next desktop will be either an old i7 or an amd

 

[Hellhammer]

Anyway looks like we can't buy and intel cpu without bringing its sucktastic graphics either desktop either notebook. And looks like crappy drm made it's way to the cpu too. Why the hell technology sucks so much these days

edit: unless you pull the big bucks, looks like my next desktop will be either an old i7 or an amd

You can always use discrete graphics and the Intel IGP will be turned off. If you're building a desktop, especially i7, then it shouldn't be a problem at all since you shouldn't even consider an IGP as your main GPU.

 

[blackburn]

Yep, but I'm still paying for it. And I will never use intel graphics, their drivers crash like hell on my eee pc. And the drm thingy, just another thing for the big media.

 

[Eidorian]

You can always use discrete graphics and the Intel IGP will be turned off. If you're building a desktop, especially i7, then it shouldn't be a problem at all since you shouldn't even consider an IGP as your main GPU.

It's strange to see the GT2 (12 EU) Intel HD IGP on the 2500K and 2600K processors. They're going to be on performance/enthusiast machines that are going to have dedicated graphics.

Z68 is in the cards as well to support overclocking and FDI to allow usage of the Intel HD 2000/3000. H67 is limited to memory overclocking while P67 adds CPU multiplier adjustments but no video output for the IGP.

Maybe we'll figure out what SSD Caching is too on Z68.

 

[Hellhammer]

Yep, but I'm still paying for it. And I will never use intel graphics, their drivers crash like hell on my eee pc. And the drm thingy, just another thing for the big media.

You can wait for LGA 2011 parts to arrive in Q4, they will have no IGP. However, their prices start where the LGA 1055 parts top out (~300$). IMO it's pointless to buy old i7 system since it's performance is worse and prices are pretty equal. Even though the SB has IGP, the performance of the CPU is great.

It's strange to see the GT2 (12 EU) Intel HD IGP on the 2500K and 2600K processors. They're going to be on performance/enthusiast machines that are going to have dedicated graphics.

It indeed is. Why would someone buy K-series CPU and H67 chipset? Makes no sense because the idea of unlocked CPU is wasted as you can't OC it with H67 but on the other hand, P67 doesn't support Intel IGP.

Maybe we'll figure out what SSD Caching is too on Z68.

That sounded very interesting

 

[blackburn]

You can wait for LGA 2011 parts to arrive in Q4, they will have no IGP. However, their prices start where the LGA 1055 parts top out (~300$). IMO it's pointless to buy old i7 system since it's performance is worse and prices are pretty equal. Even though the SB has IGP, the performance of the CPU is great.

Time is a thing that I don't really have, my desktop failed

 

[Eidorian]

You can wait for LGA 2011 parts to arrive in Q4, they will have no IGP. However, their prices start where the LGA 1055 parts top out (~300$). IMO it's pointless to buy old i7 system since it's performance is worse and prices are pretty equal. Even though the SB has IGP, the performance of the CPU is great.

Even Gulftown has very limited purpose now with the Core i7 2600K ready to be released. The only major benefit is the 36 PCIe 2.0 lanes that the X58 platform offers.

 

[gdeputy]

our c2d in mba has double the l3 cache of the sandy bridge 17w chips.

 

[darkplanets]

Personally, what I find amusing is that everyone is trying to use a laptop for more than what it is-- a mobile computer. In the case of the MBA, an ultraportable.

You're not supposed to be able to play Crysis on it, or rather, you shouldn't aim to. Call it a different paradigm, but I'd much rather take a CPU bump to help out in day to day tasks than a GPU change; aside from plugging in an external monitor your GPU shouldn't be getting much use from a product like the MBA.

If you want gaming, get a desktop. If you really want gaming, build your own and go Windows. That's the way it's been, and that's the way its going to continue to be. For the rest of us, we'll take a CPU bump anyday.

 

[KPOM]

Most OEMs would likely stick with the Intel IGP or go with discrete GPU. Sure, some might go with the nVidia one in small laptops to save space but I doubt it would be that many. If 320M is so superior, why is Apple the only one who uses it? If C2D + 320M is better than iX + Intel IGP, why doesn't other OEMs use it? That is something that makes no sense IMO, or at least requires a good explanation. I don't think 9400M was very popular among other OEMs either.

I'm not saying we shouldn't have the option for nVidia IGP but it looks like Apple is the only one who is really interested about it.

My guess is that the overhead of OS X is what makes the 320m attractive to Apple. When you look more closely at the Windows market, you'll see that most mainstream notebooks use Intel integrated graphics. Notebooks aimed at gamers use discrete GPUs, and usually GPUs more powerful than what Apple puts in its Pro lines. It seems that Apple wants the 320m to deliver "mainstream" performance given that it is in its MacBook Air, MacBook, and 13" MacBook Pro lines (its 3 mass-market notebooks).

Aero is off by default in Windows 7, and when it is on, it isn't as slick as the graphics in OS X. Perhaps Windows just doesn't need the graphics horsepower for average users.

This may be why NVIDIA chose not to fight and just settle. They could have played the nuclear option of withdrawing their licenses from Intel (which uses NVIDIA technology in their IGPs), but didn't. Perhaps they just saw the third party IGP market shrinking even if Intel relented. Apple is a big player, but likely not big enough to keep an entire chipset division around.

 

[KPOM]

The 2 Dell laptops I had before my 2008 UB MB had nVidia IGPs.

That was in 2008 (or before). It's 2011 now. Dell still uses the Core 2 Duo in the Adamo, but does not use an NVIDIA IGP. Perhaps they don't see the need for it with their target audience.

 

[Hellhammer]

This may be why NVIDIA chose not to fight and just settle. They could have played the nuclear option of withdrawing their licenses from Intel (which uses NVIDIA technology in their IGPs), but didn't. Perhaps they just saw the third party IGP market shrinking even if Intel relented. Apple is a big player, but likely not big enough to keep an entire chipset division around.

Remember that IGPs aren't the only thing nVidia made. Before, SLI only worked with nVidia chipsets (AFAIK, at least without hacks), meaning that gamers who wanted the best gaming performance with nVidia cards needed to get nVidia chipset, but since Intel didn't allow 3rd party chipsets, nVidia had to provide NF200 chip for mobo manufacturers to enable SLI.

 

[emotion]

My guess is that the overhead of OS X is what makes the 320m attractive to Apple.

I'll say this again. Aside from the graphics use, it's the OpenCL support that makes this an attractive option for Apple.

You don't see this, overtly, right now but we've hit the point where this is becoming mainstream.

 

[KPOM]

I'll say this again. Aside from the graphics use, it's the OpenCL support that makes this an attractive option for Apple.

You don't see this, overtly, right now but we've hit the point where this is becoming mainstream.

I know Apple's trying to promote this, but so far they haven't had much success. Sandy Bridge apparently is compatible with OpenCL, but it uses the CPU rather than the GPU, thus negating a lot of the benefit. Hopefully Lion will make better use of it internally.

 

[Hellhammer]

I know Apple's trying to promote this, but so far they haven't had much success. Sandy Bridge apparently is compatible with OpenCL, but it uses the CPU rather than the GPU, thus negating a lot of the benefit. Hopefully Lion will make better use of it internally.

I don't think the main issue is the OS X, more like the lack of support for OpenCL by 3rd party software. Most tasks in OS X don't require much CPU power, thus OpenCL doesn't help there but it would certainly help with apps like HandBrake, Final Cut, Logic, Adobe Suite etc (no idea do some of them support it already)

 

[emotion]

I know Apple's trying to promote this, but so far they haven't had much success. Sandy Bridge apparently is compatible with OpenCL, but it uses the CPU rather than the GPU, thus negating a lot of the benefit. Hopefully Lion will make better use of it internally.

I expect Lion will, yes.

AMD and Intel are promoting this much much more than Apple. Interest is high in the scientific community right now. Whilst CUDA has the lead, OpenCL - being an open standard, will likely prevail once we see optimisations and further tool support. The support for OpenCL on CPUs was developed by AMD.

Frameworks like this take time to take hold. This is no flash in the pan, the future of high end (and subsequently consumer) computing is in software that harnesses Vector/GPU units as well as CPU.

 

[KPOM]

I expect Lion will, yes.

AMD and Intel are promoting this much much more than Apple. Interest is high in the scientific community right now. Whilst CUDA has the lead, OpenCL - being an open standard, will likely prevail once we see optimisations and further tool support. The support for OpenCL on CPUs was developed by AMD.

When you say interest is high in the scientific community, are you implying that OpenCL is more of a benefit to those writing highly specialized applications? Can ordinary programs (e.g. video editors, games, web browsers, office applications) benefit from OpenCL by offloading tasks to the GPU, or is there more benefit in just making better use of multiple threads, x64 code, etc.?

I guess my point is if the benefits are limited and far off, then did we get much benefit in the here and now by Apple choosing to go with the Core 2 Duo/320m combo in the current MacBook Air vs. the Arrandale Core i3/i5? Is it just gamers who benefit right now?

 

[Maven1975]

Some of the need for expensive GPU's can be cured by developers witting tighter, more efficient code.

No excuse for the lack of discrete GPU's, but the Mac App store will bring several interesting things/changes to how we use our computers today. Lower powered computers are truly the way to go. However, Apple cant just turn a blind eye to the market asking for raw power either.

 

[emotion]

When you say interest is high in the scientific community, are you implying that OpenCL is more of a benefit to those writing highly specialized applications? Can ordinary programs (e.g. video editors, games, web browsers, office applications) benefit from OpenCL by offloading tasks to the GPU, or is there more benefit in just making better use of multiple threads, x64 code, etc.?

What I'm saying is this is the community that seek performance first. Moore's law is delivering more cores, not GHz now. The techniques this community are pursuing will now be necessary in the the commodity many-core era.

I guess my point is if the benefits are limited and far off, then did we get much benefit in the here and now by Apple choosing to go with the Core 2 Duo/320m combo in the current MacBook Air vs. the Arrandale Core i3/i5? Is it just gamers who benefit right now?

I can't quantify how much benefit the mainstream is seeing right now but because of the pressures I point out above software developers will have to go this route.