I think you need a MacBook Pro. Apple can't possibly fit a discrete GPU into the Airs without either completely killing battery life or turning the machine into a personal heater.
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.
what difference will sandy bridge make to macbook air ?
- Thread starter rav16
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I think you need a MacBook Pro. Apple can't possibly fit a discrete GPU into the Airs without either completely killing battery life or turning the machine into a personal heater.
I had a MacBook Pro 13" and it still had shared graphics, no different. As for the MacBook Air, simply remove the C2D and Nvidia and put in an i3 for example, and if need be alter the casing so its flat and retains the largest rear height through the whole laptop (no tapering from rear to front - large to thin) - this would allow larger batteries in the existing space.
For a computer like the Air, if they flattened it out, I'd like it to be for larger batteries for 10+ hour run times. For most ultra-portable consumers, that would be more important that a discrete graphics chipset.
The Air is the ultraportable and the Pro is the 'workhorse'; the user needs to decide before purchase which is needed, but Apple certainly shouldn't modify the Air for those who want a 'super-powerful, latest-and-greatest' Air.
These statements are entirely dependent on the work you do.
If your using office, or filemaker pro 90% of the time for 'work' then a MBA could almost certainly be labeled a work horse.
Your solution would undoubtably add weight. When your battling competition in this niche field, weight is as much as a 'spec' as processor. They wont be adding weight.
Last edited:
These statements are entirely dependent on the work you do.
If your using office, or filemaker pro 90% of the time for 'work' then a MBA could almost certainly be labeled a work horse.
And if that's what you do, then you wouldn't need all the stuff crotex was suggesting which is what that post was responding to.
slightly larger? onboard and discrete gpu, ethernet. oh wait YOUR TALKING ABOUT A MACBOOK PRO.....
Very True, was just making the point in general that the definition of 'work horse' is indeed transitory and multi faceted
But yes if a render station is your definition of work horse then the MBA is not for you (unless you have a lot of time on your hands
) but for others it is a very productive work tool It's not going to be a huge upgrade guys. Reason is, we're limited to a 10-17w power envelope. Even with the 32nm process upgrade, Intel's LV/ULV lines have always been a little disappointing in performance. Plus SB graphics are about equal to 9400 graphics from the previous MBA.
Let me be frank, I have tons and tons of experience with all kinds of computomajigs. Certain computers have certain purposes.
In the Mac lineup we get this.
Mac Pro: Professional powerhouse. Most powerful in the line up.
iMac: Consumer, ranging from basic to powerful depending on user needs (and wallet).
MacBook Pro: Professional/Prosumer. Good laptop, power on the road. Bit heavy and clumsey, but the person buying it won't mind.
MacBook: Entry model, for the person who want the Apple experience, at a relatively low cost.
Which brings us to my personal favorite.
MacBook Air. Made for people who take it on the road a lot. People who don't need the power of the MBP and are not satisfied with the clunkyness of the MacBook.
The air is not made for the newest games, nor for heavy video, image and sound processing. It's made to be the friend you take when you need to do on the road computing. Office, Internet, some movies and some tunes. You hook it up at home to a bigger screen if you only want one computer and have no need for something more powerful.
In my opinion the Core I's won't be needed in the MBA now. It's just not the point. Sure I'd welcome more battery life, but I travel business so I get a power outlet anyway.
I won't be upgrading nor would I wait with buying a MBA if I didn't have one yet. The current Air fits my needs perfectly, no upgrade needed for a couple of years!
In the Mac lineup we get this.
Mac Pro: Professional powerhouse. Most powerful in the line up.
iMac: Consumer, ranging from basic to powerful depending on user needs (and wallet).
MacBook Pro: Professional/Prosumer. Good laptop, power on the road. Bit heavy and clumsey, but the person buying it won't mind.
MacBook: Entry model, for the person who want the Apple experience, at a relatively low cost.
Which brings us to my personal favorite.
MacBook Air. Made for people who take it on the road a lot. People who don't need the power of the MBP and are not satisfied with the clunkyness of the MacBook.
The air is not made for the newest games, nor for heavy video, image and sound processing. It's made to be the friend you take when you need to do on the road computing. Office, Internet, some movies and some tunes. You hook it up at home to a bigger screen if you only want one computer and have no need for something more powerful.
In my opinion the Core I's won't be needed in the MBA now. It's just not the point. Sure I'd welcome more battery life, but I travel business so I get a power outlet anyway.
I won't be upgrading nor would I wait with buying a MBA if I didn't have one yet. The current Air fits my needs perfectly, no upgrade needed for a couple of years!
my core 2 duo MacBook from 2008 has a 1066 Mhz FSB 3 MB cache
my new MacBook air has a 800 MHZ FSB and 3 MB cache
I think this really shows how good the current Air is, it's making the MBP look bad
. When the first unibody MBP's came out, nobody would have called them 'heavy and clumsy' and their thin & light construction was brilliant compared to comparable laptops on the market. And this was less than 3 years ago.Of course the original MBA was around even before the unibody MBP's but it wasn't until the current iteration that they can be considered a serious alternative for a MBP, they were just too slow before due to the HDD and the heavy CPU throttling (not to mention the price).
Good point. The only thing that has changed is the architecture of the SU9400 & 9600.
Just looking at gaming performance here, I think if they use the IGP then there will be a drop.
Looking at Starcarft II in these two reviews
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4083/...core-i7-2600k-i5-2500k-core-i3-2100-tested/11
http://www.anandtech.com/show/3991/apples-2010-macbook-air-11-13inch-reviewed/10
The top one is even using a desktop cpu combined with the HD3000 and it is still achieving less FPS than the 11 inch
Looking at Starcarft II in these two reviews
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4083/...core-i7-2600k-i5-2500k-core-i3-2100-tested/11
http://www.anandtech.com/show/3991/apples-2010-macbook-air-11-13inch-reviewed/10
The top one is even using a desktop cpu combined with the HD3000 and it is still achieving less FPS than the 11 inch
Good comparison... I think at the end of the day folks want to believe that the next generation MBA will be a step forward in all categories (CPU & GPU performance) and not just with the CPU performance.
Time will tell.
I am going to say one thing:
The Intel GMA HD 3000 (Sandy Bridge graphics) is not, not, NOT "on-par" with the nvidia 320m.
All the tests were up against the ATI Radeon 5450 card, a terrible card to begin with. And even then, the Intel GMA HD 3000 could barely match the 5450, it lost some tests won some others. On top of that, the tests were only done with 640x400 and 800x600 resolutions. Upping the resolution would definitely show the 5450 to beat the GMA HD 3000. Who wants to game with those terrible resolultions? And on top of that, the reviews stated to reach the performance comparable to the 5450, the Intel GMA HD 3000 scaled down the graphics quality on it's own, making the game blurrier.
If Apple decides (or cannot use anything else) other than the GMA HD 3000, we are going to see a significant (significant is relative) graphics performance hit, but a lot longer battery life and better CPU performance. I am going to take an educated guess and say about 20-25% worse graphics performance.
The Intel GMA HD 3000 (Sandy Bridge graphics) is not, not, NOT "on-par" with the nvidia 320m.
All the tests were up against the ATI Radeon 5450 card, a terrible card to begin with. And even then, the Intel GMA HD 3000 could barely match the 5450, it lost some tests won some others. On top of that, the tests were only done with 640x400 and 800x600 resolutions. Upping the resolution would definitely show the 5450 to beat the GMA HD 3000. Who wants to game with those terrible resolultions? And on top of that, the reviews stated to reach the performance comparable to the 5450, the Intel GMA HD 3000 scaled down the graphics quality on it's own, making the game blurrier.
If Apple decides (or cannot use anything else) other than the GMA HD 3000, we are going to see a significant (significant is relative) graphics performance hit, but a lot longer battery life and better CPU performance. I am going to take an educated guess and say about 20-25% worse graphics performance.
And then, you lose OpenCL. That really hurts if you were hoping to use something like Photoshop.
AMD's new Atom-killer Zacate can do wonderful graphics, but the chip is only a little better than an Atom. It's cheap and low-power though :s
Llano, coming out in July, would be awesome (if it fits), but it's at least 20W - way too hot.
20W is not much considering that it's the TDP of the CPU and the GPU. Current 11" MBAs have 10W CPUs but 320M takes 20W according to Wikipedia. I don't have a lot faith towards that number as 9400M was 12W but still, the total TDP of 11" is around 20-25W. 20W CPU with IGP + couple of watts for Southbridge should be fine.
If Llano impresses, perhaps.
We know the graphics capabilities of it built in is going to blow Sandy Bridge and the nvidia 320m out of the water, and I'm guessing the processor performance will be around Core 2 Duo, give or take... the battery capabilities should also be pretty good judging by the other fusion products.
Perhaps... AMD hasn't really competed head to head with Intel in the mainstream laptop processor area in 5.5 years.
We know the graphics capabilities of it built in is going to blow Sandy Bridge and the nvidia 320m out of the water, and I'm guessing the processor performance will be around Core 2 Duo, give or take... the battery capabilities should also be pretty good judging by the other fusion products.
Perhaps... AMD hasn't really competed head to head with Intel in the mainstream laptop processor area in 5.5 years.
Awesome. But still, 20W is the lowest rating I've heard (the 3.0Ghz Quad will be more like 100W), and Llano has to deliver. Normally, I wouldn't be too hopeful, but it's little brother Zacate is just such a nice chip - lower power and better performance than Atom+Ion. Heck, for 3D it beats an i5.
Last edited: