Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Which CPU in the 2011 Air?

TrollToddington said:
Here here, I'm also heading for a base 11" SB MBA + 4GB RAM, however, we can expect a 1.5x greater score from the 13" which means the next MBA (Sandy Bridge) may outscore my 2010 i3 iMac. If it hadn't been for it's convenience I'd have considered selling the iMac and going SB MBA + external monitor.
Click to expand...

yeah, i guess 1.5X would make sense.

i was already a little suspect of the i5-2537M's geekbench score, but now supposing that the 13" would score around 6000 = 1.5(4000), faster than your iMac, as well as any of the 2010 MBPs, these numbers seem too good to be true.

thoughts?
 
Last edited:
mrsir2009 said:
I don't see whats wrong with Core2Duo. Its capable for what the MBA is supposed to be used for ;)
Click to expand...

Cell phones were once "supposed" to be used for nothing more than phone calls. This is technology we're dealing with. What something is "supposed" to be used for today may not be the same as tomorrow. Why would anyone be against the MBA being able to handle more than it can now?
 
... so,

2011 13" Sandy Bridge MBA faster than fastest 2010 MBP?

could that possibly be right? (see above)
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Bridge#Mobile_processors

Take a look at that table. Apple will likely use the 17W ones in 11" and 25W in 13". But they could also go 17W in the whole lineup for massive battery life.

The 2537m is just the tip of the iceberg. With a 17W TDP, we can expect it mounted on the 11". 13"s will likely have the 25W ones, and that means 2649M will be the one on the 13" (15"?) Ultimate Air.
 
gpat said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Bridge#Mobile_processors

Take a look at that table. Apple will likely use the 17W ones in 11" and 25W in 13". But they could also go 17W in the whole lineup for massive battery life.

The 2537m is just the tip of the iceberg. With a 17W TDP, we can expect it mounted on the 11". 13"s will likely have the 25W ones, and that means 2649M will be the one on the 13" (15"?) Ultimate Air.
Click to expand...

thanks, but this is essentially the gist of the original post. :eek:
 
nebulos said:
2011 13" Sandy Bridge MBA faster than fastest 2010 MBP?

could that possibly be right? (see above)
Click to expand...


i guess, i had been thinking about the 11" this whole time, and hadn't really researched the 13" option. but indeed, looking at clock speeds, base and turbo, HT, etc., the i7-2649M is not unlike the i7-620M in the high end 2010 MBPs.

i guess i just assumed LV CPUs would necessarily be slower.

am i overlooking something here?

can you imagine an Air with this powerful a CPU??? at first i was happy because the update meant, in my mind, 'finally good enough' CPUs. (yes, relative to my needs.) now i'm actually impressed and excited!

i did kinda have a thing for the 11". but i also had the feeling i'd really want the 13" in the end. this would only be another reason.

i'm kinda surprised this thread is not getting more attention.
 
Last edited:
So, putting it all together, since Apple usually offers a base and high-end config, perhaps:


11" Base CPU = 1.4GHz (2.3GHz) i5-2537M 17W

11" High CPU = 1.6GHz (2.7GHz) i7-2657M 17W

13" Base CPU = 2.1GHz (3.0GHz) i7-2629M 25W

13" High CPU = 2.3GHz (3.2GHz) i7-2649M 25W


... all dual-core with hyper-threading.

in each case, going from base to high-end represents an Intel list price difference of about $30. that's approximately equal to the Intel list price difference represented by the SU9400 to SU9600 or SL9400 to SL9600 upgrades in the current 11" and 13" models, respectively. (of course, Apple will no doubt continue to charge $100 for these upgrades!)

as has been mentioned, allotting 10W TDP for the 320M (conservative), the total CPU + GPU TDPs for the 2010's are already higher than those proposed above.

what do you think?
 
will said:
...

Possible 2011 Air CPU models
In terms of actual CPU models I believe the choice boils down to:

13" Air (high power): Core i7-2649M 2.3GHz, 25W TDP (full spec)
13" Air (low power): Core i7-2657M 1.6GHz, 17W TDP (full spec)

...

Conclusion
Whichever way Apple decides there's going to be some sort of compromise.

Personally I suspect they'll opt for the lower-power CPUs and play up the video acceleration capabilities of Sandy Bridge (already used by FaceTime). This would mean the next-generation Air would be significantly slower in games: but the Air isn't really about gaming. By going with the lower-power CPU we could have more CPU performance, a longer battery life and cooling should be easy. The loss of graphics performance (outside video) would be a price worth paying to maintain the ergonomics and battery life.
Click to expand...

by the way, i think exactly because of the weaker IGP, Apple would want to give the 13" the better (2.3GHz) CPU, to help make up on the graphics end.

of course we won't know until they come out, but, while the new Airs' gaming capabilities may take a blow, it seems like these new CPUs will be SO MUCH faster! for many this will be no compromise at all, but a godsend.

so many on here view Sandy Bridge as the apocalypse. isn't anyone else excited??? :(:eek::p:):):)

... then again, putting the better CPU in the 13" MBA makes the 13" MBP pointless for many and begins to confuse product lines. i hope Apple doesn't do something terrible like intentionally cripple the Air. :confused::confused::confused:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
nebulos said:
so many on here view Sandy Bridge as the apocalypse. isn't anyone else excited??? :(:eek::p:):):)
Click to expand...

I am excited. A 13" sandy bridge MBA is going to be my next purchase. I'll even spend through the nose for a 512 GB SSD if they make one available. Come on Apple, you know you want my damn money.
 
Please Calm Down

TheMacBookPro said:
So Apple should leave out the 320M just because you think one should not game on a MBA? Thanks for defining what I should do on my laptop.

I game on my 11" Air. Why should I not consider gaming when looking at the MBAs? The only reason I chose this over, say, the Samsung Series 9 is because of its far superior graphics chip.

The 13" Pro is useless when it comes to gaming so don't tell me to go look at that particular Pro. I have an i7 13" Pro and the Air handily beats it when it comes to gaming.

By the way- Alienware is not my only option for ultraportable gaming. VAIO Z has a comparable chip to the M11x (GT330M v 335M) yet weighs just 3.0 lbs with a full speed Intel i-series processor. I much prefer my Z over my M11x and certainly over my M17x. Add the Air to that list now.
Click to expand...

The condescension of many people on this thread aside, there seems to be a lot of confusion about what people CAN (and are willing to) do on the MBA and what Apple has designed and marketed the MBA TO do. Take one look at the MacBook Air page to see what I mean: http://www.apple.com/macbookair/

The major selling points on this page focus on the machine's thinness, battery, FaceTime, and flash storage. The display is mentioned as well (and it's a gorgeous display, to be sure), but you see no mention of graphics performance. Compare that to the MacBook Pro site (http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/) which features "Game-changing graphics" front and center.

Would I like to squeeze a decent discrete solution into an 11-inch MBA? Of course. Will Apple opt to increase TDP while costing of battery life to maintain decent framerates in FPS's? It doesn't seem likely. The IGP on the SB line is good enough to drive the displays, output 1080p content, and accelerate HD facetime, all while allowing Apple to ditch several cm^2 of prime internal real estate and lowering TDP by a Watt or two (assuming 8W for 320M, SB w/ IGP solution is at least 1W lower).

My hope for the updated 11" Air is a backlit keyboard (which I find indispensable when traveling), a Thunderbolt port (which seems like a definite), a Sandy Bridge cpu, increased SSD sizes (I'd pay for the 256GB in the 11"), and intelligent use of those cm^2 (bigger battery or SD slot, I would hope). If you want the Air to game, it seems likely that the current model with the 320M will suit those needs better than the refreshed models.

For the business-oriented road-warrior/blogger audience - which seems to be among the primary targets of Apple MBA advertising - these changes would provide the best bang-for-the-buck.

(And yes, if you go to the "Performance" page of the MacBook Air site, you see greater emphasis on graphics. The 320M is some nice silicon. But my point stands; this information is relegated to a secondary page. It just isn't the focus. The 320M is nice, but they're treating it like the icing on the cake.)
 
strwrsfrk said:
The condescension of many people on this thread aside, there seems to be a lot of confusion about what people CAN (and are willing to) do on the MBA and what Apple has designed and marketed the MBA TO do. Take one look at the MacBook Air page to see what I mean: http://www.apple.com/macbookair/
Click to expand...

my gripe with the 'SB-indignant gamers' is that they think everybody should care more about GPU than CPU.

i care more about CPU than GPU.

the point is, we all have different needs and mine are not, for some mysterious reason, the correct, universal ones.

i could care less what the Air is designed and marketed for. you would also tell me the Air was not designed for processing power. no, its not currently, but Sandy Bridge may well completely change that.

wanting more from technology is what drives innovation. there's nothing wrong with that, it's the name of the game. it's the reason the Air exists at all, (though here we wanted 'less').

and i think you're wrong about the Air users, at least on MR. it sometimes seems like they're ALL gamers, ready to sacrifice almost anything to the 'fps' gods!

(yes, i'm exaggerating!)
 
Last edited:
nebulos said:
... then again, putting the better CPU in the 13" MBA makes the 13" MBP pointless for many and begins to confuse product lines. i hope Apple doesn't do something terrible like intentionally cripple the Air. :confused::confused::confused:
Click to expand...

If anything, it would appear more that Apple intentionally crippled the 13" MBP! It's display and IGP are not stellar.
 
iRun26.2 said:
If anything, it would appear more that Apple intentionally crippled the 13" MBP! It's display and IGP are not stellar.
Click to expand...

i know, which makes me fear they'd do it 'again'.

the ONLY reason i'm on the MBA forum now, waiting desperately for the new Airs, is because the 13 MBP was stuck with 1280x800.
 
retrorichie said:
I am excited. A 13" sandy bridge MBA is going to be my next purchase. I'll even spend through the nose for a 512 GB SSD if they make one available. Come on Apple, you know you want my damn money.
Click to expand...

Exactly!

Come on Apple, I want a 256G SSD for the new 11.6" MBA. My money is ready to be spent (and I know you want it)! :)
 
nebulos said:
my gripe with the 'SB-indignant gamers' is that they think everybody should care more about GPU than CPU.

i care more about CPU than GPU.

the point is, we all have different needs and mine are not, for some mysterious reason, the correct, universal ones.

i could care less what the Air is designed and marketed for. you would also tell me the Air was not designed for processing power. no, its not currently, but Sandy Bridge may well completely change that.

wanting more from technology is what drives innovation. there's nothing wrong with that, it's the name of the game. it's the reason the Air exists at all, (though here we wanted 'less').

and i think you're wrong about the Air users, at least on MR. it sometimes seems like they're ALL gamers, ready to sacrifice almost anything to the 'fps' gods!
Click to expand...

From what I've seen of the MR crowd, they are primarily power-users, or those who consider themselves as such. These are people for whom pushing their machines to the limit is the norm. People who are generally in the upper 5% of tech-savvy consumers. In other words, my kind of people.

So yes, I agree with your statement that the MR crowd seems to include many gamers and other GPU-centric individuals.

The problem is, those folks are indeed a smaller percentage of the whole market. You rarely see non-techie consumers on these pages, and if you do, they're generally asking for advice.

Threads such as this fall outside the realm of "imagine your perfect unicorn-type computer." In a mythical world, we could stick that GT540M discrete in an 11" machine rocking 32GB RAM, full 1080p resolution, and a 5GHz hexa-core CPU. But having unrealistic expectations does not drive innovation (okay, maybe once in a while it does).

Generally speaking, the innovation we've seen over the last several decades in the computer world have been driven by optimization. x86 is how old now? Compare our i7's of today to the Pentiums of yesteryear. Ostensibly, these are extremely similar architectures (great-grandfather:great grand-son, as it were); in fact, modern x86 CPUs can natively run a lot of Pentium-era code. What we have is the product of hundreds/thousands/millions of small, innovative changes that have resulted in an unrecognizable product to an early 90's-era Pentium user.

Why does it matter how Apple markets a product? Because it is likely those are the factors they will consider when designing updates. I have no problem with utilizing hardware for other than its "intended purpose"; I just feel like users should not be indignant when changes and updates follow a predictable, practical, and understandable path. The reality of the situation is that if Apple moves in the direction it seems to be indicating, GPU updates will likely not be a priority when optimizations to battery life, heat reduction, and maybe even feature-sets are available.
 
... not sure i understand your post.

but you seem to agree that Sandy Bridge is the next 'logical' step for the Air.

GOOD!
 
Last edited:
standrew said:
Intel says they will roll out the low voltage cpu for MBAs at the end of this year
Click to expand...

Actually they are due out Q3. Which likely means July. And Apple has been known to get Intel parts a week or two ahead of mainstream release.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back