Apple isn't giving up on OCL in either scenario given Intel is providing OCL support on the CPU. OpenCL is supposed to run on CPUs, GPUs and whatever other hardware happens to be available. As long as the Sandy Bridge MB performs well in the GPGPU benchmarks then who cares if the OpenCL code execution occurs on a GPU or CPU.
.
The machines that may use a SB processor with the Intel IGP are the MBAs, MBs, minis and 13" MBPs. That's a large swath of Mac machines and a significant percentage of Macs. My guess is that if Apple do as you suggest and use SB with Intel IGPs in those machines most developers will eschew OCL for GCD. As I understand it, coding an app to use GCD is easier than OCL (I'm not a SW developer so perhaps I'm wrong).
You also suggest that SB will be fairly close in OCL using the CPU vs. a machine using the GPU. I'm not sure that'll be true for machines that use SB mobile CPUs. Time will tell, but right now the mobile GPUs are magnitudes faster than the mobile CPUs in running the OCL benchmark. SB is likely to reduce that gap but I still suspect it'll be fairly large.
Really it comes down to this, will a LLano that has a CPU and GPU capable of runing OCL be faster than a mobile SB CPU? I believe it will. Apple may still choose Intel anyway for other reasons but I certainly think that AMD have a viable product for the Mac machines that will only have IGPs.
This thread has become so geeky it's terrifying. Can you try and dial it down a couple of notches so lesser mortals can understand what the heck you're saying?
Wiz, Marvin, bactomac, blueeddie and nht would care to summarise your analysis in single paras. Thank you in anticipation!
wiz, et al: Apple can't release a new laptop without OpenCL support from a graphics card because OpenCL is a magical experience.
nht: Yes they can cause Sandy Bridge will be the most powerful CPU ever used by Apple. It's 2x faster than the C2D used in the last MB. Boom.
wiz, et al: Apple can't release a new laptop without OpenCL support from a graphics card because OpenCL is a magical experience.
nht: Yes they can cause Sandy Bridge will be the most powerful CPU ever used by Apple. It's 2x faster than the C2D used in the last MB. Boom.
wiz, et al: nu uh.
nht: uh huh.
wiz, et al: nu uh
nht: uh huh.
You can add me to the ?nu uh? group.
Some say the OS currently uses it we just don?t know it because it?s all in the background whilst others say it?s because the next version of Mac OS will require it because it will relay heavily on it for operations.
I don?t know who is right, but I do think there has to be a reason Apple has only been choosing dGPUs and IGPs that support OpenCL.
This thread has become so geeky it's terrifying. Can you try and dial it down a couple of notches so lesser mortals can understand what the heck you're saying?
Wiz, Marvin, bactomac, blueeddie and nht would care to summarise your analysis in single paras. Thank you in anticipation!
nht- Sandy Bridge processors are so fast they don't need a gpu to help perform operations. Besides not many apps use OCL and the ones that do are unimportant to most users.
wiz,BTM,Marvin- OCL can potentially greatly accelerate some apps and because the computer can use BOTH the cpu and gpu to perform operations. Apple will stick with cpus and gpus that are OCL capable.
This argument is only relevant for the MBA, mini, MB and 13" MBP. They use IGPs and the nest chips from Intel have the IGPs on the die with the cpu. That IGP isn't OCL compatible, ie the SB IGP can't run OCL code. The other Macs will use a dedicated GPU that is OCL capable.
Flexibility. OpenCL allows you to do more general-purpose computation, which is important for advanced shader effects. You can also offload physics calculations to the GPU like you see in PhysX. Here's an example of an OpenCL compositor comparing CPU and GPU doing things you can't do with OpenGL alone:
I don't think the 320M can do PhysX. While I assume every card that supports OpenCL 1.0 supports all functions in hardware I'm wondering if that's not really the case and some might fall back to software mode. I know that Cuda has...compute profiles or compute somethings...that delineate what a GPU can do. I think the 320M is 1.2 (where 2.0 is the current).
With Intel's penchant for fixed functions I doubt that their hardware encoding/decoding stuff is generalized shader like units but I dunno that they couldn't figure out some hardware acceleration for these computations in OpenCL for the CPU. Improving cryptographic performance by increasing the register width seems to have wider applicability than just speeding up encryption/decryption.
I also don't quite understand the contention that you can't do advanced shader techniques OpenGL via the OpenGL Shading Language. Graphics is not my area of specialty so perhaps you could explain what I'm missing. OpenCL is more open to general implementation but I would expect GLSL to be able to do any shader effect that a GPU is physically capable of doing.
Quote:
Only for supported formats though. Once you start transcoding AVCHD to ProRes, it's not any faster. OpenCL can be leveraged to do any transcoding.
True. That's the advantage of OpenCL vs fixed function. On the other hand for the low end user that depends on a IGP and a low end CPU I view this as kind of a corner case.
Quote:
The specs given for the media transcoder in SB sound amazing though and I would love to have a dedicated processor that can do 400FPS H.264 transcoding and I'm surprised they haven't done this already because MP4 H.264 is used everywhere and is so slow to encode.
Yah, it's basically Intel grabbing low hanging fruit to say "See...that GPGPU stuff isn't worth the complexity". I think for some market segments that might be true.
Users of Motion, FCE, etc probably aren't going to be happy with any IGP. Users of iMovie on a MacBook probably aren't going to miss the OpenCL performance delta if the new MacBook is faster than the old MacBook.
Some say the OS currently uses it we just don’t know it because it’s all in the background whilst others say it’s because the next version of Mac OS will require it because it will relay heavily on it for operations.
I don’t know who is right, but I do think there has to be a reason Apple has only been choosing dGPUs and IGPs that support OpenCL.
To a mild degree I'm playing devils advocate on this topic. Certainly Apple would greatly prefer a GPU that supports OpenCL.
Would they trade the optical drive in the 13" MB and 13" MBP for a discrete GPU and more battery? Plausible, perhaps even most likely. The cost delta is probably a wash. You might see the 13" MBA go bye bye eventually.
However, if they don't go this route it's a lot more problematic:
1) Stay with C2D + IGP. Non starter. Too slow.
2) Go i5 and nVidia IGP and hope for a settlement. Non starter. If there's a Jan/Feb Sandy Bridge update those machines are fully designed now.
3) Go i5 and redesign so a discrete GPU can fit the MB/MBP 13". The argument for no i3 + discrete on the MB and MBP was there's no space. Looking at the boards, it is pretty tight. Doable, but not too optimal...and it's a double hit on battery life for a discrete GPU and less space for battery. Also more cost so either higher price or lower margin. Just to keep OpenCL via GPU on the box vs OpenCL via CPU.
4) Go with SB alone. No OpenCL/GPU so non-optimal.
Eh...option 3 strikes me as only somewhat less bad than 4. Enough so that you can argue for point 4.
My honest guess is that if there is a SB refresh for the 13" MB/MBP in Jan/Feb we'll see Apple drop the optical drive in favor of a discrete GPU. The other tradeoffs are all meh.
This thread has become so geeky it's terrifying. Can you try and dial it down a couple of notches so lesser mortals can understand what the heck you're saying?
+ 1
the techno babble is killing me but you guys definitely seem to be on to something lol
so i'm going to go ahead an ask my stupid question as i'm trying to figure out if i should upgrade my 2006 black macbook ( 2 Ghz C2D, 2GB DDR2 ) now with the current 13" MBP or wait for the next gen:
do you suspect the next gen 13" MBP be much faster than current 13" C2D gen?
i am asking this because at the apple store today, a rep told me he just recently switched from current gen 13" C2D MBP to a maxed out 15" i7 MBP, and he confessed the speed difference, although noticeable, wasn't insanely superior as he expected ( mind we were talking audio engineer application performances only ). He was also very doubtful of an i5 or of a lack of ODD in next 13" MBP refresh but more confident on a i3 upgrade.
of course i realize this is only speculation and that this new SB chip is the real wild card in the equation..
the techno babble is killing me but you guys definitely seem to be on to something lol
so i'm going to go ahead an ask my stupid question as i'm trying to figure out if i should upgrade my 2006 black macbook ( 2 Ghz C2D, 2GB DDR2 ) now with the current 13" MBP or wait for the next gen:
do you suspect the next gen 13" MBP be much faster than current 13" C2D gen?
i am asking this because at the apple store today, a rep told me he just recently switched from current gen 13" C2D MBP to a maxed out 15" i7 MBP, and he confessed the speed difference, although noticeable, wasn't insanely superior as he expected ( mind we were talking audio engineer application performances only ). He was also very doubtful of an i5 or of a lack of ODD in next 13" MBP refresh but more confident on a i3 upgrade.
of course i realize this is only speculation and that this new SB chip is the real wild card in the equation..
So... you think we're idiots to discuss the nuances of Mac performance amongst some potential CPUs and GPUs but you want our advice as to whether the next MBP will be much faster than the last one?
You're new here so I'm going to give a little advice. Things discussed here are of a technical nature. Ok? If its over your head thats ok. Don't belittle others who discuss things you may know little about. Its unbecoming and you came here, not visa versa.
As to whether you should get a new Mac, try supplying a little more information. Like what you typically do with your Mac and what apps you run? Someone will be happy to give you some advice. It won't be me as I speak 'techno babble' and you don't like that.
backtomac, you got me completely wrong... first of all i didn't call or imply that anyone here is an idiot or remotely even tried to belittle this conversation, it actually seems that this thread is very enlightening and i have been following every post with great attention.. i am the self-admitted ignorant one here and was only venting out my own non-comprehension of certain tech intense comments, even though i think i do grasp the general debate here. i am new to posting on this forum but have been following AI and other tech / mac related sites for years, so i'm not exactly a newbie, nor am i against techno talk, obviously i wouldn't be here otherwise...
ok hopefully i got that cleared. so concerning what i do with my mac, i'm an audio engineer, musician & dj. apps i use are logic, ableton live, traktor and numerous vst/au plug-ins. i've got zero need for video, so i am unsure if GPUs is really of concern to me, but obviously i need the most powerful macbook i can afford, but i need a 13" for portability, hence my question about if wether i should buy now or wait for next gen. obviously what's next is always going to be better, but i need an upgrade quite urgently so if the next gen isn't going to be a substantial performance increase, i'll go ahead and get a maxed out 13" MBP C2D. voila.
ok hopefully i got that cleared. so concerning what i do with my mac, i'm an audio engineer, musician & dj. apps i use are logic, ableton live, traktor and numerous vst/au plug-ins. i've got zero need for video, so i am unsure if GPUs is really of concern to me, but obviously i need the most powerful macbook i can afford, but i need a 13" for portability, hence my question about if wether i should buy now or wait for next gen. obviously what's next is always going to be better, but i need an upgrade quite urgently so if the next gen isn't going to be a substantial performance increase, i'll go ahead and get a maxed out 13" MBP C2D. voila.
If your black macbook isn't broken I'd wait. If it is broken and you need it for work then you don't have much choice do you?
If it's not broken and you need a speed bump I'd probably max my RAM and replace the HDD with a SSD like this guy did:
I'm sure someone can make a recommendation but I haven't been paying attention to what is the current SSD favorite. From what I remember folks recommended drives with the sandforce controller.
Some say the OS currently uses it we just don?t know it because it?s all in the background whilst others say it?s because the next version of Mac OS will require it because it will relay heavily on it for operations.
.
I wonder if iStat will make a version that tracks the resource usage of the gpu? That way you would know if the gpu was being used for non-graphics functions.
the techno babble is killing me but you guys definitely seem to be on to something lol
Many opinions are expressed but that doesn't imply a basis in fact.
Quote:
so i'm going to go ahead an ask my stupid question as i'm trying to figure out if i should upgrade my 2006 black macbook ( 2 Ghz C2D, 2GB DDR2 ) now with the current 13" MBP or wait for the next gen:
my personal opinion is to wait if you don't have a need. Actually the discussion here with regards to the processor is only part of the reason to delay. One issue is the likely hood that the new machines will have an SSD slot or two. From the standpoint of feel that SSD will have a very nice impact on performance.
Quote:
do you suspect the next gen 13" MBP be much faster than current 13" C2D gen?
It depends upon what you mean by faster. a SSD will make the machine feel faster even if it doesn't benchmark faster on CPU bound code. How much faster though is an unknown, I don't see the 13" MBP getting a Sandy Bridge processor, mainly because it is a point source for a lot of heat. So maybe a lesser I series processor or something from AMD.
Quote:
i am asking this because at the apple store today, a rep told me he just recently switched from current gen 13" C2D MBP to a maxed out 15" i7 MBP, and he confessed the speed difference, although noticeable, wasn't insanely superior as he expected ( mind we were talking audio engineer application performances only ).
First off like other things everyone has an opinion!! As to the performance differential again it depends upon the user and the software. The thing is if you can get four real threads as opposed to two it can have a very significant impact with respect to audio engineering.
Quote:
He was also very doubtful of an i5 or of a lack of ODD in next 13" MBP refresh but more confident on a i3 upgrade.
He has no idea what so ever!!!!! This is the same for everbody on this forum which in this thread is all about speculation. I hope you understand what that means as some take threads about future products much to seriously.
By the way the i3 sucks and would hardly be much of an upgrade. Beyound that if they want to call the 13" MBP it needs to support four threads hopefully on real cores.
Quote:
of course i realize this is only speculation and that this new SB chip is the real wild card in the equation..
Actually SAndy Bridge is not as much of a wild card as you may think. It is a very good chip and worth waiting for if you intend to buy hardware it is likely to end up in. The real wild cards are AMDs fusion processors that are expected in the spring. I expect the AMD solution to be compelling.
As to Sandy Bridge realize that I'm not dismissing it as a good update. Rather what I'm saying is that nothing indicates that it will be effective for OpenCL code. Further I don't consider most of the current performance benchmarks floating around to be credible.
An invitation from Intel confirms that the company will introduce its Sandy Bridge next-generation processors during its keynote at the Consumer Electronics Show on Jan. 5th, a new report claims.
According to the invitation, Intel PC Client Group general manager Mooly Eden will show off the new processors, which will include the "world's fastest processor," at CES, Electronista reports. The new processors are expected to replace the Nehalem line of chips currently used in Apple's Core i5 and i7-equipped iMacs and MacBook Pros.
"Desktop chips will range from dual 2.5 GHz Core i3s to quad 3.4 GHz Core i7s. Regular notebooks will get dual 2.5GHz to 2.7GHz Core i5 and i7 chips in the first batch of processors, and desktop replacements will get quad 2.2GHz through to 2.5GHz Core i7s," the report noted. Taiwanese industry publication Digitimes reported Monday that low-power Sandy Bridge processors will be coming to Intel's Huron River platform, which is also due for a Q1 2011 release.
During an earnings call in July, Intel CEO Paul Otellini said he was "more excited by Sandy Bridge" than any product that the company has launched "in a number of years." "Due to the very strong reception of Sandy Bridge, we have accelerated our 32-nanometer factory ramp and have raised our capex guidance to enable us to meet the anticipated demand," continued Otellini.
At the time, Intel was expected to release the processors at the end of this year, with Apple then incorporating them into its Mac lineup in early 2011. In 2009, Apple was the first PC maker to release a Nehalem-based system.
Despite falling behind in the mobile market, Intel has done well for itself. The world's largest chipmaker posted record earnings for the September quarter, with quarterly revenue exceeding $11 billion for the first time in the Santa Clara, Calif., company's history. Though Otellini remained optimistic about Intel's continued success, he did acknowledge that the iPad and other tablets are beginning to cannibalize PC margins.
In a company memo in October, Otellini admitted that Intel is losing the mobile race to Apple, which has gained a massive head start with the success of the iPhone and iPad, but he reassured employees that Intel was running a "marathon" and would catch up eventually.
Otellini cited Intel's come from behind to capture 90 percent of the server market as a prior example. ?I am also very optimistic about our opportunity in tablets and smartphones, even though we are not first to market with a solution,? Otellini said. ?Ultimately, we can and will lead.?
Apple has reportedly been dissatisfied with the drop in battery life that comes with using Intel's Atom chips. Early rumors suggested that an Apple tablet would sport an Atom chip, but Apple eventually went with a custom System on a Chip that used ARM reference designs.
wiz, et al: Apple can't release a new laptop without OpenCL support from a graphics card because OpenCL is a magical experience.
I wouldn't go so far as to call it magical. What I've tried to convey is that a GApU is needed in one for or another on a modern personal computer. Such GPUs represent massive computational power for certain classes of problems, thus it is silly to implement a GPU that can't be used with a software standard (OpenCL) that you created. Further even the relatively modest GPUs seen in portables can significantly out perform the main CPU in selected tasks. Significant here can mean anything from ten to hundreds of times faster.
In a nut shell requiring support for OpenCL in the GPU enables potential very desirable performance increases at very modest costs.
Quote:
nht: Yes they can cause Sandy Bridge will be the most powerful CPU ever used by Apple. It's 2x faster than the C2D used in the last MB. Boom.
Actually he only says 20% which if real isn't to bad. My problem with this info is that we have seen plenty of times where the prerelease info doesn't jive with real world experience. Especially considering the "currated" nature of the info. Intel isn't above manipulation.
Quote:
wiz, et al: nu uh.
nht: uh huh.
wiz, et al: nu uh
nht: uh huh.
Exactly. nu uh!
Understand what I'm saying though. I'm not saying Sandy Bridge is a performance dog, if anything it should be one of Intels better releases. However as good as it is it will not compete well with GPU acceleration where a GPU is the optimal place to do a calculation.
Can you really see and tell the difference between these processors like core 2 duo and this newest one if you are not a gamer?
Look it is like this many people right this very minute are buying a new MacBook AIR even though the suck CPU performance wise. Why would they do that? For one many people simply don't need the extra CPU horsepower. Second Apple has carefully balanced the machines architecture so that the lesser than stellar CPU performance isn't a problem.
At the other end of the scale you have people that most certainly could use stronger performance. Gamers are one segment but really it is a small segment. Many domains find there software bogged down due to processor performance and would benefit from faster machines.
I'm sure someone can make a recommendation but I haven't been paying attention to what is the current SSD favorite. From what I remember folks recommended drives with the sandforce controller.
$239 for 128GB seems like the sweet spot and a cheap enough upgrade.
Thanks for the links, indeed my MB isn't broken but is in desperate need of a speed bump for tasks ahead...
However my black macbook is the late 2006 model, with DDR2 ram & SATA I interface, i can only max it to 3gb ram (still better than the current 2gb i guess) and will it be worth the price and hassle (format + reinstall ) to upgrade to a SSD with a slower SATA I ? i surely can't expect the type of performances in the above youtube vid with later black macbook (impressive btw)
Thanks for the links, indeed my MB isn't broken but is in desperate need of a speed bump for tasks ahead...
However my black macbook is the late 2006 model, with DDR2 ram & SATA I interface, i can only max it to 3gb ram (still better than the current 2gb i guess) and will it be worth the price and hassle (format + reinstall ) to upgrade to a SSD with a slower SATA I ? i surely can't expect the type of performances in the above youtube vid with later black macbook (impressive btw)
Your sequential read/write speeds will be limited by sata 1 speed but you'll still get full benefit of random read/write speeds and low latency of the ssd. Meaning you get pretty much 100% of the advantages of quick app startup but maybe not all of the sustained reading/writing of lots of data. For audio you probably wont see much of a loss from being SATA I.
Run the apps you care about. Open up Activity Monitor.
If your CPU use is pegged then you're CPU bound and neither of these will help that.
If System memory is showing a lot of paging and swap use then getting another 1GB will help. Getting more RAM is generally the easiest and most useful speed bump. Also having a SSD makes paging/swap faster if you happen to need more than 3GB.
In disk activity look to see what that is under your load. If there's a lot of disk use then you're also IO bound and I think the MB had 5400 RPM drives so going SSD will really make your system snappier.
If you are only CPU bound and not RAM or I/O bound at all then upgrading your current laptop isn't worth it. I'm guessing you aren't JUST CPU bound.
I'm not putting my money on a case redesign for the next MBP refresh. I think it will be no more than a speedbump. I truly do not think that Apple will remove the onboard DVd drive from the 13" MBP. In many uninformed people's eyes this would reduce the distinction between the MBP and MBA.
I still don't understand the difference between the Sandy Bridge chips that will arrive in january and the additional ones that will arrive in April. Given the length of time that has passed since the last refresh, I suspect that January will be new model time.
Your sequential read/write speeds will be limited by sata 1 speed but you'll still get full benefit of random read/write speeds and low latency of the ssd. Meaning you get pretty much 100% of the advantages of quick app startup but maybe not all of the sustained reading/writing of lots of data. For audio you probably wont see much of a loss from being SATA I.
Run the apps you care about. Open up Activity Monitor.
If your CPU use is pegged then you're CPU bound and neither of these will help that.
If System memory is showing a lot of paging and swap use then getting another 1GB will help. Getting more RAM is generally the easiest and most useful speed bump. Also having a SSD makes paging/swap faster if you happen to need more than 3GB.
In disk activity look to see what that is under your load. If there's a lot of disk use then you're also IO bound and I think the MB had 5400 RPM drives so going SSD will really make your system snappier.
If you are only CPU bound and not RAM or I/O bound at all then upgrading your current laptop isn't worth it. I'm guessing you aren't JUST CPU bound.
That's good advice.
I don't use the apps he's using but I believe others have said that audio apps can be CPU intensive, Ableton in particular.
The RAM upgrade is easy and relatively cheap. Replacing the HDD with a SSD can be expensive depending upon the size you get. I'd make sure that the I/O is the bottleneck and not the CPU before investing in that.
A reasonable compromise might be one of the Seagate Momentus hybrid drives. They're relatively inexpensive and can speed things up pretty nicely. I've read that some Mac users have had issues with them, however so I'd take that into consideration.
I don't use the apps he's using but I believe others have said that audio apps can be CPU intensive, Ableton in particular.
The RAM upgrade is easy and relatively cheap. Replacing the HDD with a SSD can be expensive depending upon the size you get. I'd make sure that the I/O is the bottleneck and not the CPU before investing in that.
A reasonable compromise might be one of the Seagate Momentus hybrid drives. They're relatively inexpensive and can speed things up pretty nicely. I've read that some Mac users have had issues with them, however so I'd take that into consideration.
Yes, excellent advice !! Indeed the CPU is not really the only bottleneck (although some audio tasks could definitely benefit from a quad-core cpu). The reason i hadn't maxed ram before was because i was advised a while ago that 2x1GB was better in some ways than 2GB+1GB, true or false?
The Seagate Momentus hybrid drive seems like an awesome idea, i was not aware of its existence, but after quick research i found a review of someone with the same gen black macbook as mine stating day&night performance enhancements using it, however he said installation was "far from plug&play" not really sure what he means by that, also could you please elaborate on the "issues" you have heard about them?
I am really leaning towards these upgrade options (3GB ram + Seagate Momentus Hybrid) as SSD are still really expensive in my country and i don't want to invest too much as i am still planning on upgrading to the next 13" MBP refresh which hopefully will come with SSD standard..
Comments
Apple isn't giving up on OCL in either scenario given Intel is providing OCL support on the CPU. OpenCL is supposed to run on CPUs, GPUs and whatever other hardware happens to be available. As long as the Sandy Bridge MB performs well in the GPGPU benchmarks then who cares if the OpenCL code execution occurs on a GPU or CPU.
.
The machines that may use a SB processor with the Intel IGP are the MBAs, MBs, minis and 13" MBPs. That's a large swath of Mac machines and a significant percentage of Macs. My guess is that if Apple do as you suggest and use SB with Intel IGPs in those machines most developers will eschew OCL for GCD. As I understand it, coding an app to use GCD is easier than OCL (I'm not a SW developer so perhaps I'm wrong).
You also suggest that SB will be fairly close in OCL using the CPU vs. a machine using the GPU. I'm not sure that'll be true for machines that use SB mobile CPUs. Time will tell, but right now the mobile GPUs are magnitudes faster than the mobile CPUs in running the OCL benchmark. SB is likely to reduce that gap but I still suspect it'll be fairly large.
Really it comes down to this, will a LLano that has a CPU and GPU capable of runing OCL be faster than a mobile SB CPU? I believe it will. Apple may still choose Intel anyway for other reasons but I certainly think that AMD have a viable product for the Mac machines that will only have IGPs.
This thread has become so geeky it's terrifying. Can you try and dial it down a couple of notches so lesser mortals can understand what the heck you're saying?
Wiz, Marvin, bactomac, blueeddie and nht would care to summarise your analysis in single paras. Thank you in anticipation!
wiz, et al: Apple can't release a new laptop without OpenCL support from a graphics card because OpenCL is a magical experience.
nht: Yes they can cause Sandy Bridge will be the most powerful CPU ever used by Apple. It's 2x faster than the C2D used in the last MB. Boom.
wiz, et al: nu uh.
nht: uh huh.
wiz, et al: nu uh
nht: uh huh.
wiz, et al: Apple can't release a new laptop without OpenCL support from a graphics card because OpenCL is a magical experience.
nht: Yes they can cause Sandy Bridge will be the most powerful CPU ever used by Apple. It's 2x faster than the C2D used in the last MB. Boom.
wiz, et al: nu uh.
nht: uh huh.
wiz, et al: nu uh
nht: uh huh.
You can add me to the ?nu uh? group.
Some say the OS currently uses it we just don?t know it because it?s all in the background whilst others say it?s because the next version of Mac OS will require it because it will relay heavily on it for operations.
I don?t know who is right, but I do think there has to be a reason Apple has only been choosing dGPUs and IGPs that support OpenCL.
This thread has become so geeky it's terrifying. Can you try and dial it down a couple of notches so lesser mortals can understand what the heck you're saying?
Wiz, Marvin, bactomac, blueeddie and nht would care to summarise your analysis in single paras. Thank you in anticipation!
nht- Sandy Bridge processors are so fast they don't need a gpu to help perform operations. Besides not many apps use OCL and the ones that do are unimportant to most users.
wiz,BTM,Marvin- OCL can potentially greatly accelerate some apps and because the computer can use BOTH the cpu and gpu to perform operations. Apple will stick with cpus and gpus that are OCL capable.
This argument is only relevant for the MBA, mini, MB and 13" MBP. They use IGPs and the nest chips from Intel have the IGPs on the die with the cpu. That IGP isn't OCL compatible, ie the SB IGP can't run OCL code. The other Macs will use a dedicated GPU that is OCL capable.
Flexibility. OpenCL allows you to do more general-purpose computation, which is important for advanced shader effects. You can also offload physics calculations to the GPU like you see in PhysX. Here's an example of an OpenCL compositor comparing CPU and GPU doing things you can't do with OpenGL alone:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVkDx_4GP5M
Nice demo.
I don't think the 320M can do PhysX. While I assume every card that supports OpenCL 1.0 supports all functions in hardware I'm wondering if that's not really the case and some might fall back to software mode. I know that Cuda has...compute profiles or compute somethings...that delineate what a GPU can do. I think the 320M is 1.2 (where 2.0 is the current).
With Intel's penchant for fixed functions I doubt that their hardware encoding/decoding stuff is generalized shader like units but I dunno that they couldn't figure out some hardware acceleration for these computations in OpenCL for the CPU. Improving cryptographic performance by increasing the register width seems to have wider applicability than just speeding up encryption/decryption.
I also don't quite understand the contention that you can't do advanced shader techniques OpenGL via the OpenGL Shading Language. Graphics is not my area of specialty so perhaps you could explain what I'm missing. OpenCL is more open to general implementation but I would expect GLSL to be able to do any shader effect that a GPU is physically capable of doing.
Only for supported formats though. Once you start transcoding AVCHD to ProRes, it's not any faster. OpenCL can be leveraged to do any transcoding.
True. That's the advantage of OpenCL vs fixed function. On the other hand for the low end user that depends on a IGP and a low end CPU I view this as kind of a corner case.
The specs given for the media transcoder in SB sound amazing though and I would love to have a dedicated processor that can do 400FPS H.264 transcoding and I'm surprised they haven't done this already because MP4 H.264 is used everywhere and is so slow to encode.
Yah, it's basically Intel grabbing low hanging fruit to say "See...that GPGPU stuff isn't worth the complexity". I think for some market segments that might be true.
Users of Motion, FCE, etc probably aren't going to be happy with any IGP. Users of iMovie on a MacBook probably aren't going to miss the OpenCL performance delta if the new MacBook is faster than the old MacBook.
You can add me to the “nu uh” group.
Some say the OS currently uses it we just don’t know it because it’s all in the background whilst others say it’s because the next version of Mac OS will require it because it will relay heavily on it for operations.
I don’t know who is right, but I do think there has to be a reason Apple has only been choosing dGPUs and IGPs that support OpenCL.
To a mild degree I'm playing devils advocate on this topic. Certainly Apple would greatly prefer a GPU that supports OpenCL.
Would they trade the optical drive in the 13" MB and 13" MBP for a discrete GPU and more battery? Plausible, perhaps even most likely. The cost delta is probably a wash. You might see the 13" MBA go bye bye eventually.
However, if they don't go this route it's a lot more problematic:
1) Stay with C2D + IGP. Non starter. Too slow.
2) Go i5 and nVidia IGP and hope for a settlement. Non starter. If there's a Jan/Feb Sandy Bridge update those machines are fully designed now.
3) Go i5 and redesign so a discrete GPU can fit the MB/MBP 13". The argument for no i3 + discrete on the MB and MBP was there's no space. Looking at the boards, it is pretty tight. Doable, but not too optimal...and it's a double hit on battery life for a discrete GPU and less space for battery. Also more cost so either higher price or lower margin. Just to keep OpenCL via GPU on the box vs OpenCL via CPU.
4) Go with SB alone. No OpenCL/GPU so non-optimal.
Eh...option 3 strikes me as only somewhat less bad than 4. Enough so that you can argue for point 4.
My honest guess is that if there is a SB refresh for the 13" MB/MBP in Jan/Feb we'll see Apple drop the optical drive in favor of a discrete GPU. The other tradeoffs are all meh.
This thread has become so geeky it's terrifying. Can you try and dial it down a couple of notches so lesser mortals can understand what the heck you're saying?
+ 1
the techno babble is killing me but you guys definitely seem to be on to something lol
so i'm going to go ahead an ask my stupid question as i'm trying to figure out if i should upgrade my 2006 black macbook ( 2 Ghz C2D, 2GB DDR2 ) now with the current 13" MBP or wait for the next gen:
do you suspect the next gen 13" MBP be much faster than current 13" C2D gen?
i am asking this because at the apple store today, a rep told me he just recently switched from current gen 13" C2D MBP to a maxed out 15" i7 MBP, and he confessed the speed difference, although noticeable, wasn't insanely superior as he expected ( mind we were talking audio engineer application performances only ). He was also very doubtful of an i5 or of a lack of ODD in next 13" MBP refresh but more confident on a i3 upgrade.
of course i realize this is only speculation and that this new SB chip is the real wild card in the equation..
+ 1
the techno babble is killing me but you guys definitely seem to be on to something lol
so i'm going to go ahead an ask my stupid question as i'm trying to figure out if i should upgrade my 2006 black macbook ( 2 Ghz C2D, 2GB DDR2 ) now with the current 13" MBP or wait for the next gen:
do you suspect the next gen 13" MBP be much faster than current 13" C2D gen?
i am asking this because at the apple store today, a rep told me he just recently switched from current gen 13" C2D MBP to a maxed out 15" i7 MBP, and he confessed the speed difference, although noticeable, wasn't insanely superior as he expected ( mind we were talking audio engineer application performances only ). He was also very doubtful of an i5 or of a lack of ODD in next 13" MBP refresh but more confident on a i3 upgrade.
of course i realize this is only speculation and that this new SB chip is the real wild card in the equation..
So... you think we're idiots to discuss the nuances of Mac performance amongst some potential CPUs and GPUs but you want our advice as to whether the next MBP will be much faster than the last one?
You're new here so I'm going to give a little advice. Things discussed here are of a technical nature. Ok? If its over your head thats ok. Don't belittle others who discuss things you may know little about. Its unbecoming and you came here, not visa versa.
As to whether you should get a new Mac, try supplying a little more information. Like what you typically do with your Mac and what apps you run? Someone will be happy to give you some advice. It won't be me as I speak 'techno babble' and you don't like that.
ok hopefully i got that cleared. so concerning what i do with my mac, i'm an audio engineer, musician & dj. apps i use are logic, ableton live, traktor and numerous vst/au plug-ins. i've got zero need for video, so i am unsure if GPUs is really of concern to me, but obviously i need the most powerful macbook i can afford, but i need a 13" for portability, hence my question about if wether i should buy now or wait for next gen. obviously what's next is always going to be better, but i need an upgrade quite urgently so if the next gen isn't going to be a substantial performance increase, i'll go ahead and get a maxed out 13" MBP C2D. voila.
ok hopefully i got that cleared. so concerning what i do with my mac, i'm an audio engineer, musician & dj. apps i use are logic, ableton live, traktor and numerous vst/au plug-ins. i've got zero need for video, so i am unsure if GPUs is really of concern to me, but obviously i need the most powerful macbook i can afford, but i need a 13" for portability, hence my question about if wether i should buy now or wait for next gen. obviously what's next is always going to be better, but i need an upgrade quite urgently so if the next gen isn't going to be a substantial performance increase, i'll go ahead and get a maxed out 13" MBP C2D. voila.
If your black macbook isn't broken I'd wait. If it is broken and you need it for work then you don't have much choice do you?
If it's not broken and you need a speed bump I'd probably max my RAM and replace the HDD with a SSD like this guy did:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vyt7qUPqY2I
That should hold you until whenever the MB gets updated. Going from a C2D MB to a faster C2D MB isn't going to do all that much for you.
Here is how you upgrade
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGJC6...eature=related
I'm sure someone can make a recommendation but I haven't been paying attention to what is the current SSD favorite. From what I remember folks recommended drives with the sandforce controller.
You might try this:
http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/inter..._SSD_Sandforce
$239 for 128GB seems like the sweet spot and a cheap enough upgrade.
Some say the OS currently uses it we just don?t know it because it?s all in the background whilst others say it?s because the next version of Mac OS will require it because it will relay heavily on it for operations.
.
I wonder if iStat will make a version that tracks the resource usage of the gpu? That way you would know if the gpu was being used for non-graphics functions.
+ 1
the techno babble is killing me but you guys definitely seem to be on to something lol
Many opinions are expressed but that doesn't imply a basis in fact.
so i'm going to go ahead an ask my stupid question as i'm trying to figure out if i should upgrade my 2006 black macbook ( 2 Ghz C2D, 2GB DDR2 ) now with the current 13" MBP or wait for the next gen:
my personal opinion is to wait if you don't have a need. Actually the discussion here with regards to the processor is only part of the reason to delay. One issue is the likely hood that the new machines will have an SSD slot or two. From the standpoint of feel that SSD will have a very nice impact on performance.
do you suspect the next gen 13" MBP be much faster than current 13" C2D gen?
It depends upon what you mean by faster. a SSD will make the machine feel faster even if it doesn't benchmark faster on CPU bound code. How much faster though is an unknown, I don't see the 13" MBP getting a Sandy Bridge processor, mainly because it is a point source for a lot of heat. So maybe a lesser I series processor or something from AMD.
i am asking this because at the apple store today, a rep told me he just recently switched from current gen 13" C2D MBP to a maxed out 15" i7 MBP, and he confessed the speed difference, although noticeable, wasn't insanely superior as he expected ( mind we were talking audio engineer application performances only ).
First off like other things everyone has an opinion!! As to the performance differential again it depends upon the user and the software. The thing is if you can get four real threads as opposed to two it can have a very significant impact with respect to audio engineering.
He was also very doubtful of an i5 or of a lack of ODD in next 13" MBP refresh but more confident on a i3 upgrade.
He has no idea what so ever!!!!! This is the same for everbody on this forum which in this thread is all about speculation. I hope you understand what that means as some take threads about future products much to seriously.
By the way the i3 sucks and would hardly be much of an upgrade. Beyound that if they want to call the 13" MBP it needs to support four threads hopefully on real cores.
of course i realize this is only speculation and that this new SB chip is the real wild card in the equation..
Actually SAndy Bridge is not as much of a wild card as you may think. It is a very good chip and worth waiting for if you intend to buy hardware it is likely to end up in. The real wild cards are AMDs fusion processors that are expected in the spring. I expect the AMD solution to be compelling.
As to Sandy Bridge realize that I'm not dismissing it as a good update. Rather what I'm saying is that nothing indicates that it will be effective for OpenCL code. Further I don't consider most of the current performance benchmarks floating around to be credible.
An invitation from Intel confirms that the company will introduce its Sandy Bridge next-generation processors during its keynote at the Consumer Electronics Show on Jan. 5th, a new report claims.
According to the invitation, Intel PC Client Group general manager Mooly Eden will show off the new processors, which will include the "world's fastest processor," at CES, Electronista reports. The new processors are expected to replace the Nehalem line of chips currently used in Apple's Core i5 and i7-equipped iMacs and MacBook Pros.
"Desktop chips will range from dual 2.5 GHz Core i3s to quad 3.4 GHz Core i7s. Regular notebooks will get dual 2.5GHz to 2.7GHz Core i5 and i7 chips in the first batch of processors, and desktop replacements will get quad 2.2GHz through to 2.5GHz Core i7s," the report noted. Taiwanese industry publication Digitimes reported Monday that low-power Sandy Bridge processors will be coming to Intel's Huron River platform, which is also due for a Q1 2011 release.
During an earnings call in July, Intel CEO Paul Otellini said he was "more excited by Sandy Bridge" than any product that the company has launched "in a number of years." "Due to the very strong reception of Sandy Bridge, we have accelerated our 32-nanometer factory ramp and have raised our capex guidance to enable us to meet the anticipated demand," continued Otellini.
At the time, Intel was expected to release the processors at the end of this year, with Apple then incorporating them into its Mac lineup in early 2011. In 2009, Apple was the first PC maker to release a Nehalem-based system.
Despite falling behind in the mobile market, Intel has done well for itself. The world's largest chipmaker posted record earnings for the September quarter, with quarterly revenue exceeding $11 billion for the first time in the Santa Clara, Calif., company's history. Though Otellini remained optimistic about Intel's continued success, he did acknowledge that the iPad and other tablets are beginning to cannibalize PC margins.
In a company memo in October, Otellini admitted that Intel is losing the mobile race to Apple, which has gained a massive head start with the success of the iPhone and iPad, but he reassured employees that Intel was running a "marathon" and would catch up eventually.
Otellini cited Intel's come from behind to capture 90 percent of the server market as a prior example. ?I am also very optimistic about our opportunity in tablets and smartphones, even though we are not first to market with a solution,? Otellini said. ?Ultimately, we can and will lead.?
Apple has reportedly been dissatisfied with the drop in battery life that comes with using Intel's Atom chips. Early rumors suggested that an Apple tablet would sport an Atom chip, but Apple eventually went with a custom System on a Chip that used ARM reference designs.
[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]
Can you really see and tell the difference between these processors like core 2 duo and this newest one if you are not a gamer?
wiz, et al: Apple can't release a new laptop without OpenCL support from a graphics card because OpenCL is a magical experience.
I wouldn't go so far as to call it magical. What I've tried to convey is that a GApU is needed in one for or another on a modern personal computer. Such GPUs represent massive computational power for certain classes of problems, thus it is silly to implement a GPU that can't be used with a software standard (OpenCL) that you created. Further even the relatively modest GPUs seen in portables can significantly out perform the main CPU in selected tasks. Significant here can mean anything from ten to hundreds of times faster.
In a nut shell requiring support for OpenCL in the GPU enables potential very desirable performance increases at very modest costs.
nht: Yes they can cause Sandy Bridge will be the most powerful CPU ever used by Apple. It's 2x faster than the C2D used in the last MB. Boom.
Actually he only says 20% which if real isn't to bad. My problem with this info is that we have seen plenty of times where the prerelease info doesn't jive with real world experience. Especially considering the "currated" nature of the info. Intel isn't above manipulation.
wiz, et al: nu uh.
nht: uh huh.
wiz, et al: nu uh
nht: uh huh.
Exactly. nu uh!
Understand what I'm saying though. I'm not saying Sandy Bridge is a performance dog, if anything it should be one of Intels better releases. However as good as it is it will not compete well with GPU acceleration where a GPU is the optimal place to do a calculation.
Can you really see and tell the difference between these processors like core 2 duo and this newest one if you are not a gamer?
Look it is like this many people right this very minute are buying a new MacBook AIR even though the suck CPU performance wise. Why would they do that? For one many people simply don't need the extra CPU horsepower. Second Apple has carefully balanced the machines architecture so that the lesser than stellar CPU performance isn't a problem.
At the other end of the scale you have people that most certainly could use stronger performance. Gamers are one segment but really it is a small segment. Many domains find there software bogged down due to processor performance and would benefit from faster machines.
If your black macbook isn't broken I'd wait. If it is broken and you need it for work then you don't have much choice do you?
If it's not broken and you need a speed bump I'd probably max my RAM and replace the HDD with a SSD like this guy did:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vyt7qUPqY2I
That should hold you until whenever the MB gets updated. Going from a C2D MB to a faster C2D MB isn't going to do all that much for you.
Here is how you upgrade
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGJC6...eature=related
I'm sure someone can make a recommendation but I haven't been paying attention to what is the current SSD favorite. From what I remember folks recommended drives with the sandforce controller.
You might try this:
http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/inter..._SSD_Sandforce
$239 for 128GB seems like the sweet spot and a cheap enough upgrade.
Thanks for the links, indeed my MB isn't broken but is in desperate need of a speed bump for tasks ahead...
However my black macbook is the late 2006 model, with DDR2 ram & SATA I interface, i can only max it to 3gb ram (still better than the current 2gb i guess) and will it be worth the price and hassle (format + reinstall ) to upgrade to a SSD with a slower SATA I ? i surely can't expect the type of performances in the above youtube vid with later black macbook (impressive btw)
Thanks for the links, indeed my MB isn't broken but is in desperate need of a speed bump for tasks ahead...
However my black macbook is the late 2006 model, with DDR2 ram & SATA I interface, i can only max it to 3gb ram (still better than the current 2gb i guess) and will it be worth the price and hassle (format + reinstall ) to upgrade to a SSD with a slower SATA I ? i surely can't expect the type of performances in the above youtube vid with later black macbook (impressive btw)
Your sequential read/write speeds will be limited by sata 1 speed but you'll still get full benefit of random read/write speeds and low latency of the ssd. Meaning you get pretty much 100% of the advantages of quick app startup but maybe not all of the sustained reading/writing of lots of data. For audio you probably wont see much of a loss from being SATA I.
Run the apps you care about. Open up Activity Monitor.
If your CPU use is pegged then you're CPU bound and neither of these will help that.
If System memory is showing a lot of paging and swap use then getting another 1GB will help. Getting more RAM is generally the easiest and most useful speed bump. Also having a SSD makes paging/swap faster if you happen to need more than 3GB.
In disk activity look to see what that is under your load. If there's a lot of disk use then you're also IO bound and I think the MB had 5400 RPM drives so going SSD will really make your system snappier.
If you are only CPU bound and not RAM or I/O bound at all then upgrading your current laptop isn't worth it. I'm guessing you aren't JUST CPU bound.
Thank you!
I'm not putting my money on a case redesign for the next MBP refresh. I think it will be no more than a speedbump. I truly do not think that Apple will remove the onboard DVd drive from the 13" MBP. In many uninformed people's eyes this would reduce the distinction between the MBP and MBA.
I still don't understand the difference between the Sandy Bridge chips that will arrive in january and the additional ones that will arrive in April. Given the length of time that has passed since the last refresh, I suspect that January will be new model time.
Your sequential read/write speeds will be limited by sata 1 speed but you'll still get full benefit of random read/write speeds and low latency of the ssd. Meaning you get pretty much 100% of the advantages of quick app startup but maybe not all of the sustained reading/writing of lots of data. For audio you probably wont see much of a loss from being SATA I.
Run the apps you care about. Open up Activity Monitor.
If your CPU use is pegged then you're CPU bound and neither of these will help that.
If System memory is showing a lot of paging and swap use then getting another 1GB will help. Getting more RAM is generally the easiest and most useful speed bump. Also having a SSD makes paging/swap faster if you happen to need more than 3GB.
In disk activity look to see what that is under your load. If there's a lot of disk use then you're also IO bound and I think the MB had 5400 RPM drives so going SSD will really make your system snappier.
If you are only CPU bound and not RAM or I/O bound at all then upgrading your current laptop isn't worth it. I'm guessing you aren't JUST CPU bound.
That's good advice.
I don't use the apps he's using but I believe others have said that audio apps can be CPU intensive, Ableton in particular.
The RAM upgrade is easy and relatively cheap. Replacing the HDD with a SSD can be expensive depending upon the size you get. I'd make sure that the I/O is the bottleneck and not the CPU before investing in that.
A reasonable compromise might be one of the Seagate Momentus hybrid drives. They're relatively inexpensive and can speed things up pretty nicely. I've read that some Mac users have had issues with them, however so I'd take that into consideration.
That's good advice.
I don't use the apps he's using but I believe others have said that audio apps can be CPU intensive, Ableton in particular.
The RAM upgrade is easy and relatively cheap. Replacing the HDD with a SSD can be expensive depending upon the size you get. I'd make sure that the I/O is the bottleneck and not the CPU before investing in that.
A reasonable compromise might be one of the Seagate Momentus hybrid drives. They're relatively inexpensive and can speed things up pretty nicely. I've read that some Mac users have had issues with them, however so I'd take that into consideration.
Yes, excellent advice !! Indeed the CPU is not really the only bottleneck (although some audio tasks could definitely benefit from a quad-core cpu). The reason i hadn't maxed ram before was because i was advised a while ago that 2x1GB was better in some ways than 2GB+1GB, true or false?
The Seagate Momentus hybrid drive seems like an awesome idea, i was not aware of its existence, but after quick research i found a review of someone with the same gen black macbook as mine stating day&night performance enhancements using it, however he said installation was "far from plug&play" not really sure what he means by that, also could you please elaborate on the "issues" you have heard about them?
I am really leaning towards these upgrade options (3GB ram + Seagate Momentus Hybrid) as SSD are still really expensive in my country and i don't want to invest too much as i am still planning on upgrading to the next 13" MBP refresh which hopefully will come with SSD standard..