or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Intel's next-gen MacBook Pro chip candidates benchmarked
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Intel's next-gen MacBook Pro chip candidates benchmarked

post #1 of 62
Thread Starter 
Intel's new "Arrandale" dual-core processors, set to debut this month and expected by some to be the chips Apple will use in future models of the MacBook Pro line, have been found to have better performance than their Core 2 Duo predecessors without negative impact on battery life.

Intel sent out early versions of the chips to numerous Web sites where they have been tested and benchmarked. Across the board, the results were said to be positive. PC Magazine pitted a new 2.53GHz Intel Core i5-540M from ASUS against a 2.53GHz Intel Core 2 Duo P9500, as well as a 2GHz Intel Core i7-920XM.

"We've seen incremental bumps in speeds (percentages in the teens) when Intel launches new processors for the same platform, but when you swap out an entire motherboard and everything that goes with it, the change can be quite significant," they said. "Cinebench R10 is a multi-threaded benchmark test that took full advantage of the Core i5-540M's HyperThreading technology, beating the T400s's similarly clocked Core 2 Duo P9500 CPU by a 62% margin."

The Arrandale mobile processors were released alongside their Clarkdale counterparts. The two chips share the same architecture, which employs a 32nm Westmere core paired with a 45nm chipset. The new 32nm chips offer improved speed, better graphics performance and lower power consumption. They will also allow motherboards to become smaller.

Tom's Hardware found that the new processors strike a good balance between speed found on desktop machines, with power consumption low enough to support a mobile device. But those gains, in early tests, come without the inclusion of a discrete graphics card.

In a test of ripping CDs to the AAC format within iTunes, the new Arrandale mobile processor performed the task 10 seconds better than its Penryn predecessor, clocking in at 1:36 on the task.

The site found that the 35W Core i5-540M uses more power under load, but uses quite a bit less power than the Core 2 Duo P8700 during downtime. Average power consumption was said to be 32.9W for the Arrandale and 31.7W for Penryn.

"So long, Core 2 Duo," the site's review concluded. "The wheels of progress keep on spinning, and Arrandale is playing you out."

Further reviews are available from Hot Hardware, AnandTech, PC Perspective, and Legit Reviews.



The new processors are set to improve upon the previous line of Intel's Core 2 Duo chips, which have been utilized in versions of Apple's new MacBook, MacBook Pro, and iMac. Apple uses the mobile variants of Intel's desktop chips for those systems, meaning machines with chips based on the Arrandale architecture could arrive soon.

Unlike the Core 2 Duo CPUs, Arrandale processors will have the major northbridge chipset memory controller components built in. Currently, Apple uses Nvidia chipsets with its Mac lineup. But the architectural changes through Arrandale -- along with an ongoing lawsuit that has forced Nvidia to halt the development of future chipsets -- would likely make it difficult for Apple to continue with Nvidia.



Apple last updated its MacBook Pro line in June at the Worldwide Developers Conference. Those systems included Core 2 Duo processors and Nvidia graphics, along with cheaper prices, better displays and built-in batteries. Intel intends to release 17 new CPUs in early 2010, which will be highlighted at this week's CES.

post #2 of 62
broadcom just released a $2 chip called crystalHD that can play back HD content very nicely. HP is going to release $300 netbooks with it tomorrow. not sure if they will have blu ray in them, but they will have the power to decode it
post #3 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Intel's new "Arrandale" dual-core processors …have been found to have better performance than their Core 2 Duo predecessors without negative impact on battery life.

This is curious. PCMag and Tom's Hardware appear to have tested the same i5 processor, but PCMag noted a much worse impact on battery life:

Quote:
Originally Posted by PCMag.com

Battery Life
Processor and graphics power came in well above expectations, but battery life is currently the biggest question mark. It's difficult to pass a verdict given that we have a single test unit, and especially when the low voltage and ultra low voltage Core i7s and Core i5s have yet to show up on our test benches. From initial testing, though, the Core i5-equipped K42F was less than impressive, scoring just 3 hours 35 minutes with its 63Wh battery in MobileMark 2007 tests. The T400s, with its Core 2 Duo P9500, scored almost an hour better (4:31) despite using a much smaller battery (43Wh). We will take a more definitive stance once we have more review systems.

They don't detail their test, so I guess it must have been quite CPU-intensive.
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #4 of 62
These chips look very interesting. Let's see what Apple chooses to announce regarding using these chips or not...
post #5 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H View Post

This is curious. PCMag and Tom's Hardware appear to have tested the same i5 processor, but PCMag noted a much worse impact on battery life:

Interesting. Doesn't anybody give credit anymore?

I did see
Quote:
Originally Posted by PCMag.com
Battery Life
Processor and graphics power came in well above expectations, but battery life is currently the biggest question mark. It's difficult to pass a verdict given that we have a single test unit, and especially when the low voltage and ultra low voltage Core i7s and Core i5s have yet to show up on our test benches. From initial testing, though, the Core i5-equipped K42F was less than impressive, scoring just 3 hours 35 minutes with its 63Wh battery in MobileMark 2007 tests. The T400s, with its Core 2 Duo P9500, scored almost an hour better (4:31) despite using a much smaller battery (43Wh). We will take a more definitive stance once we have more review systems.

but also verbatimon a blogger's post? i.e.,
Performance Gains, Sometimes - My KTVU Blog post* http://my.ktvu.com/_Performance-Gain...0714/6704.html.
post #6 of 62
The bad thing about these are the bundled GPU's. If these come bundled with Intel integrated graphics, it will be poison from the get go.
3.4GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i7 / iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 6 Plus 64GB /iPad with Retina Display 64 GB
Reply
3.4GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i7 / iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 6 Plus 64GB /iPad with Retina Display 64 GB
Reply
post #7 of 62
Very interesting.

Apparently Apple's next-year chips beat last-year's chips. But next-year's Apple chips are inferior to the this-year's i7 chips.

Very interesting.
post #8 of 62
Wow....not bad...now all we need is a new macbook pro
post #9 of 62
My nearly 5 year old powerbook is gasping its last--every time I boot up, it makes a horrifying clankity clank (sp?) and I'm running off the removable hard drive (the mac hard drive itself no longer appears on the desktop).

Been waiting to replace it; hopefully this month?
post #10 of 62
I really disllike intels integrated graphics in anything but the most basic of netbooks. There is so much potential for use of discrete graphics chips with OpenCL and CUDA but Intel efforts seem focused on muddying the waters and poisoning any real progress in this area. I am in the market for a new MacBook pro in the near future, but if they put these chips with integrated graphics in them I will vote with my wallet and sit this round out.

Even if they add a discrete chip from (I Assume) ATI, I would still think long and hard about it. Seems like you would be paying for a integrated chip no matter what. Seems wasteful at best.
post #11 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by markb View Post

I really disllike intels integrated graphics in anything but the most basic of netbooks. There is so much potential for use of discrete graphics chips with OpenCL and CUDA but Intel efforts seem focused on muddying the waters and poisoning any real progress in this area. I am in the market for a new MacBook pro in the near future, but if they put these chips with integrated graphics in them I will vote with my wallet and sit this round out.

Even if they add a discrete chip from (I Assume) ATI, I would still think long and hard about it. Seems like you would be paying for a integrated chip no matter what. Seems wasteful at best.

The current MacBook Pros all have integrated graphics. The 13" and low-end 15" have only integrated graphics, and the remaining 15" and 17" models have an additional discrete chip. Those with both integrated and discrete allow you to choose between them, with the integrated chip offering better battery life.

Moving to Arrandale would simply mean using Intel integrated graphics instead of Nvidia integrated graphics. In either case, you'd need a discrete card for any serious GPU related stuff.
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #12 of 62
Quote:
The current MacBook Pros all have integrated graphics.

Let me be more specific then... I really hate INTEL integrated graphics. I have had very bad experiences with them. My experience with the 9400M is actually quite good. I guess I had forgotten that it is technically an integrated chip.
post #13 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by markb View Post

Let me be more specific then... I really hate INTEL integrated graphics. I have had very bad experiences with them. My experience with the 9400M is actually quite good. I guess I had forgotten that it is technically an integrated chip.

I agree that it will probably be a step back for those machines that have only integrated graphics. But, I wouldn't hesitate buying a Mac with Intel integrated graphics and a discrete chip from Nvidia or ATI; most of the time I'd use the Intel graphics to maximise battery life.
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #14 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJRumpy View Post

The bad thing about these are the bundled GPU's. If these come bundled with Intel integrated graphics, it will be poison from the get go.

On the contrary, because we are eliminating the Bridge chips and the GPU on Bridge, consolodating 3 Chips (two of which are LARGE- not CPU) into one we now have space for a dedicated graphics chip to go along with integrated, Ala MacBook Pro's 15/17". This will probably bring dual graphics to the 13" MBP and allow the MBAir to go slimmer, smaller, cooler (ULV chips not out yet...).

Basically this consolidation will give engineers more space on the same size board and PC engineers can now make things cheaper and creakier.
post #15 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJRumpy View Post

The bad thing about these are the bundled GPU's. If these come bundled with Intel integrated graphics, it will be poison from the get go.

If it's not nvidia, it would have to be ATI as the MacBook Pro needs to run motion and the likes.
I can't see them using intel. No way.
Unless if course, intc came up with something groudbreaking ehich they have not.

Peace.
post #16 of 62
These early benchmarks actually suggest that the new generation of Intel integrated graphics perform on par with the GeForce 9400M, so it won't necessarily be a step back in terms of performance. However, there are plenty of other reasons to dislike Intel graphics.
post #17 of 62
Comparing only 2.53 variants is relevant but inconclusive. Comparisons of the fastest models of each chip is going to show a more useful result. More useful still will be results showing real world results in applications as opposed to theoretical results stressing capabilities of the chips which most software does not yet support. The realistic gains may be more modest than the original indications suggest.
post #18 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by solarein View Post

These early benchmarks actually suggest that the new generation of Intel integrated graphics perform on par with the GeForce 9400M, so it won't necessarily be a step back in terms of performance. However, there are plenty of other reasons to dislike Intel graphics.

I'd like to see a reference link if you have one. Intel integrated graphics have always been horrible. I would be shocked if they produced anything comparable to a current discreet video card's performance.

From what I'm reading, Apple has told Intel to ditch the GPU and give them only the CPU chip, which would be a win in my book.
3.4GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i7 / iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 6 Plus 64GB /iPad with Retina Display 64 GB
Reply
3.4GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i7 / iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 6 Plus 64GB /iPad with Retina Display 64 GB
Reply
post #19 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJRumpy View Post

I'd like to see a reference link if you have one. Intel integrated graphics have always been horrible. I would be shocked if they produced anything comparable to a current discreet video card's performance.

From what I'm reading, Apple has told Intel to ditch the GPU and give them only the CPU chip, which would be a win in my book.

Try Anandtech for a good brief on the new Intel Integrated Graphics

..and yes, before anyone says anything, I know this is a review of the Clarkdale integrated graphics unit, but arrandale's is identical aside from two things: clock speed variances depending on mobile chip, and arrandale's integrated GPU supports a form of "turbo mode".

As far as Apple telling Intel to "ditch" the mobile graphics..yeah, don't think so. The memory controller and PCI-Express lanes are both built in to the graphics die (not to mention no one has licenses to build chipsets utilizing FDI or DMI). The only true integrated design is Intel's solution - anything else will be a pci-express add-in, which would qualify as discrete.

I'm not too upset about losing the 9400m as the base graphics unit. Intel seems to have really stepped things up this round. Sure, it's most likely not an improvement over the 9400m, and we probably would have been much better off if we could have seen nVidia's next gen version of it, but as has been said it's certainly not a step backwards.
post #20 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by brianb View Post

Try Anandtech for a good brief on the new Intel Integrated Graphics

..and yes, before anyone says anything, I know this is a review of the Clarkdale integrated graphics unit, but arrandale's is identical aside from two things: clock speed variances depending on mobile chip, and arrandale's integrated GPU supports a form of "turbo mode".

As far as Apple telling Intel to "ditch" the mobile graphics..yeah, don't think so. The memory controller and PCI-Express lanes are both built in to the graphics die.

I'm not too upset about losing the 9400m as the base graphics unit. Intel seems to have really stepped things up this round. Sure, it's most likely not an improvement over the 9400m, and we probably would have been much better off if we could have seen nVidia's next gen version of it, but as has been said it's certainly not a step backwards.

Actually, Intel is already known to give Apple custom chips. Apple has already rejected this processor if it included integrated GPU according to what I'm reading. It's certainly no stretch that they could get a custom chip from Apple as they've done it in the past.

From the article, it appears that it just 'sucks less' than normal, but it's certainly not what I would call a thumbs up:

"We’ll start off with Batman: Arkham Asylum. This is an Unreal Engine 3 based game. The first thing you need to remember about integrated graphics is that regardless of the game, you’ll want to go in and turn down every single quality setting at your disposal. In this case I ran Batman at 1024 x 768 with all quality options set to low. "

"Next up is Dragon Age. Unfortunately, this game doesn’t look as good at its playable integrated graphics settings. It ends up looking like 3D Kings Quest played on a PS2."

"Dawn of War II looks and plays like crap on Intel’s integrated graphics. Averaging 15 fps on the fastest Clarkdale, the minimum frame rates dropped as low as 3.4 fps. This is a huge improvement over G45, but definitely not what I would consider playable."

"Intel is technically the leader here though. AMD’s 790GX only managed 12.1 fps. IGPs need not apply for this title at present."

"Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 is the first time that we see Intel losing. The game loses much of its visual appeal at the settings you need to run at in order to be playable on integrated graphics, especially on a larger screen. "

I just see anything with Intel integrated graphics as a non-starter for me personally. I'm sure some folks won't mind if they just browse the web and do the occasional office doc, but for higher end MBP's, it just doesn't make sense.

This doesn't say cutting edge, or even 'sufficient'. It screams 'low budget crap' to me, as it typical for integrated graphics.
3.4GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i7 / iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 6 Plus 64GB /iPad with Retina Display 64 GB
Reply
3.4GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i7 / iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 6 Plus 64GB /iPad with Retina Display 64 GB
Reply
post #21 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJRumpy View Post

Actually, Intel is already known to give Apple custom chips.

So far, that looks to only be for machines that are more specialized.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #22 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJRumpy View Post

Actually, Intel is already known to give Apple custom chips. Apple has already rejected this processor if it included integrated GPU according to what I'm reading. It's certainly no stretch that they could get a custom chip from Apple as they've done it in the past.

Actually, Intel has never made Apple a "custom chip". The closest thing you're referring to is the situation with the Macbook Air, which was NOT a custom chip, but was a custom chip packaging and thermal requirements (which only requires binning). BIG difference. What Apple is allegedly demanding is a complete redesign of the current I/O subsystem and just isn't going to happen given that even WITH a redesign, it wouldn't help Apple at all. The system will still utilize a DMI / FDI communications bus, which no 3rd party has a license to make products for. The FSB is gone, and with it, so are the 3rd party licenses (for now).

Again, the only 3rd party graphics solution for Arrandale will have to be PCI-Express "bolt-on" units. Even if Apple gets Intel to remove or disable the GPU from the I/O controller, it will still require there be an add-in chip (discrete), adding both cost, reduced battery life, and increased thermals to the design. It's always possible that Apple could opt for a discrete graphics unit across their entire line-up, but it seems far more likely to me that we will continue to see the same product layout as before: 13" and cheaper 15" pro's get integrated, pricer 15" and above get discrete.

Please also keep in mind that a revised arrandale is due to be released probably around summer this year (as well as updated graphics drivers along the way). I'm thinking Apple may hold out until the new round of units come out (possibly getting "early access" to them as has been seen before) for the macbook refresh.

As far as performance is concerned..You should compare those results to the 9400m..they're pretty similar is mediocrity, so I don't exactly see what you're really complaining about. Sure, it would be nice to see the graphics performance increase, but I was personally worried about a serious decrease and am happy to see things in the same ballpark. It could have been far worse. As I said, higher end macbook pro's will still have their discrete graphics units, so this really doesn't apply to them.
post #23 of 62
Yeah, surprisingly the integrated graphics don't really suck.
post #24 of 62
looks good. 1680x1050 in that 15" please! my cash is waiting
post #25 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by brianb View Post

Actually, Intel has never made Apple a "custom chip". The closest thing you're referring to is the situation with the Macbook Air, which was NOT a custom chip, but was a custom chip packaging and thermal requirements (which only requires binning).

The 3.06 Core 2 Duo in the iMac (Penryn with a 1066 FSB) was custom for Apple. I wasn't referring to the Air CPU. It will be interesting to see if Apple has enough weight with Intel to request a custom chip as the industry insiders are already indicating they simply aren't interested in Intel's integrated GPU.

Considering this GPU may be comparable to 9400 from a year and a half ago, but I don't see them as equal. It is already 'dated'. The graphics world isn't sitting still. Last years 9400 chipset is just a little less capable given this years graphical demands.
3.4GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i7 / iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 6 Plus 64GB /iPad with Retina Display 64 GB
Reply
3.4GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i7 / iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 6 Plus 64GB /iPad with Retina Display 64 GB
Reply
post #26 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJRumpy View Post

The 3.06 Core 2 Duo in the iMac (Penryn with a 1066 FSB) was custom for Apple. I wasn't referring to the Air CPU. It will be interesting to see if Apple has enough weight with Intel to request a custom chip as the industry insiders are already indicating they simply aren't interested in Intel's integrated GPU.

Considering this GPU may be comparable to 9400 from a year and a half ago, but I don't see them as equal. It is already 'dated'. The graphics world isn't sitting still. Last years 9400 chipset is just a little less capable given this years graphical demands.

The idea that Apple could ask Intel to remove a feature is ludicrous. The chip has been designed and any change, however small, would require development work, new dies and a whole new production run. Even if removing the GPU from Arrandale was easy it would cost Apple more to have Intel remove the GPU than it would cost to put discrete graphics in all their entry level machines.
post #27 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJRumpy View Post

The 3.06 Core 2 Duo in the iMac (Penryn with a 1066 FSB) was custom for Apple. I wasn't referring to the Air CPU. It will be interesting to see if Apple has enough weight with Intel to request a custom chip as the industry insiders are already indicating they simply aren't interested in Intel's integrated GPU.

Considering this GPU may be comparable to 9400 from a year and a half ago, but I don't see them as equal. It is already 'dated'. The graphics world isn't sitting still. Last years 9400 chipset is just a little less capable given this years graphical demands.

I'll admit I wasn't aware of the Penryn CPU, but I must also add - that wasn't really custom either. The Penryn chip itself was designed to support an FSB as high as 1600MHz, and it was really the chipset holding back the FSB speed more than it was the CPU at the time. Either way, this was accomplished by binning the better CPUs/chipsets for Apple's use - not creating a custom processor design. What you are referring to here with Arrandale simply won't happen as it's a logical redesign of the CPU itself and can't be accomplished by repackaging or binning the best units off the assembly line. No matter what happens, Apple would effectively have to use a discrete graphics unit in order to utilize anything other than the Intel Integrated graphics.

Personally, I am on board with you here though. I would much rather see us moving forward than standing still. While the CPU itself is a beast compared to the C2D it's replacing, having more GPU muscle would have been nice. I'm hopeful that nVidia can corner Intel into licensing them on DMI (or maybe even QPI as well!) so we can see some great nVidia designs outside of the discrete sector once again.
post #28 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by brianb View Post

I'll admit I wasn't aware of the Penryn CPU, but I must also add - that wasn't really custom either. The Penryn chip itself was designed to support an FSB as high as 1600MHz, and it was really the chipset holding back the FSB speed more than it was the CPU at the time. Either way, this was accomplished by binning the better CPUs/chipsets for Apple's use - not creating a custom processor design. What you are referring to here with Arrandale simply won't happen as it's a logical redesign of the CPU itself and can't be accomplished by repackaging or binning the best units off the assembly line. No matter what happens, Apple would effectively have to use a discrete graphics unit in order to utilize anything other than the Intel Integrated graphics.

Personally, I am on board with you here though. I would much rather see us moving forward than standing still. While the CPU itself is a beast compared to the C2D it's replacing, having more GPU muscle would have been nice. I'm hopeful that nVidia can corner Intel into licensing them on DMI (or maybe even QPI as well!) so we can see some great nVidia designs outside of the discrete sector once again.

I can't imagine that Intel isn't aware of their less then sterling reputation when it comes to their GPU. It's very possible that they will give Apple first whack at a GPU'less CPU and if it's viable, give some variant of that to the masses.

Time will tell
3.4GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i7 / iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 6 Plus 64GB /iPad with Retina Display 64 GB
Reply
3.4GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i7 / iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 6 Plus 64GB /iPad with Retina Display 64 GB
Reply
post #29 of 62
Hey, anybody remember this report about Apple "dissing" the Arrandale?
http://www.macrumors.com/2009/12/07/...ernative-chip/
Any thoughts?
post #30 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by isaidso View Post

Hey, anybody remember this report about Apple "dissing" the Arrandale?
http://www.macrumors.com/2009/12/07/...ernative-chip/
Any thoughts?

Never mind. I guess everybody does remember
post #31 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJRumpy View Post

I'd like to see a reference link if you have one. Intel integrated graphics have always been horrible. I would be shocked if they produced anything comparable to a current discreet video card's performance.

From what I'm reading, Apple has told Intel to ditch the GPU and give them only the CPU chip, which would be a win in my book.

Here's a gaming performance benchmark with Arrandale's integrated GPU: http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid...e=expert&pid=9
And for comparison here are the numbers that the 9400M gets: http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-...G.11949.0.html

They are pretty similar, so it appears Intel has managed to catch up to an over a year old chip. That's still pretty lousy, but at least it won't be a step back.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DJRumpy View Post

I can't imagine that Intel isn't aware of their less then sterling reputation when it comes to their GPU. It's very possible that they will give Apple first whack at a GPU'less CPU and if it's viable, give some variant of that to the masses.

Time will tell

I think the time of GPU-less CPUs in notebooks may be gone forever. The current generation of Arrandales has the CPU and the GPU/memory controller in the same package, which already reduces power consumption and space requirements quite a bit. The next generation will have all of that on the same die. Once we reach that, there's no going back. Nobody is going to opt for a three chip, CPU+northbridge+southbridge solution when a two chip solution exists. But this is a good thing, with a two chip solution, notebooks that previously could not fit discrete GPUs can now have them. The question then is, whether this new type of three chip solution, CPU+discrete GPU+southbridge, will have a second integrated GPU in the CPU package. And I think the answer is, why not? Switchable graphics is a good idea, it saves power when the discrete GPU is not needed, and even after the integrated GPU gets onto the same die as the CPU, the technology is there to dynamically shut down that area of the die when the discrete GPU is being used. So it's quite beneficial for the price of a modest increase in the die-size of the CPU. I think after the next generation of Arrandale and AMD's equivalent, CPUs with on die GPUs and memory controllers will be the dominant form of CPUs for notebooks. Unfortunately this means we are stuck with Intel integrated graphics when choosing Intel CPUs, unless Intel acquired nvidia or something.
post #32 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigwheel View Post

Comparing only 2.53 variants is relevant but inconclusive. Comparisons of the fastest models of each chip is going to show a more useful result. More useful still will be results showing real world results in applications as opposed to theoretical results stressing capabilities of the chips which most software does not yet support. The realistic gains may be more modest than the original indications suggest.

+++

I'm a bit surprised. Performance is better (clock for clock), sometimes markedly so but not always, and battery life isn't.

Given that Arrandale tops out at 2.6 ghz and the current mobile penryns top out at 3.06, its not quite the slam dunk I expected.

I'll bet the top end MBP will still be faster than its predecessor but not by all that much.
post #33 of 62
Quick thoughts from my iPhone haven't gone through benchmarks in detail. Looks interesting but evolutionary rather than revolutionary, and voilÃ* you get last years 9400m level graphics now so OpenCL for the masses stagnates for a year. Thanks Intel, thank you monopoly.
post #34 of 62
I think no way Apple is going to get a non GPU Arrandale, there's too much to change. Tough one for Apple but they're going to have to bite the bullet on this one and take it up the @55 from Intel ... Better Macbook Pros in 2010... Yeah, just a little though for similar price points.
post #35 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac View Post

+++

I'm a bit surprised. Performance is better (clock for clock), sometimes markedly so but not always, and battery life isn't.

Given that Arrandale tops out at 2.6 ghz and the current mobile penryns top out at 3.06, its not quite the slam dunk I expected.

I'll bet the top end MBP will still be faster than its predecessor but not by all that much.

Again still on the phone so after dinner I'll spend a good hour on the benches... But given the thermal envelope being more or less the same why is battery life not the same? I mean aside from it being a different architecture and turbo on load, etc, as a whole laptop moving the igp on package maybe did not bring as much power savings as we were led to believe.

Edit: It looks like it's because we're looking at 35W instead of 25W, albeit the 35W does include graphics. So I'm confused. Still reading Anandtech's review.

Edit2: Okay so I'm starting to turn around on this, as Anandtech says: "From the balanced notebook perspective, Arrandale is awesome. Battery life doesn't improve, but performance goes up tremendously. The end result is better performance for hopefully the same power consumption. If you're stuck with an aging laptop it's worth the wait. If you can wait even longer we expect to see a second rev of Arrandale silicon towards the middle of the year with better power characteristics..."

Edit3: It looks like there's still a ways to go with how Arrandale turns out. There's some definite potential for 10% to 30% improvements in performance for similar levels of battery usage, but this all depends also on Turbo Boost and the built in IGP clocking up and down. A possibility is at the end of this month shipping MacBook Pros will be announced with Core i5 and Core i7 Arrandales. Or, there may be a stealth Penryn upgrade while the hype is all on the Tablet...

Nah, my gut tells me Apple is out to kick off sales in this usually-the-slowest quarter with Core i5 and Core i7 MacBook Pros (the naming sounds nice, don't it)... Because they'll need Macbook Pros, iMac, iPhone 3GS and iPod to all kick along well while production ramps on the Tablet where Apple will typically ludicrously underestimate demand so Tablets will be a rare thing (think 2-4 weeks ship time) for at least until April.

By the way I wouldn't mind blowing $350 on a regular netbook but they are all FRICKIN HIDEOUS. Barely one or two models *might* even look passable. And this is the latest out of CES this week...!
post #36 of 62
This is the proper full list of Arrandale processors announced so far in one glance, by the way... Notice 4 threads all the way through...!



(Anandtech)
post #37 of 62
Latest brainwave:

This is how Apple is going to play it. Macbook Pro 13" and low-end 15" will remain 9400M with Core 2 Duo bump. They will transition by middle of the year to the 2nd or 3rd gen Arrandales when the silicon is a bit more refined.

Now, mid-end to higher 15" and 17" will go Core i5 and i7. These will have Nvidia or (probably) ATI's 40nm 5-series discrete for "high-power" GPU mode, otherwise power-savings mode will use the Intel IGP. Will there be an update to make the transition between the integrated and discrete GPU more seamless? Let's hope so.

See the upsell? And how it works out perfectly for Apple in terms of dealing with the Intel Integrated graphics?

Yeah, this sounds good, I can feel it... Well, hope this prediction comes out true.
post #38 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by looksthatkill View Post

looks good. 1680x1050 in that 15" please! my cash is waiting

The next revision of Macbook Pro 15" really should have this feature.
post #39 of 62
Thank God people are reading that AnandTech article (I originally found it via Engadget, here): http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/04/i...d-for-your-en/

-because the worst parts of it was that they're overpriced and that Intel de-integrated the memory controller off the die in the i5 Clarksdales after integrating it in the i7s. http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=3704&p=2

And that article also said that the new Best Intel integrated was now just even with other IGPs, which is to say, still kinda crappy.
"-but Jimmy has fear? A thousand times no. I never doubted myself for a minute for I knew that my monkey strong bowels were girded with strength like the loins of a dragon ribboned with fat and the...
Reply
"-but Jimmy has fear? A thousand times no. I never doubted myself for a minute for I knew that my monkey strong bowels were girded with strength like the loins of a dragon ribboned with fat and the...
Reply
post #40 of 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by brianb View Post

I'm not too upset about losing the 9400m as the base graphics unit. Intel seems to have really stepped things up this round. Sure, it's most likely not an improvement over the 9400m, and we probably would have been much better off if we could have seen nVidia's next gen version of it, but as has been said it's certainly not a step backwards.

The benchmarks show Modern Warfare 2 at 21FPS on lowest quality. I played Modern Warfare 2 on maximum quality on the 9400M at 800 x 600 and it was 25-30FPS the whole time. Here's a video of it on a 9400M Macbook Air:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmy3WhMIfCk

Making MW2 unplayable is a step back IMO. Same with World of Warcraft. Here is WoW running on a 9400M Macbook:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4VS23fGUzT8

25FPS at maximum quality. The Intel benchmark is 15FPS (unplayable) on good quality.

Plus, it's not just raw performance but feature support. Intel graphics consistently don't support features in motion graphics and 3D software such as hardware-accelerated particle rendering.

As for power consumption, the full load of 72W for that performance isn't that good. ATI's 5650, which is 50% faster than the 9600M GT is rumored to use just 15-25W and the NVidia 250M GTS (50-60% faster) draws 28W.

Basically for the same overall power draw, you will get at least 5x more performance using NVidia's or ATI's latest low-powered solutions with 350GFlops compute performance. Apple would have to be out of their minds to go down the Intel graphics route again.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Intel's next-gen MacBook Pro chip candidates benchmarked