or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Sources: Apple to unveil revamped 11.6-inch MacBook Air next week
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Sources: Apple to unveil revamped 11.6-inch MacBook Air next week - Page 4

post #121 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

They could have a hinge that lets you flip the display almost right round but lets you prop it up like a tent with the screen facing you and the keyboard facing away. If they can run the OS in an 'iPad mode' in this configuration, you'd get pretty good battery life on a flight. The footprint would be even smaller too.

And what happens to that keyboard when you use it as a tablet? It seems this type hinge would have to come with a case (or third components) so the keyboard could be hidden.

The other possibility could be a swivel at at the hinge, but also adds complexity.

Quote:
Possibly, I just feel 1280 x 800 makes UI elements quite small on even a 13" screen. I think they'll stick to 13.

It would be in line with the PPI of the high res displays of the MBPs, so that is feasible, and it could be argued that this smaller display would likely be closer to the eyes than the 15 and 17 MBPs with high-res displays. Also, it puts it in line with the iPad resolution thus making iPad apps feasible.
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 #122 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick;

I just hope it has a decent display. I'm not sure, it will probably have a crappy display. I just hope it is at least 1280x800 and I hope it has a decent sized trackpad.
A macbook air with an 11.6" display and at 16/10 or 16/9 screen aspect will be very wide, and unless they have a 2" thick bezel around the outside of the screen to give it depth, it's going to be hard to fit in a full sized keyboard and trackpad.
I hope for a 1280x800/720 screen but I can't see that happening.
Although, I am 90% certain we will see Macbook/13" MBP updates soon too. A 1440x900 13" display? i3 processor?

Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism;

1) Why would the display be crappy? This isnt something Apple typically does, especially not on their MacBook Air.

2) If its !6/9(sic) aspect ratio it cant be 1280x800.

3) What is a "1280x800/720 screen?

3. What Dick is saying is he hopes it will be a 16:9 1280x720 or 16:10 1280x800.

As I mentioned before, I think there are some or many 16:10 1280x800 netbooks. At this stage very unlikely IMO for the 11" MBA to be anything but this resolution and aspect ratio.
post #123 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

It was a surprise, but now that we've heard it you know it sounds 110% like what Apple would do.

Over the year a number of people have suggested this route in one form or another. Personally I favored a PCI Express card based on one of the standardized notebook formats. The potential is to save a lot of money. If Apples approach is something they keep to themselves and don't allow upgrade competition then I might have problems with it.

In the end a PC Board approach saves space, increases reliabity and saves dollars. Space is very significant in these smaller machines. I just hope the final shipping version has space for storage expansion of some sort.
Quote:
I think it will be 16:10. Take a stroll through your local netbook store and see the display that will be in your MBA. The display will be LED, though not IPS, and while better quality than a netboook be similar ratios to what netbooks are.

Why note IPS. If they go Core 2, that processor is cheap now. If they go AMD the processor is likely even cheaper. This would allow for a more expensive screen. With careful selection of components Apple could save hundreds to be applied against a nice screen. Frankly a sharp screen and a good GPU is more enticing than a marginally faster CPU.

Funny but when the discussion turns to 7" class iPads I suggest a stroll through the local GPS kiosk. Grwat minds or what.
post #124 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism;

...It would be in line with the PPI of the high res displays of the MBPs, so that is feasible, and it could be argued that this smaller display would likely be closer to the eyes than the 15 and 17” MBPs with high-res displays. Also, it puts it in line with the iPad resolution thus making iPad apps feasible.

I'll restate what I do think, this is basically Apple's entry into the netbook market without making a netbook. We do know how Apple dismisses something then comes back to annihilate the category. In this case Apple is pissed with the netbook/ultraportable space so they are going to squeeze it tight from both ends, iPad on one, MBA on the other.

1280x800 LED backlit is just nice for what the 11" crowd wants.

YES IMAGINE IF IT RAN IOS IPHONE AND IPAD APPS. KILLER, KILLER STUFF.
post #125 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by myapplelove View Post

I know you man, from mac rumors,

Have any legitimate reasons to dislike glossy, or did you just want to take a potshot at me?

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #126 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

Frankly a sharp screen and a good GPU is more enticing than a marginally faster CPU

I think users are more positively affected by those first two over the last two, yet a recent AnandTech article reviewing a 13 MBP as a Windows machines pooh-poohs the 13 MBP for its continued use of the C2D at the current price point. What is odd about the article is that the reviewer triumphed how much better the MBP display was over everyone elses display that was tested, how responsive that special Nvidia 320M GPU is and well built everything else. In the end his price point seems solely based on the CPUs age, not its performance, not its cost from Intel compared to the Core-i chips, and not the quality or cost of any other component.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/3889/a...indows7-laptop
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 #127 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

For those prices it would have to use ARM or Atom. I cant see either one of those for Mac OS X.

I'm not sure why there is so little support in the forums for an AMD solution. Especially considering the way Intel has been jerking around the mobile industry.

In any event Zacate seems like perfect processor for an Apple marketed subnotebook. It is very fast for its size and very low power. Considering how this AIR is being described, it could be best classified as a subnotebook. That is a machine without all the features that people consider as required in a notebook.
post #128 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

Funny but when the discussion turns to 7" class iPads I suggest a stroll through the local GPS kiosk. Great minds or what.

post #129 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

I'm not sure why there is so little support in the forums for an AMD solution. Especially considering the way Intel has been jerking around the mobile industry.

In any event Zacate seems like perfect processor for an Apple marketed subnotebook. It is very fast for its size and very low power. Considering how this AIR is being described, it could be best classified as a subnotebook. That is a machine without all the features that people consider as required in a notebook.

Intel has been jerking around the mobile sector because AMD has had not players. Id est, they can. AMDs lack of decent mobile chips has allowed Intel to slow down mobile chip development to reduce costs.

I keep hearing all these great things about Bobcat but I still have yet to see any results that make it a better option for Apple than Intels product. Being slightly cheaper isnt going ro cut it for AMD. THey need to have a product that is more power efficient than Intels offerings and a guarantee that they can manufacturer enough to suit Apples needs.
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 #130 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

The UI elements are tiny though. When Apple's philosophy is about the end user experience, I don't think they'd do this. The OS X UI running on an iPad is usable though:

It's not that bad. In fact I rather like that pixel density. That's 135 PPI, versus 100 PPI for a 2560x1600 30". Anyway, you can make the Dock bigger if you're having trouble seeing it.
post #131 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

I'm not sure why there is so little support in the forums for an AMD solution. Especially considering the way Intel has been jerking around the mobile industry.

In any event Zacate seems like perfect processor for an Apple marketed subnotebook. It is very fast for its size and very low power. Considering how this AIR is being described, it could be best classified as a subnotebook. That is a machine without all the features that people consider as required in a notebook.

If Apple got the drivers right Zacate could be a real option. I don't know how confident Apple is about AMD supply though.
post #132 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by CandTsmac View Post

How about a new dual core A4 based system. They have OS X's guts running real nice on the iOS devices, might be OK with more power and a graphics bump.

Everytime I see something like this in print I cringe because the CPU in the A4 is not very powerful at all. It would not run a Mac OS/X based computer very well at all. Unless of course you are the sort of person that runs one app and shuts down all other activities while that app runs.

People pick up an iPad and feel its performance and automatically assume that the processor is extremely powerful. It isn't in and of its self. Rather everything that makes up iPad works together to give the user a good experience. Given the demands of the common apps used on OS/X that A8 core would have huge problems with performance.

Remember this is a cell phone processor and as such has limited capability. The primary focus of ARM processors of this type is performance per watt.
post #133 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shrike;

It's not a new issue, but then, nothing has changed either. Apple finds 2x graphics performance and 20% less CPU performance in a smaller footprint better value than a Core-i3 system. All arguments will be rehash of the 13" MB/MBP arguments.

Who knows, maybe Apple will reveal some OpenCL driven UI magic in Mac OS X 10.7 or Mac OS XI that really needs the GPU. If so, this will make a lot of people happy, no?

There are many things in OS X and particularly iLife '09, '11? that are already GPU accelerated. A Corei3 without any other GPU is a sacrifice they just can't make. Given cost considerations as well, we could really be looking at Core2 Duo, 320M.
post #134 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

There are many things in OS X and particularly iLife '09, '11? that are already GPU accelerated. A Corei3 without any other GPU is a sacrifice they just can't make. Given cost considerations as well, we could really be looking at Core2 Duo, 320M.

Why does everyone specify the Core-i3 for this class of machine? There is only one Core-i3 with a TDP that would work and it doesnt even look like its shipping in quantity. The other low TDP Core-i chips have multiple options that are shipping in quantity.
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 #135 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism;

Why does everyone specify the Core-i3 for this class of machine? There is only one Core-i3 with a TDP that would work and it doesnt even look like its shipping in quantity. The other low TDP Core-i chips have multiple options that are shipping in quantity.

So which chips should be we looking at? And it would be good to know at what price premium over Core2...
post #136 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

So which chips should be we looking at? And it would be good to know at what price premium over Core2...

Core-i5 and Core-i7, which the Core-i7 being the preferred option considering the machine type and the chips currently used in the MBA.

The price is pretty negligible. In fact, I bet the SFF ULV C2D plus the Nvidia 320M costs more for parts than the Core-i7 with IntelHD IGP.

Core-i3 (1), Core-i5 (3), Core-i7 (4) at18W TDP and non-embedded (Total 8):

http://ark.intel.com/Compare.aspx?id...2,49158,49664,
Now compare with the 2 SFF ULV C2Ds that Apple currently uses (Total 2):

http://ark.intel.com/Compare.aspx?ids=36686,37262,
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 #137 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism;

Core-i5 and Core-i7, which the Core-i7 being the preferred option considering the machine type and the chips currently used in the MBA.

The price is pretty negligible. In fact, I bet the SFF ULV C2D plus the Nvidia 320M costs more for parts than the Core-i7 with IntelHD IGP.

Core-i3 (1), Core-i5 (3), Core-i7 (4) at18W TDP and non-embedded (Total 8):

http://ark.intel.com/Compare.aspx?id...2,49158,49664,
Now compare with the 2 SFF ULV C2Ds that Apple currently uses (Total 2):

http://ark.intel.com/Compare.aspx?ids=36686,37262,

But those clock speeds are terrible?!? Turbo boost brings it past 2ghz but since it's 2 core Turbo boost will only kick in if only one core is used... I know it's Arrandale so it's not just about clock speeds, and Turbo boost is a little more complicated than I made it to be, but this and an Intel IGP running at what must be low clocks... Makes i series unlikely from where I'm standing... Also the RAM is only 800mhz on the Core i series you highlighted... Not sure how much difference this makes.
post #138 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

Everytime I see something like this in print I cringe because the CPU in the A4 is not very powerful at all. It would not run a Mac OS/X based computer very well at all. Unless of course you are the sort of person that runs one app and shuts down all other activities while that app runs.

People pick up an iPad and feel its performance and automatically assume that the processor is extremely powerful. It isn't in and of its self. Rather everything that makes up iPad works together to give the user a good experience. Given the demands of the common apps used on OS/X that A8 core would have huge problems with performance.

Remember this is a cell phone processor and as such has limited capability. The primary focus of ARM processors of this type is performance per watt.

Serious question-- How would an A9 multi-core ARM match up with, say, an Atom or C2D?

Another way to ask this what level of ARM would be capable of running OS X?

And, would it be power efficient enough to be practical?

.
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #139 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

Serious question-- How would an A9 multi-core ARM match up with, say, an Atom or C2D?

Another way to ask this what level of ARM would be capable of running OS X?

And, would it be power efficient enough to be practical?

.

The lowest clockspeed ARM known to run OS X was about 400MHz. The first iPhone.

Now, if you mean Mac OS, not OS X, then that is a loaded question and I'd say Apple has no plans to port Mac OS X to ARM.
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 #140 of 177
.

Maybe a different question needs to be asked (and forgive me if this sounds like a MSFT solution):

Is there room for an OS between OS X and iOS, where:

OS X == Unlimited capability -- what we have today, targeted at desktops & power users.

OS X Mobile == Most OS X features but with curtailed use of resources that drain battery (I don't have any idea of what those would be) -- designed to run OS X apps efficiently on MBA and Laptops

iOS == limited capability -- what we have today on the iPad (4.2)


I don't really like the idea of another OS-- Rather a single, modular, OS that Apple (and, to some extent, the user) could select what (and how many) OS capabilities are best suited to the device and tasks at hand.


I am able to be productive on a powerful desktop Mac with dual displays (lots of apps running, lots of browser windows, lots of user tasks).

I am also able to be productive on an iPad (with far less active use of resources, and, basically, a single user task).


There are times, however, that I would like to tradeoff a little iPad battery life for a little more capability -- say, run iMovie or Motion.

.
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #141 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

The lowest clockspeed ARM known to run OS X was about 400MHz. The first iPhone.

Now, if you mean Mac OS, not OS X, then that is a loaded question and I'd say Apple has no plans to port Mac OS X to ARM.

But, as you noted, much of Mac OS X was ported to ARM. I haven't JBd an iDevice since then, but I suspect that iOS still looks a lot like OS X under the covers.

Then, as an iOS developer I see that each release of iOS contains more core OS functions ported from Mac OS X.

I've heard said, and I think it is true: That Apple is using iOS to re-implement portions of Mac OS X "the way it should have been done". Then the iOS implementation is ported (incorporated, is probably a better word) into the Mac OS X mothership... One Mac OS X feature that was not ported to the iPhone was the multiple column table view -- it was impractical on the 3.5" screen. However, I expect to see this on the larger iPad screen.

Someday, I expect the last vestige will be removed when NSObject is deprecated in favor of OSObject (or some such).

Edit: There were people installing Linux on early iPods, circa 2003. Those devices didn't have a MMU, so the implementation was limited. I don't recall the iPod CPU specs, but a 30 GB iPod could be a web server in your pocket.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1ABhW7lYA8

.
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #142 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by camroidv27 View Post

11.6 Form Factor?

I thought Apple said they weren't going to do netbooks.

If a "netbook" is a cheap, crippled laptop, then no, they are not doing a netbook. It won't cost $299.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #143 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Have any legitimate reasons to dislike glossy, or did you just want to take a potshot at me?

No I don't have any legitimate reasons to dislike glossy because you say so.

Now piss off to macrumors with your kin.
post #144 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

I dont understand why its always assumed it will be a Core-i3 if its a SFF CULV. Id think Apple would go for the SFF CULV Core-i7, then i5, and possibly not even touch the Core-i3.

I and most other people assume that Apple is wanting the MBA to be cheaper than MBP 15"/17" machines. It doesn't make sense for Apple to undermine their higher end systems by putting a Core-i7 in it. It may be nearly the same performance, but the branding is going to be confusing. Maybe Apple will push the MBA back into $1800+ territory again. No problem with a Core-i7 there, but the MBA didn't do that well there. The MBA won't do well in terms of units unless it is priced really cheaply, and Apple isn't going to do that. So, it basically has to ride a niche at the $1299 to $1499 price points.

Anyways, I think Apple is going to market the MBA with its battery life performance. They have to be gunning for 10+ hours. They really can't play the CPU power or expandability game with the form factor. The only unique advantages it could really have are lighter weight and longer battery life. So, that have to scale everything else to meet that presumed goal, while maintaing comparable CPU/GPU performance to the previous model.
post #145 of 177
Consider me less than optimistic on pricing. The $700 Mini has no keyboard, mouse or screen or battery.

In the post-netbook world, I don't think these are going to sell well. a $1000 premium to run Mac OS X?
post #146 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shrike View Post

I and most other people assume that Apple is wanting the MBA to be cheaper than MBP 15"/17" machines. It doesn't make sense for Apple to undermine their higher end systems by putting a Core-i7 in it.

Yeah, thats the thing it doesnt. The number after the "Core-i doesnt denote clockspeed of chip. As Ive shown in my posts the only way to use a SFF CULV Core-i chip is to use a Core-i5 or −i7. Core-i3 isnt even an option.
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 #147 of 177
Any chance it will have Retina Display?
post #148 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ernst View Post

Any chance it will have Retina Display?

Define Retina Display.
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 #149 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Define Retina Display.

300+ ppi, so no, it won't.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #150 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1337_5L4Xx0R View Post

Consider me less than optimistic on pricing. The $700 Mini has no keyboard, mouse or screen or battery.

In the post-netbook world, I don't think these are going to sell well. a $1000 premium to run Mac OS X?

I agree. As much as I'd love to have a smaller MacBook, I'm not likely to pay what Apple is likely to charge for one.
post #151 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by GQB View Post

A calculator is not a 'computer' because it can't do anything beyond its existing purpose.

The only feature I've seen ascribed to a computer that the iPad doesn't currently have is an ability to program for it on the iPad itself. But I don't know of any accepted definition of a computer that requires this. If that were the case, then the original Mac wasn't a computer because you had to program for it on a Lisa.

I still haven't seen anyone make the case authoritatively that the iPad isn't a computer.

I'm still waiting.

What, write programs for calculator, thats unpossible
Household: MacBook, iPad 16gb wifi, iPad 64gb wifi, iPad Mini 32gb, coming iPhone 5S, iPhone 4S 32gb, iPhone 32gb, iPod Touch 4th gen x1, iPod nano 16gb gen 5 x2, iPod nano gen 3 8gb, iPod classic...
Reply
Household: MacBook, iPad 16gb wifi, iPad 64gb wifi, iPad Mini 32gb, coming iPhone 5S, iPhone 4S 32gb, iPhone 32gb, iPod Touch 4th gen x1, iPod nano 16gb gen 5 x2, iPod nano gen 3 8gb, iPod classic...
Reply
post #152 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Yeah, thats the thing it doesnt. The number after the "Core-i doesnt denote clockspeed of chip. As Ive shown in my posts the only way to use a SFF CULV Core-i chip is to use a Core-i5 or −i7. Core-i3 isnt even an option.

Apple can ask Intel to bin a run of i3 chips to fit in a 2 GHz 25 Watt envelope. That's essentially what they did with the first MBA.

Anyways, I don't think Apple would do it. It causes brand confusion. As long as the purported price point is below $1499, they won't do it.
post #153 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by GQB

A calculator is not a 'computer' because it can't do anything beyond its existing purpose.

The only feature I've seen ascribed to a computer that the iPad doesn't currently have is an ability to program for it on the iPad itself. But I don't know of any accepted definition of a computer that requires this. If that were the case, then the original Mac wasn't a computer because you had to program for it on a Lisa.

I still haven't seen anyone make the case authoritatively that the iPad isn't a computer.

I'm still waiting.


Quote:
Originally Posted by cycomiko View Post

What, write programs for calculator, thats unpossible

I had programmable HP calculator in the late 1970's.

I believe we will soon see an app like HyperCard on the iPad -- runs on the iPad and creates apps that run on the iPad.

.
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #154 of 177
Okay. The only benchmarks I could find show that the Core i7-620UM clocked at 1ghz, is actually faster at Cinebench than the MacBook Air Core 2 Duo 2.13ghz:

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Mobile-...st.2436.0.html

Core i7-620UM 18W does 2111, 4004 on Cinebench single and multi
Core 2 Duo 2.13ghz 17W does 2054, 3281 on Cinebench single and multi

If the Core i7 18W Arrandales' Intel GPU could do enough of what Mac OS X and iLife applications require, these might be a possibility in the 11.6" MacBook Air. Apple would also be saving space since they wouldn't have to allocate space for the Nvidia 320M. Based on Solipsism's Intel links below, even the most expensive Core i7 18W CPU is the same price as the 2.13GHZ Core 2 Duo 17W.

Interesting... The only question is how will the Intel GPU in the Core i7 18W series do under OS X tasks. Does anyone know how often the Intel graphics switch to the discreet graphics in the MacBook Pro 15"? Say, when rendering iMovie or editing adjustments to photos in iPhoto?

Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Core-i5 and Core-i7, which the Core-i7 being the preferred option considering the machine type and the chips currently used in the MBA.

The price is pretty negligible. In fact, I bet the SFF ULV C2D plus the Nvidia 320M costs more for parts than the Core-i7 with IntelHD IGP.

Core-i3 (1), Core-i5 (3), Core-i7 (4) at18W TDP and non-embedded (Total 8):

http://ark.intel.com/Compare.aspx?id...2,49158,49664, Now compare with the 2 SFF ULV C2Ds that Apple currently uses (Total 2):

http://ark.intel.com/Compare.aspx?ids=36686,37262,

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shrike View Post

I and most other people assume that Apple is wanting the MBA to be cheaper than MBP 15"/17" machines. It doesn't make sense for Apple to undermine their higher end systems by putting a Core-i7 in it. It may be nearly the same performance, but the branding is going to be confusing. Maybe Apple will push the MBA back into $1800+ territory again. No problem with a Core-i7 there, but the MBA didn't do that well there. The MBA won't do well in terms of units unless it is priced really cheaply, and Apple isn't going to do that. So, it basically has to ride a niche at the $1299 to $1499 price points.

Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Yeah, that’s the thing… it doesn’t. The number after the "Core-i” doesn’t denote clockspeed of chip. As I’ve shown in my posts the only way to use a SFF CULV Core-i chip is to use a Core-i5 or −i7. Core-i3 isn’t even an option.
post #155 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

It’ll fit if they use the 16:9 form factor. In fact, the width of the 12.1” 4:3 display is slightly less wide than the 11.6” 16:10 displays.

Also, if they use the 1280x800 resolution found in the current 13.3” MB/MBA/MBPs they will a PPI that is inline with the High-Resolution display options of the 15” and 17” MBPs and that of the 9.7” iPad.

I can agree with both posts. The point has always been that the Air, while a noble attempt, was no substitute for either a MBP or portability of a netbook. Certainly the weight saving was not enough to justify the price.
Getting tired of lugging around my MBP, along with its extra security worry (>$4000 with software) I bought a Sony X113 at discontinuation prices. It is very neat (black Kevlar body) and weighs less than the iPad or the optional keyboard for the iPad. It has 12' screen. With 64GB SSD, it has terrific battery life and plenty of inputs (2xUSB, 2xSD card slots), It is about the limit of a clamshell design that still has a keyboard perfectly acceptable to a touch-typist, which I am and do NOT want to sacrifice [note to others, you cannot touchtype on virtual screens; I type thousands of words a day and cannot tolerate anything other than the real thing]--so the iPad with keyboard and that L-shaped connector/support is not, so far, a good compromise.
Problem with the Sony is, as always, it is a PC. Damn thing takes forever to wake up from "sleep", as if it is doing a full boot (despite its SSD?)! And of course the non-multi-touch pad is very irritating to go back to once you are used to multi-touch. It serves the purpose for which I bought it: a very lightweight notepad for writing, surfing, emailing (and archiving from camera when travelling). But if there were a Mac equivalent I would have/would buy it in an instant.
Even better, if the new Mac Air-replacement has the iPad touchscreen etc I would pay appropriately! But it has to have USB & SD card slots.....
post #156 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

I think users are more positively affected by those first two over the last two, yet a recent AnandTech article reviewing a 13 MBP as a Windows machines pooh-poohs the 13 MBP for its continued use of the C2D at the current price point. What is odd about the article is that the reviewer triumphed how much better the MBP display was over everyone elses display that was tested, how responsive that special Nvidia 320M GPU is and well built everything else. In the end his price point seems solely based on the CPUs age, not its performance, not its cost from Intel compared to the Core-i chips, and not the quality or cost of any other component.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/3889/a...indows7-laptop

ASUS i5-540+GT335M Optimus vs MacBook13 (pages 4 and 5 of the article)

Futuremark and Cinebench scores of 2/3-3/4 of the i5
Video encoding slightly better than half
Futuremark 3D tests at about 60%
Game performance was typically 55-60% with a couple of games it pulled 75%

The battery in that system (page 6) even ends up being more efficient (min/WHr based on capacity) This still turns into longer actual charge times for the Mac of course.


Given all of the above and the fact that that ASUS system was typically the #1 or 2 system on pages 4 and 5, I dont' know how you can say that his final analysis was based entirely on the age of the cpu. Yes everything he praised is true and it is a good value for the money paid to Intel, but the performance is well behind comparable systems.
post #157 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

Okay. The only benchmarks I could find show that the Core i7-620UM clocked at 1ghz, is actually faster at Cinebench than the MacBook Air Core 2 Duo 2.13ghz:

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Mobile-...st.2436.0.html

Core i7-620UM 18W does 2111, 4004 on Cinebench single and multi
Core 2 Duo 2.13ghz 17W does 2054, 3281 on Cinebench single and multi

I benchmarked a 2.4GHz Core 2 Duo at 4723 multi-threaded so I reckon that 3281 is incorrect. Plus the GPU in the non-UM i7 gets under 2k for the 3D benchmark - the UM model is likely to be ~1500. The 320M scores 4600 so it's 2.5-3x faster graphics.

So by going the i-series route, all you do is significantly lose graphics performance and I'd estimate the CPU performance would come out the same or worse.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

If the Core i7 18W Arrandales' Intel GPU could do enough of what Mac OS X and iLife applications require, these might be a possibility in the 11.6" MacBook Air. Apple would also be saving space since they wouldn't have to allocate space for the Nvidia 320M.

I'm not convinced they're making an 11.6" model. We've seen a photo of the 13" and it had 2 chips in it. There's no way they would build a smaller 11.6" model with a UM i-series chip and have it be the only model in the entire lineup that can't run OpenCL on the GPU and drop so much GPU performance compared to the 13" model.
post #158 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin;

I'm not convinced they're making an 11.6" model. We've seen a photo of the 13" and it had 2 chips in it. There's no way they would build a smaller 11.6" model with a UM i-series chip and have it be the only model in the entire lineup that can't run OpenCL on the GPU and drop so much GPU performance compared to the 13" model.

Apple is making a netbook. Let that sink in, everyone. Or not, if 11.6" doesn't eventuate.

I get your points though... clouded, the future, is. This one will go down to the wire.
post #159 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Standardizing the new Air around flash storage could also see the notebook sport incredibly fast boot times and "instant-on" capabilities when waking up from sleep, similar to iPhones and iPads. Although the existing Air is offered with a SSD drive, the base model includes a HDD, impeding Apple's ability to offer such technology across its inaugural design of the notebook.

Ummm.
``Instant-on' ' capabilities of a device depend more on the type of the OS, than on the type of storage inside. Mobile devices are not supposed to reboot often and don't run any applications, which can enter infinite loops.
MBA on the contrary is so far running the Mac OS, which --- while being relatively stable --- is still under real threat of clumsily written and sometimes malicious third-party code.
They though may put the A4 inside and then boot in the iOS...

We mean Apple no harm.

People are lovers, basically. -- Engadget livebloggers at the iPad mini event.

Reply

We mean Apple no harm.

People are lovers, basically. -- Engadget livebloggers at the iPad mini event.

Reply
post #160 of 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

Okay. The only benchmarks I could find show that the Core i7-620UM clocked at 1ghz, is actually faster at Cinebench than the MacBook Air Core 2 Duo 2.13ghz:

That is virtually useless as most people will not be doing video processing on an 11" computer.
Quote:

Core i7-620UM 18W does 2111, 4004 on Cinebench single and multi
Core 2 Duo 2.13ghz 17W does 2054, 3281 on Cinebench single and multi

The i series chips only have a very modest (less than 10%) improvement over the Core 2 chips integer wise. That is clock for clock if you are lucky. i Series has seen improvements to the floating point unit and vast improvement to vector or SIMD capabilities. The question you have to ask your self is so? Really when looking at an ultra thing small laptop is this sort of performance what is important to most users? How many AIR users use the device for this sort of work and how many are inclined to use an even smaller machine for this sort of work.
Quote:

If the Core i7 18W Arrandales' Intel GPU could do enough of what Mac OS X and iLife applications require, these might be a possibility in the 11.6" MacBook Air.

I would be extremely surprised to see any i series chip in such an AIR. To many compromises and to much power. Most importantly where is the OpenCL support. That one little feature is key to the future of Mac OS/X, without support for OpenCL Apple would be forced to run everything through the i86 cpus.

This one little issue, OpenCL, is why I think AMD's Zacate Fusion product has a chance on this platform. Yeah the CPU performance isn't outstanding but the big concern is over all capability and long battery life.
Quote:
Apple would also be saving space since they wouldn't have to allocate space for the Nvidia 320M.

True but then they have to live with crappy Intel video!
Quote:
Based on Solipsism's Intel links below, even the most expensive Core i7 18W CPU is the same price as the 2.13GHZ Core 2 Duo 17W.

I doubt Apple pays those prices. When buying by the hundreds of thousands you do get discounts.
Quote:
Interesting... The only question is how will the Intel GPU in the Core i7 18W series do under OS X tasks.

Interesting? Come on man we already know the answer to that one.
Quote:
Does anyone know how often the Intel graphics switch to the discreet graphics in the MacBook Pro 15"? Say, when rendering iMovie or editing adjustments to photos in iPhoto?

Depends upon your software. Besides Apples goal was to make that switching transparent so you have to go out of your way to know. In any event you don't want Mac OS/X to be held back by Intel Integrated GPU technology when alternatives are available.

Also consider this, what does the performance look like with that i7 18 watt CPU when running single threaded or modestly threaded software that doesn't afford itself GPU acceleration? In a way they are suckering you in with references to Cinebench which matches up well with the i series architecture. Instead look for benchmarks that cover more common software on such a platform.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Sources: Apple to unveil revamped 11.6-inch MacBook Air next week