or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Potential Mac-bound Intel Ivy Bridge chips to launch at end of April
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Potential Mac-bound Intel Ivy Bridge chips to launch at end of April

post #1 of 69
Thread Starter 
A slew of mobile and desktop CPUs from Intel's forthcoming Ivy Bridge lineup are set to launch on April 29, potentially signaling when Apple could refresh some of its Mac lineup.

The new Ivy Bridge chips are due to be announced the fourth week of April, according to CPU World. The news comes as Apple's slimmer 13- and 15-inch MacBook Pros are said to be in production ahead of an anticipated launch.

It was said that the new quad-core-only Ivy Bridge processors will officially be announced between April 22 and April 28, and will officially go on sale April 29.

The debut of the chips will reportedly be preceded by Intel's announcement of new Z77, Z75, H77 and B75 chipsets. Review embargoes on the boards are also expected to lift on that day.

In the high-end quad-core Core i7 range, the 3720QM, 3820QM and 3920XM mobile processors each with Intel's HD 4000 integrated graphic. They will be clocked at 2.6GHz, 2.7GHz and 2.8GHz standard and will cost $378, $568 and $1,096, respectively.

All three quad-core Core i7 laptop chips will be quad-core processors with 8 threads. The two higher-end chips will feature 8 megabytes of L3 cache while the Core i7-3720QM will have 6 megabytes. The Core i7-3720QM and Core i7-3820QM will have 45 Watt TDP, while the more powerful Core i7-3920XM will run at 55 Watt TDP.


An illustration of Apple's notebook lineup planned for the 2012 calendar year.


Both the 3820QM and 3720QM chips were previously rumored to make their way into Apple's MacBook Pro lineup. AppleInsider revealed in February that Apple plans to radically redesign its MacBook Pro lineup this year with thinner and lighter designs modeled after the highly successful MacBook Air.

The three Core i7 quad-core mobile processors will be joined on April 29 by a total of 9 desktop processors in the Core i5 and Core i7 range, with all but one sporting base clock speeds over 3GHz, according to the report.

The list of processors also includes mobile dual-core chips in the Core i5 and Core i7 range, with a total of eight dual-core mobile CPUs ranging from 1.8GHz to 2.9GHz. They are expected to debut later, on June 3, and could be suitable for a new MacBook Air refresh.

On the low-end Core i3 line, there is one mobile CPU, the 3217U with two cores and a frequency of 1.8GHz, but it is not expected to arrive until the third quarter of 2012.

Mac-bound Ivy Bridge CPUs were originally expected to launch on April 8, but the launch was said to have been delayed. One rumor from earlier this month suggested Apple plans to launch a thinner 15-inch MacBook Pro in April featuring Core i5 and Core i7 Ivy Bridge CPUs.

[ View article on AppleInsider ]
post #2 of 69
Oh, hey, April. Just what I thought. Apple's known for exclusivity deals, after all.

Hey. Hey, Apple. If you merge the lines and call the successor "MacBook", could you please not be idiots and take liberties with what that name would imply? Meaning please keep dedicated graphics in the laptops.

Don't look at me like that, guys. You know they'd do it. You know they'd drop dedicated GPUs from the whole lineup. They've done worse in the past.

“The only thing more insecure than Android is its userbase.” – Can’t Remember

Reply

“The only thing more insecure than Android is its userbase.” – Can’t Remember

Reply
post #3 of 69
A 55 watt processor might actually lower the overall power draw, that isn't the problem. The problem is all of that heat in a single point in the chassis. The question would be how do you effectively remove that heat. Even with some of the coming carbon nano tube heat sink technologies it is still a lot of heat to remove from a single point in a thin enclosure.

So at this point I'm reluctant to believe a 55 watt chip of any sort would go into a markedly thinner MBP. These wattages probably reinforce the rumor that AIR compatible chips won't be here till mid year also, that is also a bummer.

The other thing here, that is shocking, is that Intel seems to be awfully proud of their mobile chips considering the list price. Now Apple isn't paying anywhere near those prices in the volume that they move but still $1096 is a hefty price for a mobile chip that has a crappy intel GPU in it.
post #4 of 69
I want iMac updates please.
post #5 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Oh, hey, April. Just what I thought. Apple's known for exclusivity deals, after all.

Hey. Hey, Apple. If you merge the lines and call the successor "MacBook", could you please not be idiots and take liberties with what that name would imply? Meaning please keep dedicated graphics in the laptops.

Don't look at me like that, guys. You know they'd do it. You know they'd drop dedicated GPUs from the whole lineup. They've done worse in the past.

Is that what they mean at every update when they say
"Apple giveth and Apple taketh away"?
post #6 of 69
I wonder what the hard drive config is going to be on the MBP refresh??? Will Apple go MBA style with modular flash or replaceable MBP style?
post #7 of 69
Hope they come out then, so it gives enough time for me to see how it is before I buy, in order to be able to have and ready for Google I/O.
post #8 of 69
wow, those updates will finally put the macbookpro and imac ahead of the 2010 mac pros in terms of power. 2.8 Ghz 4 core i7
post #9 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

A slew of mobile and desktop CPUs from Intel's forthcoming Ivy Bridge lineup are set to launch on April 29, potentially signaling when Apple could refresh some of its Mac lineup.[/URL]

You're all aware that Intel releases their stock to OEM well in advance of retail channel rollouts, right? If they'll be hitting the shelves at the end of April, chances are they'll be in the OEM's fabs by next week.
post #10 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmo View Post

I wonder what the hard drive config is going to be on the MBP refresh??? Will Apple go MBA style with modular flash or replaceable MBP style?

What I'd like is a small (perhaps 64 GB) SSD -perhaps on the motherboard- for the OS and a larger platter drive for data. I don't expect it to happen that way, though.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #11 of 69
Hey Apple, one more time on the MacPro for old time's sake?
post #12 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmo View Post

I wonder what the hard drive config is going to be on the MBP refresh??? Will Apple go MBA style with modular flash or replaceable MBP style?

I'm not sure what you are saying here. They may not use the same blade type modules but that doesn't imply that flash won't be used in new Mac hardware. In fact considering that more than a few companies in the industry are working on a new standard for flash based storage cards, there is the potential that Macs released this year will have an entirely new storage module approach.

Since even SSD are know to die, I highly doubt that Apple would use a non replaceable approach in Mac hardware.
post #13 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by iSheldon View Post

Is that what they mean at every update when they say
"Apple giveth and Apple taketh away"?

I'm trying to guess what your former user name was. Something very familiar about your writing style.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #14 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

A 55 watt processor might actually lower the overall power draw, that isn't the problem. The problem is all of that heat in a single point in the chassis. The question would be how do you effectively remove that heat. Even with some of the coming carbon nano tube heat sink technologies it is still a lot of heat to remove from a single point in a thin enclosure.

So at this point I'm reluctant to believe a 55 watt chip of any sort would go into a markedly thinner MBP. These wattages probably reinforce the rumor that AIR compatible chips won't be here till mid year also, that is also a bummer.

The other thing here, that is shocking, is that Intel seems to be awfully proud of their mobile chips considering the list price. Now Apple isn't paying anywhere near those prices in the volume that they move but still $1096 is a hefty price for a mobile chip that has a crappy intel GPU in it.

What is the wattage of the current MacBook Airs, in particular the top end; 13-inch featuring 256GB, 1.7GHz dual-core Intel Core i5 processor 4GB memory and 256GB flash storage?
post #15 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Oh, hey, April. Just what I thought. Apple's known for exclusivity deals, after all.

Hey. Hey, Apple. If you merge the lines and call the successor "MacBook", could you please not be idiots and take liberties with what that name would imply? Meaning please keep dedicated graphics in the laptops.

Don't look at me like that, guys. You know they'd do it. You know they'd drop dedicated GPUs from the whole lineup. They've done worse in the past.

Would you feel the same if the performance of the Intel HD 4000 integrated GPU was found to be comparable to mid-level discrete graphics processors?
post #16 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Oh, hey, April. Just what I thought. Apple's known for exclusivity deals, after all.

Hey. Hey, Apple. If you merge the lines and call the successor "MacBook", could you please not be idiots and take liberties with what that name would imply? Meaning please keep dedicated graphics in the laptops.

Don't look at me like that, guys. You know they'd do it. You know they'd drop dedicated GPUs from the whole lineup. They've done worse in the past.

The love affair between Apple and Intel dried up long ago. I wouldn't expect any kind of exclusivity deals. Obviously Apple has contracts with them, like other oems. These guys tend to get access before distributors and shops like Newegg.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

A 55 watt processor might actually lower the overall power draw, that isn't the problem. The problem is all of that heat in a single point in the chassis. The question would be how do you effectively remove that heat. Even with some of the coming carbon nano tube heat sink technologies it is still a lot of heat to remove from a single point in a thin enclosure.

So at this point I'm reluctant to believe a 55 watt chip of any sort would go into a markedly thinner MBP. These wattages probably reinforce the rumor that AIR compatible chips won't be here till mid year also, that is also a bummer.

The other thing here, that is shocking, is that Intel seems to be awfully proud of their mobile chips considering the list price. Now Apple isn't paying anywhere near those prices in the volume that they move but still $1096 is a hefty price for a mobile chip that has a crappy intel GPU in it.

The 55W chip is an intel extreme part. It will not make it into a mac. This is just sloppy reporting. Remember a few months ago when I mentioned they cited the wrong part for the fall refresh? I was right because I just went with the logical replacement rather than internet kool-aid. Apple has never once used one of the extreme edition parts. You gain very little speed at the cost of battery life and double the price. I see no reason for them to change policies now. In terms of real performance gains, Anandtech has never been that impressed with these (used anandtech reference to annoy you slightly).
post #17 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

I'm trying to guess what your former user name was. Something very familiar about your writing style.

Proust?
post #18 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

What I'd like is a small (perhaps 64 GB) SSD -perhaps on the motherboard- for the OS and a larger platter drive for data. I don't expect it to happen that way, though.

Well let's not say that. For one thing 64GB is way too small for a modern laptop called a Pro. With that type of arrangement I'd have to say the minimal flash storage size would have to be 256GB. Mainly because 128GB is just a hair to small if you are a user of a number of large apps.

That magnetic drive, for bulk storage, is important though. Especially if you consider that it doesn't look like flash will ever catch up with magnetic technology cost per bit wise.

The other thing here is that of the flash soldered onto the motherboard. I don't think the technology is ready for that yet. In fact just the opposite as the high density flash solutions are less reliable. I must admit though that you seldom hear about SSDs going bad in AIRs.
post #19 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by tpf1952 View Post

Hey Apple, one more time on the MacPro for old time's sake?

I hope they refresh this line also. My 1,1 will be obsoleted by Mountain Lion, and I would consider buying a new one just so I could continue my current configuration for a few years longer.
post #20 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacBook Pro View Post

Would you feel the same if the performance of the Intel HD 4000 integrated GPU was found to be comparable to mid-level discrete graphics processors?

Yes. GPUs should have their own RAM, and when the RAM in the system can't be upgraded or replaced, it creates an idiotic artificial limit.

“The only thing more insecure than Android is its userbase.” – Can’t Remember

Reply

“The only thing more insecure than Android is its userbase.” – Can’t Remember

Reply
post #21 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by iSheldon View Post

Proust?

No that isn't it.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #22 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Yes. GPUs should have their own RAM, and when the RAM in the system can't be upgraded or replaced, it creates an idiotic artificial limit.

To add to your point, with the HD3000, it only allocates a higher amount of ram to the gpu in systems with 8GB or more installed. You can look it up on intel's site, mactracker, wiki, etc. This makes it even more limiting on an Air like machine. Obviously that was the HD3000, so that number will not always remain static. I think with 8GB of ram installed it gives the gpu 512MB or something like that. Lack of addressable ram can be an issue. It would show up in gaming, but I only mention that because of how noticeable it would be if the system has to cache textures due to insufficient ram allocation.
post #23 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

No that isn't it.

iLeonard?
post #24 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

Well let's not say that. For one thing 64GB is way too small for a modern laptop called a Pro. With that type of arrangement I'd have to say the minimal flash storage size would have to be 256GB. Mainly because 128GB is just a hair to small if you are a user of a number of large apps.

That magnetic drive, for bulk storage, is important though. Especially if you consider that it doesn't look like flash will ever catch up with magnetic technology cost per bit wise.

The other thing here is that of the flash soldered onto the motherboard. I don't think the technology is ready for that yet. In fact just the opposite as the high density flash solutions are less reliable. I must admit though that you seldom hear about SSDs going bad in AIRs.

That's crazy. 64 GB is plenty for just the OS and apps. Even if you have a lot of apps, you can manage with 64 GB. If you have a separate platter drive, 256 GB is WAY overkill.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #25 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by CityGuide View Post

I hope they refresh this line also. My 1,1 will be obsoleted by Mountain Lion, and I would consider buying a new one just so I could continue my current configuration for a few years longer.

Thirded (not a real word, I know).

I jumped the gun and sold my iMac last fall in anticipation of a Mac Pro refresh that has yet to materialize.
post #26 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacBook Pro View Post

What is the wattage of the current MacBook Airs, in particular the top end; 13-inch featuring 256GB, 1.7GHz dual-core Intel Core i5 processor 4GB memory and 256GB flash storage?

[/Quote]
Frankly off the top of my head I can't remember. I know it was discussed at length here in the past. 17 watts comes to mind but I think that is low.
[Quote]


Quote:
Originally Posted by MacBook Pro View Post

Would you feel the same if the performance of the Intel HD 4000 integrated GPU was found to be comparable to mid-level discrete graphics processors?

The new intel GPU is a big unknown. Most of the testing done with leaked parts has been highly biased and frankly rigged to show the GPU in the best possible light. What we would need is shipping hardware with shipping Apple drivers. It isn't just normal GOU functionality you need to compare either as these chips will become OpenCL engines so it is reasonable to compare their performance running such code also.

On top of all of that there are the rumors about HiDPI screens that might be possible in future Macs. If these come we might actually see real world performance regressions. Of course this is speculation, you really can't tell until that elusive shipping hardware comes.

On top of all of that Mac still need to get faster, much faster actually with each release. Stagnation simply because Apple wants to rely upon integrated GPUs will not go over well. That of course is if the GPU is as bad as Intels record here indicates is possible. In a nut shell MBP graphics solutions are barely passable now, we need to move forward not backward. However I don't see Apple going integrated only in the next gen MBPs, integrated GPUs simply aren't ready for Pro level work. Even AMDs coming Trinity chip still wouldn't pass for a Pro level laptop GPU.

Speaking if AMD, most testing so far indicates that Intels new GPU will not ebpven catch up to the GPU in AMDs Llano chip. A chip that will be over a year old by the time Ivy Bridge is on the market in force. Supposedly within two months or so AMD will be shipping Trinity with a 50% faster GPU. In the end intel will be lagging integrated GPUs from AMD for another year or two, they will not even come close to contemporary mid level descrete GPU performance.

All this being said I do expect integrated GPUs to be the way of the future, I just don't see them offering that sort of performance with Ivy Bridge no matter how much it is improved over the previous generation.
post #27 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacBook Pro View Post

Would you feel the same if the performance of the Intel HD 4000 integrated GPU was found to be comparable to mid-level discrete graphics processors?

Intel HD 4000 is released after the 7000 series Notebook and desktop discrete GPUs from AMD which only reinforces reality--Intel cannot match remotely the capabilities of AMD and their discrete GPU technology. The same with Nvidia.

Hell, AMD is already testing their 8000 series GPGPUs.

So no, with the emergences of OpenCL integrated into LLVM/Clang and how Apple leverages the GPGPUs for process tasks the more power the discrete GPU the more responsive the system, overall.
post #28 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post

The love affair between Apple and Intel dried up long ago. I wouldn't expect any kind of exclusivity deals. Obviously Apple has contracts with them, like other oems. These guys tend to get access before distributors and shops like Newegg.

Mixing it up would mean using AMD chips in the AIRs and the Minis replacement. In the end I think it hurts Apple more than it helps them to be tied to one vendor. Apple has implied in the past that they like to minimize the number of suppliers they use but that can lead to problems if a supplier doesn't have your best interest at heart. In the case of Intel I really don't think they like the influence Apple has over the marketplace.
Quote:



The 55W chip is an intel extreme part. It will not make it into a mac. This is just sloppy reporting. Remember a few months ago when I mentioned they cited the wrong part for the fall refresh? I was right because I just went with the logical replacement rather than internet kool-aid. Apple has never once used one of the extreme edition parts. You gain very little speed at the cost of battery life and double the price. I see no reason for them to change policies now. In terms of real performance gains, Anandtech has never been that impressed with these (used anandtech reference to annoy you slightly).

Well that explains a lot. My point remains though, even a 45 watt part needs to be cooled and going too thin will compromise that. Plus I don't see Apple dropping the descrete GPU in the Mac Book Pros this year.

As to Anandtech well I think they have potential to do good but in far too many cases their reporting just looks like a press release for Intel. I especially don't like the way they tweaked GPU driver settings to make Ivy Bridges GPU look possibly better than it is. Being an Apple forum we really need to wait anyways to see what the Ivy Bridge machines ship with. Drivers for GPUs have never been Apples strong points.
post #29 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

What I'd like is a small (perhaps 64 GB) SSD -perhaps on the motherboard- for the OS and a larger platter drive for data. I don't expect it to happen that way, though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

Well let's not say that. For one thing 64GB is way too small for a modern laptop called a Pro. With that type of arrangement I'd have to say the minimal flash storage size would have to be 256GB. Mainly because 128GB is just a hair to small if you are a user of a number of large apps.

That magnetic drive, for bulk storage, is important though. Especially if you consider that it doesn't look like flash will ever catch up with magnetic technology cost per bit wise.

The other thing here is that of the flash soldered onto the motherboard. I don't think the technology is ready for that yet. In fact just the opposite as the high density flash solutions are less reliable. I must admit though that you seldom hear about SSDs going bad in AIRs.

The idea is to have a smallish SSD drive dedicated to the OS and applications for performance reasons, then have magnetic storage for data. If it's too large, it starts to get too expensive to drive down through the entire product line to the 13" MB/MBP.

I agree that a socketed SSD would be a better design, for easy replacement in the event of a failure. Otherwise, you'd be looking at a complete motherboard swap.

   Apple develops an improved programming language.  Google copied Java.  Everything you need to know, right there.

 

  MA497LL/A FB463LL/A MC572LL/A FC060LL/A MD481LL/A MD388LL/A ME344LL/A

Reply

   Apple develops an improved programming language.  Google copied Java.  Everything you need to know, right there.

 

  MA497LL/A FB463LL/A MC572LL/A FC060LL/A MD481LL/A MD388LL/A ME344LL/A

Reply
post #30 of 69
An illustration of Apple's notebook lineup planned for the 2012 calendar year.



An illustration of customers for said notebook range planned for the 2012.

post #31 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacBook Pro View Post

Would you feel the same if the performance of the Intel HD 4000 integrated GPU was found to be comparable to mid-level discrete graphics processors?

It won't, no need to hypothesize about it. HD4000 will be a lot better than anything Intel had before, but it will not even come close to the discrete GPU's in the current MBP's, let alone anything better released after that. For a laptop that can easily set you back $1500, IMO that's unacceptable, even despite everything else that will be great about it.
post #32 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

That's crazy. 64 GB is plenty for just the OS and apps. Even if you have a lot of apps, you can manage with 64 GB. If you have a separate platter drive, 256 GB is WAY overkill.

Actually this is a hard learned lesson from way back in 2008 when I got my MBP. I think with in a day I had surpassed 70 GB of stuff installed. It adds up quick. Look at what happens when you install XCode, open Office, Eclipse, a couple of web browsers, Mac Ports, a few graphics programs like Gimp, a VM or two and other apps.

I was actually shocked at how fast the capacity iPod that 200GB drive disappeared. Note too this is before I even had an iTunes account. or for that matter any media to amount to anything. That media currently resides on an external disk.

In the end I ended up ditching Open Office for Apples "office" apps, removed Mac Ports in favor of Homebrew and did a number of other refactorings. In the end I'm pretty confident when I say 64 GB is too small these days for an app / boot drive. Even Apple has heard the whine form it's XCode users as they have dramatically trimmed that apps install profile along with the documentation it installs. Even iBooks author downloads to a huge impact on you disk drive.

Remember I'm talking about a MBP used as a machine by someone more than a novice to do more than the average person does with his machine. However I'm not by any measure a power user, nor do I get into some of the demanding graphics work that many on the forum do. So by that measure I don't think to many MBP users would be happy at all with a 64 GB boot / app drive.

Here is just a quick few install numbers from my Applications directory. Not that often stuff gets installed elsewhere so these are minimals.
  1. Adobe Reader 296MB
  2. Aperture 304 MB (an old version)
  3. DraftSight 265 MB
  4. Garage band 300MB
  5. Gimp 222 MB
  6. Firefox 78MB
  7. IBooks Author 322 MB
  8. IMovie 236 MB
  9. Inkscape 284 MB
  10. IPhoto 388 MB (an old version)
  11. iTunes 222 MB
  12. IWeb 441 MB
  13. Lyx 461 MB
  14. Solid works eDrawings 206MB this isn't even a CAD system
  15. Virtual box 225 MB
  16. WebKit 144 MB
  17. XCode 4.49 GB
  18. iWork 705MB

These are not everything on disk but represent some of the bigger things in just the Apps directory. Right now finder reports 15 GB of space used in then Applications directory, 19 GB in the Library directory, 5 GB in the System directory, /usr has 9 GB of data in use. So you see we have already basically used up that 64 GB drive before we have even started on the users directories.

Now look at my home directory, it is at almost 100 Gb even. Yes it needs to be pruned but I don't expect a major reduction in space usage. Now mind you most of my media files are on another drive. Of that 25 GB sits in the Library directory which is a pain to clean up, because you need to figure out what is stale and unneeded. Speaking of which Apple needs to put better controls into uninstallers as much gets left around the disk that doesn't need to be there.

In the end though it is very very easy to go past the 64 GB mark just with App installs.
post #33 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

Intel HD 4000 is released after the 7000 series Notebook and desktop discrete GPUs from AMD which only reinforces reality--Intel cannot match remotely the capabilities of AMD and their discrete GPU technology. The same with Nvidia.

Hell, AMD is already testing their 8000 series GPGPUs.

So no, with the emergences of OpenCL integrated into LLVM/Clang and how Apple leverages the GPGPUs for process tasks the more power the discrete GPU the more responsive the system, overall.

GPU usage doesn't always involve OpenCL either. In any event each release of Mac OS has integrated GPU acceleration into various parts of the software base. One has to think carefully about this because the advantages of a good GPU might show up where the don't expect it.

Even if an app doesn't use GPU acceleration directly it will often through Apples lower level libraries.
post #34 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by John.B View Post

The idea is to have a smallish SSD drive dedicated to the OS and applications for performance reasons, then have magnetic storage for data. If it's too large, it starts to get too expensive to drive down through the entire product line to the 13" MB/MBP.

Thus I see no point in putting in a SSD that is too small to handle an average MBP users app install. My point is that you can easily, within a day, install more apps and stuff that will effectively use up all of that space.

The problem here is that many seem to mis the most important point here, people buy MBPs because they need extra capacity or performance. Honestly the AIRs are very nice machines but beyond the smallish screens I couldn't justify one myself based on the tight storage situation in the machines. Putting that limitation into a MBP would be insanity on Apples part.
Quote:

I agree that a socketed SSD would be a better design, for easy replacement in the event of a failure. Otherwise, you'd be looking at a complete motherboard swap.

There is a risk factor too. If your HD is on the motherboard and repair requires a swap then you leave that drive open for inspection from third parties. A plug in drive can always be smashed with a hammer.

In any event I like the idea very much of an hybrid machine that puts bulk storage on a magnetic drive. It will likely be the only reasonable approach for some time. My only problem is the tendency of people to underestimate what would be the optimal size for that SSD. To that end I will proclaim loudly that 64 GB is far too little. For most users even 128 GB is cutting it close. Most users here being people that buy MBPs for their capabilities beyond the lower end machines.
post #35 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

Intel HD 4000 is released after the 7000 series Notebook and desktop discrete GPUs from AMD which only reinforces reality--Intel cannot match remotely the capabilities of AMD and their discrete GPU technology. The same with Nvidia.

Hell, AMD is already testing their 8000 series GPGPUs.

Wait, are you suggesting differences in product line numbers between different manufacturers is evidence that one is inferior to the other? nVidia's on their 600 series. Does that mean it's much worse than the Intel 4000?

I don't disagree that the performance is worse on the Intel stuff, but saying the numbers have anything to do with that is fallacy.

“The only thing more insecure than Android is its userbase.” – Can’t Remember

Reply

“The only thing more insecure than Android is its userbase.” – Can’t Remember

Reply
post #36 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

I think with in a day I had surpassed 70 GB of stuff installed. It adds up quick. Look at what happens when you install XCode, open Office, Eclipse, a couple of web browsers, Mac Ports, a few graphics programs like Gimp, a VM or two and other apps.

Every time someone installs Eclipse, a kitten dies.
post #37 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by isheldon View Post

i want imac updates please.

+++
post #38 of 69
I need to replace my Mac Pro at work here... :-/. Sucks they haven't addressed this yet. Fuck reform on patents, I say reform on Apple for a new Mac Pro movement! hehe....

post #39 of 69
I have a 2010 11 Air, id love to get an Ivy bridge 13 air!!!
Recently i got the lamborghini vx7 gaming laptop, its very non portable, so id love to get a new air, 15 or 17 inch slim pros wouldnt help me too much.
post #40 of 69
Wasn't there supposed to be a 35W quad-core processor on the list? I guess they couldn't work out a 4/8 processor/thread combo?

Either way, I'm excited about the line-up.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Potential Mac-bound Intel Ivy Bridge chips to launch at end of April