Potential Mac-bound Intel Ivy Bridge chips to launch at end of April - Page 2

I'm not going to look through the list right now, but some of my applications go into several gigabytes. For people who game on their computers, games take up way too much storage space. If you use parallels or bootcamp, that's another chunk of space. These things fill up fast, and were you assuming the system use this smaller disk for pagefile/caching as that is typically done on the boot drive. If so you do need some free space on there. OSX has a really weird file system, so I'd give it breathing room no matter what.

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.
That is the listed spec on those cpus.


It would make more sense when it at least becomes a flat sidegrade going from a discrete gpu to integrated. It doesn't make that much sense to essentially make the macbook pros into Airs given that people who are okay with some of the limitations are likely to buy an Air already. If there's very little differentiation in terms of ports, storage, and raw power, that may actually kill them.


I wouldn't buy it with 64 GB. I think my powerbook G4 had almost that much (I think it was 40GB), and I had a firewire drive hooked up to it much of the time. That was a decade ago.

Sorry, but neither of you is close to the average MBP user if you need more than 64 GB on the boot drive. My entire System folder is well under 20 GB. Even if you put the app itself on the System drive, 64 GB would be plenty for most people.

Games? Well, the average MBP user doesn't have 200 GB of Games - and even if they do, only the app really needs to be on the system drive. The data files could be elsewhere.

If you really want 512 GB of SSD, feel free, but it's a waste for most people if there's a platter disk to hold the high volumes of data.

I am not using hardly any of the space on my SSD but even I know 64 GB of space isn't enough. 128 GB is the minimum, with options for 256, 512, and possibly even 1 TB.

I bought an iPad, i'm not going to buy the next MacBook Pro or MacBook Air. That said I still need a desktop Mac for Xcode, so I have my eye on a Mac Pro or Macmini (and continue doing video capture work on the Windows box.)

I don't see Apple ever using the "Extreme" chips. The only system that has used anything like this was the upper end of the Mac Pro with the 6-core Xeons. This is where they belong. Not laptops. No doubt I'll see Dell and HP sell overpriced junk with them anyway. I learned my lesson in 2004 about buying "desktop replacement" laptops, they are not worth it, you get no battery life with the expense of getting poor video graphics performance.

What I do see Apple doing is, using the first two parts listed in the article for the 15" and 17" laptops and dropping the 13" Pro entirely since it duplicates the Air. The Air CPU's are the 17watt models, where as the i7 Quadcores with 45watt TDP can't be put in anything smaller than a 15" model since it would compromise the ability to cool it.

Wasn't it offered once on the 24" aluminum iMac in 2007?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-rnWNZxKu8 - 6:29 - 2.8 GHz Core 2 Extreme Option (X7900)

What many people miss in the GPU/Improved integrated graphics argument is just that. If a program isn't written to take advantage of it it won't even enter into it. If it is it makes a huge difference in user experience. Just having the GPU isn't the solution, it has to be written for. Apple has a stake in creating several layers of good hardware options and also writing their signature apps to function at their best on these. But they also have to get 3rd party developers to deliver the same. Especially with the prospects of retina displays on Apple laptops. It's not good if it looks great but performs just pretty OK.

Gotta say 'm getting pretty excited about the spring laptops, with more small confirmations of their schedule like these.

64GB is more than adequate for your OS and oft used apps. I am using 24GB of an 80GB Intel X25 G2 SSD. I have a a 1TB @5400RPM HDD as my Home Folder.

I have Xcode installed. It's 3.24GB (BASE2). I also have iWork, MS Office and other large suites installed.

If for some reason you can't put all your apps on the boot drive then the OS could intelligently place them on the secondary drive, whether that be an HDD or SSD.

PS: If I were to redo my setup I would have gone with a smaller SLC SSD from Intel.

I was stating how things could add up. I don't personally install games. I used to play a couple, but there are better ways to spend time. I wasn't suggesting 200GB worth of games. This stuff is always a mix. As for me personally, terabytes of photos, raw files, exr files, layered comps that can be 1-2GB each, and backups of this stuff. Hehe... it wouldn't fit on a laptop drive under any circumstance. Anyway you bring up an interesting point. What is the profile of a macbook pro user going forward given the increasing popularity of the macbook air. Obviously it has to encapsulate users in need of a laptop whose needs are not met by the Air, but it becomes a matter of where that starts going forward.

I assume what he meant to say is that since the HD 4000 is released well after the AMD 7000 series, yet won't even come remotely close to even the AMD GPU's released well before the 7000 series, all while AMD is has already been working on their 8000 series for some time, which more or less proves the point that Intel graphics suck. As they have always done, except for the few times they licensed PowerVR designs and rebranded them as Intel graphics.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a big Intel fan (they are actually one of the main reasons my employer can pay me to do my job), but just for their CPU's.

Intel = great CPU's, crap GPU's. It's a bit like NVidia, everyone assumes that because they can make great desktop GPU's, their mobile GPU's are automatically also great, even though are actually pretty crappy compared to the competition.

You're missing the entire point.

I don't think anyone suggested that an integrated GPU would ever be faster than a dedicated GPU. That's just not going to happen. People who need the ultimate in performance will always benefit from a dedicated GPU like that provided by Nvidia or ATI/AMD.

The issue, though, is whether an integrated GPU is good enough. And the answer is that, for many users, it is. For example, I never do anything on my laptop that would require the power of a dedicated GPU. So, for me, the Intel 4000 graphics would be fine. There are certainly some people who need a dedicated GPU. If Apple's assessment is that the latter group is large enough, then they will continue to offer a dedicated GPU. If they believe that the latter group is not large enough, they might not.

Personally, my guess would be that they would continue to offer a dedicated GPU at least for the 17" MBP, and probably for the 15", as well. To me, it makes sense to have MBA without dedicated GPU in sizes of 11, 13, and 15" and to have MBP with dedicated GPU in sizes of 15 and 17". That's only a guess, though.

Somewhere earlier in this thread the question was raised if anyone would care about the lack of a discrete GPU, if it turned out the HD 4000 is 'about as good as a mid-range discrete GPU'. Also, the current 15"+ MBP's have a discrete GPU, and the 13" models used to have one before the current generation. So I think it's a perfectly valid discussion to compare IGP's to discrete GPU's when talking about what Apple should use in the MBP's. Another thing to keep in mind when evaluating the Ivy Bridge IGP is that AMD's IGP's absolutely wipe the floor with Intel's, to the point that for some applications, the HD4000 will likely barely keep up with e.g. the GPU in AMD's E350, which is already almost a year old.


You never transcode or edit video? You expect to never browse websites with WebGL content? You expect to never hook up your MBP to a HiDPI monitor somewhere in the future? You're not going to use any image editing software that can use the GPU for real-time previews of image processing effects?


That remains to be seen, but maybe for you, an IGP could be perfectly fine. Maybe a C2D CPU from 2009 would also be fine since most people rarely if ever tax their CPU's. Or 4GB of RAM or more, why would you need that if you just browse the web and do some word processing every now and then?

Probably you are better off with a MacBook Air if this is the case, but we were talking about the MBP here.


Anyone who wants to play games, anyone who wants to run heavy GPGPU tasks, anyone who wants to get decent desktop performance at the 4k2k resolutions you can expect within a year or 2, anyone who out of principle doesn't want to buy a new laptop that has worse graphics performance than their 3-year old old MBP. Seems like it's not too hard to come up with some valid use cases for a dedicated GPU.


Well, I've always been very forgiving in the design choices that Apple makes, even if that means a small step back so they can make 2 steps forward on some other attributes of their products (now or in the future), but in this case I'm simply not going to accept just an IGP in a laptop that costs $1500 and upwards. I don't mind paying more for quality, but in that case I expect quality. Graphics performance that is on par or even worse than a 2008 model in the premium laptop of a premium brand, is inexcusable. For design + power/weight vs. specs we have the MBA. The MBP is supposed to be a top-of-the-line machine.


If Apple doesn't put a discrete GPU in the 15" MBP's, their MBP sales will tank. It would get hammered on the graphics in every review except the most biased ones, since you simply cannot defend the value proposition of a MBP with graphics performance on par with a cheap-ass laptop from 3 years back. They might get away with a 13" model that doesn't have a discrete GPU, but for me, it would be a show-stopper. I would have to reconsider whether I'd want to get an MBA instead, or just give up on the idea of buying an Apple laptop altogether, for the simple fact that I refuse to pay $1200 for a laptop I want to use for at least 3 or 4 years, with graphics performance that is worse than a $400 Windows laptop from last year. There are limits...

3-4 years isn't that unreasonable these days, as the hardware progression has slowed somewhat in terms of real results unless things are artificially hindered. While Apple seems to be heading that direction, it would make for a relatively pointless machine as you'd pay more for a bigger machine with less and less differentiation. As noted I don't care about machine size so much in desktops, but it can be a bigger factor if you wish to transport it.

The system itself is leveraging the GPU more and more. This means some apps benefit from GPU acceleration even if they aren't specifically taking advantage of OpenCL or other GPU technologies. Apple isn't anywhere near as far along as they have been with iOS but Mac OS is using the GPU more and more with each release. Apps the use core features that are accelerated to benefit.


Well that is obvious in one sense but misleading in another. Apps don't have to be specifically written to use the GPU to benefit from it begin in the system. Any system call that they use that is at a lower level accelerated by a GPU benefits the app. This is what people often mis, you can get better performance out of an app if the system it runs under has a GPU that is significantly faster that the CPU solution.

One thing people seem to misunderstand is that some apps simply don't have a play in app specific GPU acceleration. GPU acceleration is an advantage for certain types of data and instructions flows only and can not realistically be used to accelerate every app out there. At best these apps can only make use of the GPU accelerated functions in the system software they call.

As to HiDPI screens (maybe not retina) you have reasonable concerns. That is why I'm a strong proponent of MBP's with good discrete GPU options. I'm pretty much convinced that the Ivy Bridge GPU won't be able to keep up.

Confirmations? Rumors yes, but nothing has been confirmed. What we do have is a leak of Intel release information which seems to indicate a long drawn out laptop release schedule for Apple this year. Sad in a way.

Look it is pretty simple, add up what is in your Applications directory, and the system support directories and see what you get. Basically everything outside of your home directory. This isn't a difficult thing to do. And yes those UNIX systems directories are important along with the Apple System and Library directories.

On top of all of that you need some free space on your root directory for spool files, logs and the like.

My Xcode was just recently installed and is version 4.3.2. The size, 4.47GB, is pretty constant with past installs. Plus the Xcode install spreads files and links across the OS.

Well a logical volume manage or some other sort of tool would be nice so that the OS sees one huge volume for /. Actually Mac OS does support user applications in /Users/UserName/Applications, surprisingly Homebrew is very good about putting apps or links to apps in there.

That is a really bad idea. Your needs will always grow. well maybe I should say app updates grow in size. The other thing is you never want your / volume complete filled up. Spool files, log files and the like are constantly changing in size.

Look at it this way, I wouldn't be saying anything here if I didn't think this would lead to many people having issues with their machines. I'm 100% for SSD boot / app drives, but I'm not going to suggest such to people if it would lead to an over crowded SSD. As such I still maintain that 64 GB is far too small for the targeted users, this being the MBP owners.

I don't know how I could have been more clear in my writing. THERE IS NOTHING FOR ME TO ADD UP! I included the entire boot drive which includes every application. And Xcode via the Mac App Store is the size I stated.

It is rather everything outside of the /Users directory where your home folder is. That means /System, /System, /Library, / /usr /bin /var & etc.

If you are into handling very large files (of any type) apps often use the directories in /var to spool large temporary files so having free space on your boot drive can be extremely important. Some apps allow control over where tmp and spool files are located others do not. So one might see that they have 2 or 3 GB of free space on a drive and think everything is good to go and then have an app crap out during the middle of a run and wonder why.

From your post I think you grasp these issues but it is pretty obvious that others don't.

This makes me wonder do you download documentation and additional components for Xcode.


In any event I've been up to this for years splitting Linux installs across multiple drives and frankly the numbers you guys are reporting are extremely minimal. So I still have to write what I believe is rational advice, and that is a 64 GB boot / app drive is very small these days.

For the average user? You do realize that 64GB is what the entry-level MBA comes with... which includes the /Users folder and all its content.

We're not even talking about any of the media files one might have on their system for this type of setup. As you can see my Home folder has about 800GB on the HDD. This is the setup I'm looking for with Apple. If not, I'll be getting a 64GB SLC SSD for my next Mac to go along with my 1TB HDD.

If not for having the exact setup that you seem to be explaining and watching the size drop since I started doing this with Leopard I probably would have agreed with you. But I see how little the system is without my Home folder obesifying the place.

As you can see I highlighted the segment accounts for my 8GB of RAM for the Sleep Image locate in /private/var/vm/.

Also, you can see that I have a 3.5GB copy of the Mountain Preview 1 installer that I forgotten to delete since upgrading to Preview 2. As you know, the OS X installers since Lion delete themselves before completing the installation.


PS: WhatSize, the app used for the piechart screenshot, is using BASE-2 while the previous mention of 24GB for Mountain Lion boot drive is using BASE-10. After deleting MLb1 my boot drive is 18.6GB or 21,103,525,888 bytes. I really wish Apple would use the IEC binary prefixes to make it more clear.

He's on a roll, don't bother him with the facts...

At least you wrote "entry level MBA". People need to grasp what I'm talking about and that is Mac Book Pro users. In that respect we are not talking entry level at all.

Even given that I can't really reccomend a 64 GB AIR to anyone as a primary machine. Especially if you are an iPhone and iPad user, as backing up and syncing with such a machine would be taxing to say the least.

I likewise carry around a fat HD to store my media files. Basically an "iTunes " disk.

All I can say is that the numbers I posted for my /System, /Library, /Applications and other directories are what Finder reported. I really don't know how much cruft has accumulated since 2008 but my experience back then was that a shocking amount of disk space was taken up by the Apps I installed back then. Few of those apps have been deleted though many have been updated since. Of course more Apps have been installed since.

In the end the big deletions where Open Office and Mozzilas Mail program. Open Office went due to its huge demands on disk space and my preference for other programs that work well.

Unless of course you circumvent that deletion.

The IEC created a big joke with their prefixes.

As to XCode you really have me interested in why we are seeing such a huge difference in size. I make a point to download available document packages and in fact downloaded a new 10.7 package tonight. Download indicated about 500MB for that file. I also downloaded and installed an older simulator tonight.

Fine, let's us the MBP. That's 128GB which includes your home folder that contains your videos and music. What we're talking about here excludes all that. It's just the OS and apps so the system can boot quickly but still have another, larger, internal drive that can hold all your media files.

Again, I'm using 1/4th of my 80GB SSD which includes an 8GB sleep image for for my 8GB of RAM.

It's the media that takes up the space, not the binaries, which benefit from the SSD. Apple could split the OS across an SSD and HDD for even better organization if that was necessary but everything points to it being well within the norm for the average MBP user.

Even you have many very large production apps you're still going to need several dozen GB used before that becomes an issue. EVEN IF IT DOES that doesn't mean you can't put your app on a HDD or decide to purchase the MBP with a larger SSD card. I'm sure there are fringe users that have enough to fill up that much space and more just as there are fringe users like me that need more than 1TB in their machine, but that certainly isn't the same as saying tht 64GB SSD isn't enough for the OS and apps as my testimonials and screenshots clearly show.


edit: Here's another way to look at it. Right now the minimum SSD is 128GB for a MBP. If 64GB simply isn't enough for a the typical user for their OS and apps that means you have under 64GB for all your music, movies, and other media. Now I think 128GB is low when only talking about one internal drive, but we're talking about 2 internal drives. 64GB+500GB as a minimum. That's better in every way... and it's the entry level option.

Finally ready to retire my 1.33GHz 12" G4 PowerBook and really holding out for an updated 11" Air. So reading this it sounds like maybe something will be announced on June 3rd that could relate to an MBA refresh??? Can hardly wait!!

Great little machine, wasn't it?


June 3? I certainly hope not. Hopefully all the laptops will be updated before the end of May.

You're wasting your breath (virtually speaking). Wizard can't wrap his head around the fact that OSX ≠ Linux, which makes any meaningful discussion impossible.

What does Linux have to do with the discussion? Are you suggesting OSX and applications written for it are a fraction of the size?

Try to keep up.

Eight posts above yours, Wizard used his experience with Linux to base assumptions about whether a 64GB SSD boot drive for the operating system and applications would work on a Mac (combined with a larger magnetic drive for data):


This, despite being confronted with the facts:

Hmm.

I can see both sides of the fence here.

Depends on how many apps you have is the simple answer.

As an anecdotal answer.

I used to have an Athlon based PC/tower thing. (Creamed by my current Core 2 Duo iMac...)

I had XP. Upon upgrading the CPU, GPU (heh, upgrading GPUs...there's a notion...) and HD, I kept the older, smaller hard drive along with the new one.

I had the idea of using my 30 gig HD for my Applications...and using the 80 gig HD for my data. Figuring that applications wise, 30 gig would be enough and 80 gig would be pressed harder for storage as I did several versions of a multi-layered image.

To my surprise, I was quite taken aback by how quickly the 30 gig partition filled up. And this was...what? 5+ years ago? In short, it wasn't enough.

60 gigs. For some average consumer users may well be just fine. For Pro users who run a tight ship and a smaller foot print of apps...should be ok. But for demanding or Sagittarius users...I can't see 60 gig lasting long.

120+ gig should be the starting point. It's a moot point. SSD prices will fall, come into the mainstream, bigger capacities etc. Blah, blah. You're getting 32 gigs in an iPad for pete's sake. And we should be at 64 gigs (in my view) on the latest generation.

SSD as your main drive with traditional HDs are your data drive sounds like a great set up to me. Especially if both are thunderbolt based...

Regarding the thread title. I'm pretty 'meh' about Ivy Bridge. What I'm really looking for are HiDpi screens and a much better GPU otherwise I see another classic iMac 'side grade' line up being offered.

I want more than a 5-15% cpu increase for the prices Apple charges.

Or a reborn cube station Pro to excite me...

Last year was 'so-so' evolution. I'd like to see some new tech like the retina in the iPad. I hope the Macs don't disappoint...

Lemon Bon Bon.

Really, I think it was their best laptop ever. 7-1/2 years later, it is still basically fully functional, and the only failures were related to when I dropped it once (had to replace SuperDrive). Have purchased 3rd party battery and power and everything still running great.

The worst thing is how one of the more recent Flash upgrades has made watching video painful. I used to be able to watch all kinds of web video (YouTube, etc.) with no skipping or stuttering, but after one of the updates, now no longer the case. Tried to downgrade Flash a few times but could never replicate the 'old days' of decent video.


I'll have to re-read but I thought it said the really low-power, low-heat chip was coming a little later, like in June, which made me think that would be the chip for the next MBA 11".

Ah, well, that's probably it. I haven't kept up with all the pushbacks and uncertainty as much as I would like.