Whatever happens, Apple will not release a reworked Mini that is inferior in performance in any way to the current model. There is no incentive for that to happen.
If Intel forces Apple into a position of having to accept inferior performance, Apple will explore its options and Intel will be cast aside, just as IBM was.
On the other hand, if Intel's integrated graphics solution is able to perform at least as well as the 9400M and the overall user experience with Apple products equipped with Intel's components is decent enough, there is no issue.
Looks like it will be a new chipset, brought to you by Intel...! and Larrabee and/or discrete Nvidia/ATI GPU this/next year when Apple goes Core i5/i7/Arrandale/etc (I can't keep track of the names)
One point though, unlike what you say, Apple has very limited options and cannot simply cast Intel aside. ARM and PA Semi and all that ain't gonna fly for Macs. Not for a few years anyway. Which means either AMD or Intel. AMD is out because Intel on laptops is far, far superior. On desktops, AMD is possible (and great price/performance) but Apple is no longer using desktop CPUs except in the Mac Pro. Intel's CPUs for the laptop looks really good for price/ performance/ performance-per-watt/ environmentals/ energy etc. for 2010.
They're A) not going to make a chipset for a competitors chips (and intel wouldn't let them anyway) and b) their chips are far behind. So, either Apple is going to have to use dedicated graphics chips or take a major step back in terms of either low end graphics or CPU performance. Aren't vertical monopolies grand?
They're A) not going to make a chipset for a competitors chips (and intel wouldn't let them anyway) and b) their chips are far behind.
You're half wrong about A) and completely wrong about b) on the graphics front.
AMD and Intel have a cross-licensing agreement which gives each access to the others' patents. AMD could make chipsets for any Intel processor, if they wanted to support their competitor, which they obviously won't do. But Intel could not stop them. Intel and Nvidia have no such agreement, which has left Nvidia with nowhere to go.
And AMD-ATI's graphics are currently the best in the business. Their integrated graphics are in the same class as the Geforce 9400, and better in some ways.
You're half wrong about A) and completely wrong about b) on the graphics front.
AMD and Intel have a cross-licensing agreement which gives each access to the others' patents. AMD could make chipsets for any Intel processor, if they wanted to support their competitor, which they obviously won't do. But Intel could not stop them. Intel and Nvidia have no such agreement, which has left Nvidia with nowhere to go.
And AMD-ATI's graphics are currently the best in the business. Their integrated graphics are in the same class as the Geforce 9400, and better in some ways.
Once the tech from the superb ATI 5870 and 5850 starts going into integrated graphics in laptops, that should be excellent. Branding issue - ATI needs to stop using 3000 and 4000 and just do an Nvidia and rebrand all their integrated graphics and even 4000 series as 5000 series like 5200, 5350, etc. ATI is being too honest here, perhaps. But Nvidia was too aggressive in "lying" about their cards and... well, karma's a bitch, I guess.
Anyway ATI needs to start pumping up their marketing for their excellent integrated graphics and mid to low range 4000 and 5000 series cards. The only thing is their 40nm stuff is in high demand and right now they can't make enough of it. They need to ramp and deliver their complete 5000 series, it shows awesome promise.
Anyway I am not too 100% clear on the details outside of the ATI news I follow, ie. regarding 4830, 4850, 4870, 4890, 5870, 5850. Since I own an ATI 4830 512MB and MacBook Alu 9400M.
And I hope ATI doesn't f*** things up when it comes to quality, driver stability, etc, etc. of their GPUs and 700 series AM3 chipsets...
This news sucks IMO. NVIDIA IGPs were and are quite acceptable. Now we'll have Intel IGPs which won't provide nearly as good performance.
My prediction: Mac Minis and MacBooks will use Intel IGPs when they move to Nehalem cpus (i3 or i5 mobile). They will not be able to leverage OCL using the gpu. MBs and Minis will probably get price cuts. The mini and MB will be Apple's version of a netbook and net top. More capable and a better user experience than pc netbooks and net tops but also more expensive than a pc net book/net top and less capable than a 'real' Mac.
I doubt Apple will drop OCL support in the mini and macbooks by going with Intel's IGP. nVidia can build a dedicated GPU based on the 9400M for cheap in the same 65nm fab. By then the MBP and iMacs will be on the 300 series and these will be 100 series performance chips.
You're half wrong about A) and completely wrong about b) on the graphics front.
AMD and Intel have a cross-licensing agreement which gives each access to the others' patents. AMD could make chipsets for any Intel processor, if they wanted to support their competitor, which they obviously won't do. But Intel could not stop them. Intel and Nvidia have no such agreement, which has left Nvidia with nowhere to go.
And AMD-ATI's graphics are currently the best in the business. Their integrated graphics are in the same class as the Geforce 9400, and better in some ways.
I'm not talking about the graphics front. I'm talking CPUs where they are way behind intel. I still make a distinction between ATI and AMD.
If I were an Nvidia employee (I'm not, despite the username -- LOL long story) ... I'd be polishing up my resume and getting connections and recommendations on linkedin.com
Heh, if they get that messed up then Apple can acquire them for a song. Or Intel. There's all sorts of useful IP there along with folks.
I doubt Apple will drop OCL support in the mini and macbooks by going with Intel's IGP. nVidia can build a dedicated GPU based on the 9400M for cheap in the same 65nm fab. By then the MBP and iMacs will be on the 300 series and these will be 100 series performance chips.
Heh, if they get that messed up then Apple can acquire them for a song. Or Intel. There's all sorts of useful IP there along with folks.
Probably Intel would love to take over Nvidia and keep both brands going. Easier if Intel bought Nvidia now and the market would be ripe for Intel and Nvidia-branded solutions.
Rather than Nvidia dying out and getting a bad reputation, Intel buying them, and then Intel having to rebuild their own Intel GPU brand (although that's what they are interested in doing anyway).
Comments
Whatever happens, Apple will not release a reworked Mini that is inferior in performance in any way to the current model. There is no incentive for that to happen.
If Intel forces Apple into a position of having to accept inferior performance, Apple will explore its options and Intel will be cast aside, just as IBM was.
On the other hand, if Intel's integrated graphics solution is able to perform at least as well as the 9400M and the overall user experience with Apple products equipped with Intel's components is decent enough, there is no issue.
Looks like it will be a new chipset, brought to you by Intel...! and Larrabee and/or discrete Nvidia/ATI GPU this/next year when Apple goes Core i5/i7/Arrandale/etc (I can't keep track of the names)
One point though, unlike what you say, Apple has very limited options and cannot simply cast Intel aside. ARM and PA Semi and all that ain't gonna fly for Macs. Not for a few years anyway. Which means either AMD or Intel. AMD is out because Intel on laptops is far, far superior. On desktops, AMD is possible (and great price/performance) but Apple is no longer using desktop CPUs except in the Mac Pro. Intel's CPUs for the laptop looks really good for price/ performance/ performance-per-watt/ environmentals/ energy etc. for 2010.
Maybe ATI can step up?
They're A) not going to make a chipset for a competitors chips (and intel wouldn't let them anyway) and b) their chips are far behind. So, either Apple is going to have to use dedicated graphics chips or take a major step back in terms of either low end graphics or CPU performance. Aren't vertical monopolies grand?
They're A) not going to make a chipset for a competitors chips (and intel wouldn't let them anyway) and b) their chips are far behind.
You're half wrong about A) and completely wrong about b) on the graphics front.
AMD and Intel have a cross-licensing agreement which gives each access to the others' patents. AMD could make chipsets for any Intel processor, if they wanted to support their competitor, which they obviously won't do. But Intel could not stop them. Intel and Nvidia have no such agreement, which has left Nvidia with nowhere to go.
And AMD-ATI's graphics are currently the best in the business. Their integrated graphics are in the same class as the Geforce 9400, and better in some ways.
You're half wrong about A) and completely wrong about b) on the graphics front.
AMD and Intel have a cross-licensing agreement which gives each access to the others' patents. AMD could make chipsets for any Intel processor, if they wanted to support their competitor, which they obviously won't do. But Intel could not stop them. Intel and Nvidia have no such agreement, which has left Nvidia with nowhere to go.
And AMD-ATI's graphics are currently the best in the business. Their integrated graphics are in the same class as the Geforce 9400, and better in some ways.
Once the tech from the superb ATI 5870 and 5850 starts going into integrated graphics in laptops, that should be excellent. Branding issue - ATI needs to stop using 3000 and 4000 and just do an Nvidia and rebrand all their integrated graphics and even 4000 series as 5000 series like 5200, 5350, etc. ATI is being too honest here, perhaps. But Nvidia was too aggressive in "lying" about their cards and... well, karma's a bitch, I guess.
Anyway ATI needs to start pumping up their marketing for their excellent integrated graphics and mid to low range 4000 and 5000 series cards. The only thing is their 40nm stuff is in high demand and right now they can't make enough of it. They need to ramp and deliver their complete 5000 series, it shows awesome promise.
Anyway I am not too 100% clear on the details outside of the ATI news I follow, ie. regarding 4830, 4850, 4870, 4890, 5870, 5850. Since I own an ATI 4830 512MB and MacBook Alu 9400M.
And I hope ATI doesn't f*** things up when it comes to quality, driver stability, etc, etc. of their GPUs and 700 series AM3 chipsets...
This news sucks IMO. NVIDIA IGPs were and are quite acceptable. Now we'll have Intel IGPs which won't provide nearly as good performance.
My prediction: Mac Minis and MacBooks will use Intel IGPs when they move to Nehalem cpus (i3 or i5 mobile). They will not be able to leverage OCL using the gpu. MBs and Minis will probably get price cuts. The mini and MB will be Apple's version of a netbook and net top. More capable and a better user experience than pc netbooks and net tops but also more expensive than a pc net book/net top and less capable than a 'real' Mac.
I doubt Apple will drop OCL support in the mini and macbooks by going with Intel's IGP. nVidia can build a dedicated GPU based on the 9400M for cheap in the same 65nm fab. By then the MBP and iMacs will be on the 300 series and these will be 100 series performance chips.
You're half wrong about A) and completely wrong about b) on the graphics front.
AMD and Intel have a cross-licensing agreement which gives each access to the others' patents. AMD could make chipsets for any Intel processor, if they wanted to support their competitor, which they obviously won't do. But Intel could not stop them. Intel and Nvidia have no such agreement, which has left Nvidia with nowhere to go.
And AMD-ATI's graphics are currently the best in the business. Their integrated graphics are in the same class as the Geforce 9400, and better in some ways.
I'm not talking about the graphics front. I'm talking CPUs where they are way behind intel. I still make a distinction between ATI and AMD.
If I were an Nvidia employee (I'm not, despite the username -- LOL long story) ... I'd be polishing up my resume and getting connections and recommendations on linkedin.com
Heh, if they get that messed up then Apple can acquire them for a song. Or Intel. There's all sorts of useful IP there along with folks.
I doubt Apple will drop OCL support in the mini and macbooks by going with Intel's IGP. nVidia can build a dedicated GPU based on the 9400M for cheap in the same 65nm fab. By then the MBP and iMacs will be on the 300 series and these will be 100 series performance chips.
I hope you're right.
Heh, if they get that messed up then Apple can acquire them for a song. Or Intel. There's all sorts of useful IP there along with folks.
Probably Intel would love to take over Nvidia and keep both brands going. Easier if Intel bought Nvidia now and the market would be ripe for Intel and Nvidia-branded solutions.
Rather than Nvidia dying out and getting a bad reputation, Intel buying them, and then Intel having to rebuild their own Intel GPU brand (although that's what they are interested in doing anyway).
Hmm...