Honestly, if Apple doesn't step up their game, and we know they won't, my next Mac will be a Hackintosh Mid tower with a 1GB+ 5XXX Radeon card.
Christ it's frustrating being a Mac user. But at least Hackintoshes are an option. Nothing sucks like paying the Apple tax for a machines that has a GPU that was obsolete years ago. I say that while typing on the Core 2 Duo Macbook Pro with an ATI X1600 128MB VRAM... that came out a year after the previous Macbook Pro Core Duo with ATI X1600 128MB VRAM.....
Interesting that *that* HP all-in-one has Mobility Radeon parts not the desktop version. But they would compete reasonably with the previous-generation desktop 4670 256MB (not much VRAM at all) on the current iMacs.
It remains my hope that Macbook Pros would get these Mobility Radeon parts with 512MB and 1GB VRAM (it's time, Apple, for 1GB VRAM in pro-level laptops), and the iMacs would get the 5750 and above desktop Radeon parts.
The more I think about it the next MacBook Pros need something better than a 9600M GT, Nvidia or ATI. We may not have all the apps ready to use that power, if you're not a gamer, but hopefully we'll start to see that in 2010. And as I may have mentioned, for the Pro market, a decent 1GB VRAM card on the 17" and 15" high-end would surely help Pro work.
...The good news is that by the time gpu computing becomes important and by the time software developers finally catch up with quad cores and gpus Apple will have much better 'rubbish' gpus in their machines which will seem more powerful than today's rubbish gpus because software developers are actually beginning to use the entire rigs potential to do er...useful stuff. Ergo things will seem less rubbish than they are now. ie we have an iMac which now has quad core. That consigns the low end Mac Pro to irrelevance. You can have a machine with a better gpu and a gorgeous screen for less! And with next year's bump to the iMac range? That value equation is going mainstream...
I think with the global economy recovering 2010 and 2011 may have some more surprises in terms of Tech, I think there's been a turning point. 2009 was a cautious year but we still saw some interesting developments from companies still investing in R&D. So 2010 and 2011 may see more new, good Tech come out and maybe more innovative companies can get the funding to deliver good apps that are going to make use of all those cores and powerful GPUs.
CES in a few weeks time will probably see the floodgates open with all sorts of newfangled stuff that people have been cautious with due to the 2009 economy. But with all signs pointing to a recovery in 2010, however slow that recovery may be, I think the Tech scene will start to go back to churning out all kinds of things. Some will be just rubbish, some will be valuable.
2010 may be the very, very beginning of a new "Tech bubble" that will rise over the next 5 years. What comes out of that, I think, towards the middle of the next decade, will be more technology than we really know how to usefully apply.
ATI's 5 series is a new architecture and die shrink. It's a totally different class now in terms of performance-per-watt compared to anything Nvidia currently offers and of course Intel is not even worth mentioning.
The emphasis in performance-per-watt would be on the watt part though. Apple will still have a maximum consumption they'd like to put in a laptop so most of the high end GPUs will be out immediately as they would impact on their battery life.
it looks to me like the best we can hope for is something in the second group of GPUs. The only one that lists a reasonable power consumption is the NVidia GTS 250M. It has 96 stream processors which is significantly higher than the 32 in the 9600M GT - the benchmark is 50-100% higher and it will play Crysis on high quality all the while maintaining a 28W power consumption vs 23W in the 9600M GT.
It's already used in gaming notebooks alongside the Core-i7 mobile CPUs:
If the Core-i7 drains too much power, which it seems like it does, they can use it with a fast Core 2 Duo and still give very good battery life. The graphics look very nice:
The power draw for the Radeons isn't listed so readily but I'd be surprised if they are under 30W. Most of them are listed between 45-75W.
Apple might not go to the 250M right away because they always like to leave an option for them to upgrade to. They could pair the 9600M GT with Arrandale and then bump up the GPU with a mid-year revision.
The 23W 240M is a possibility too and that will give a 25-50% boost over the 9600M GT. The compute performance of the 250M should be what Apple go for though:
If they paired the GTS 250M with a 2.0 GHz Core i7-620LM 2-core/4-thread Arrandale, which has turbo boost to 2.8GHz and a 25W TDP, that would make a very nice little gaming/computing Mini and well worth their entry price.
I've done some research and it is true the Mobility Radeon TDPs are not so readily available. However the current 4600 and 4500 series go between 15W to 35W or so, from what I can gather (sorry, can't compile the links in a way that makes sense). The 4800 series are maybe 30W to 60W.
Some Mobility Radeons of the 4000 series are now on 40nm so they offer better thermals.
Also, TDP is a specification, actual power use and throttling may vary.
According to Fudzilla, as I may have posted previously, ATI scored a lot of wins with the latest Core 2 notebooks ( http://www.fudzilla.com/content/view/16805/1/ ) ... Maybe those laptops have looser thermal requirements than Apple.
The key is "Cedar", the 5-series, 40nm Mobility Radeon offerings. That will make or break ATI's play in the mobile space for 2010 to early 2011.
Early leaks on HP's all-in one show the HD 5350, codenamed Evora Cedar, replacing the HD 4350 and HD 4550 parts, while the HD 5570, codenamed Jaguar, should replace HD 4650, HD 4670 and to some extend HD 4770 cards. At 40nm I would think the HD 5570 would not exceed 30W at all.
But... We will have to wait and see if ATI can come to the game with enough 40nm chips and with good enough thermals for Apple and other laptop brands.
Interestingly, according to Fudzilla (I know, I read too much of it) ATI cards are to blame in the delay of the iMac 27". Could be the cards themselves or breakage during manufacturing/ shipping:
...Apple might not go to the 250M right away because they always like to leave an option for them to upgrade to. They could pair the 9600M GT with Arrandale and then bump up the GPU with a mid-year revision.
The 23W 240M is a possibility too and that will give a 25-50% boost over the 9600M GT. The compute performance of the 250M should be what Apple go for though:
I hope the next MacBook Pro 15" mid-range model will have the GTS 250M minimum, if they go with Nvidia. Sure, it's only DX10 not 11, but that doesn't matter too much in the Mac space.
My only concern is the years-old architecture of the GPU, but again, I have to admit, in the Mac space, it may not matter.
Intel has responded to this competitive challenge by embarking on a similar anticompetitive strategy, which aims to preserve its CPU monopoly by smothering potential competition from GPU chips such as those made by Nvidia, the FTC complaint charges. As part of this latest campaign, Intel misled and deceived potential competitors in order to protect its monopoly. The complaint alleges that there also is a dangerous probability that Intel’s unfair methods of competition could allow it to extend its monopoly into the GPU chip markets.
About freaking time the FTC got involved. Intel make great CPUs, but they act like douche nozzles and need to be cut down a notch.
"Intel has responded to this competitive challenge by embarking on a similar anticompetitive strategy, which aims to preserve its CPU monopoly by smothering potential competition from GPU chips such as those made by Nvidia, the FTC complaint charges. As part of this latest campaign, Intel misled and deceived potential competitors in order to protect its monopoly. The complaint alleges that there also is a dangerous probability that Intel’s unfair methods of competition could allow it to extend its monopoly into the GPU chip markets."
About freaking time the FTC got involved. Intel make great CPUs, but they act like douche nozzles and need to be cut down a notch.
Hey, thanks for the link. Clarkdale and Arrandale forced-bundling of rubbish Intel GPUs needs to be added to this lawsuit, if it hasn't already been included.
That quote about smothering GPU competition I think has to do with Nvidia and AMD-ATI trying to use the GPU to do more CPU work and also pushing way beyond whatever Intel's integrated GPU nonsense is able to do.
As I mentioned previously on this thread, the "bundling" of GPUs with the CPUs (Clarkdale and Arrandale) and forcing desktop and laptop manufacturers to accept Intel GPUs as the de facto GPU is yet another thing the FTC should look into. Intel's getting worse.
...The 23W 240M is a possibility too and that will give a 25-50% boost over the 9600M GT. The compute performance of the 250M should be what Apple go for though:
If they paired the GTS 250M with a 2.0 GHz Core i7-620LM 2-core/4-thread Arrandale, which has turbo boost to 2.8GHz and a 25W TDP, that would make a very nice little gaming/computing Mini and well worth their entry price.
Here's the first real benchmark of a Mobility Radeon 5-series. Just out:
so that certainly would be better than the GTS 250M even if the performance is a bit lower (10-15% slower). Supporting the latest standards is a plus. It says it plays GTA 4 (which seems to be more demanding than Crysis) albeit with slightly reduced settings. Far Cry 2 plays at 45fps on high quality.
They are supposed to arrive Q1 2010 and it would be nice to see Apple take on new GPUs as soon as they arrive but on the other hand, it's good for them to be cautious and let other manufacturers find any faults first. Whether they go with that one or the 250M, they would both be very powerful and efficient GPUs and it'll be very interesting to see what they do on the low end.
The 9400M has a 13W power draw and really, even a few watts isn't going to dent a 5 hour battery life noticeably or heat up a lot more so the 5650 could be used throughout the entire low end, all but eradicating NVidia's presence from the Mac lineup.
Comments
Honestly, if Apple doesn't step up their game, and we know they won't, my next Mac will be a Hackintosh Mid tower with a 1GB+ 5XXX Radeon card.
Christ it's frustrating being a Mac user. But at least Hackintoshes are an option. Nothing sucks like paying the Apple tax for a machines that has a GPU that was obsolete years ago. I say that while typing on the Core 2 Duo Macbook Pro with an ATI X1600 128MB VRAM... that came out a year after the previous Macbook Pro Core Duo with ATI X1600 128MB VRAM.....
My next Mac might be an HP http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/09/h...u-and-netflix/
Interesting that *that* HP all-in-one has Mobility Radeon parts not the desktop version. But they would compete reasonably with the previous-generation desktop 4670 256MB (not much VRAM at all) on the current iMacs.
It remains my hope that Macbook Pros would get these Mobility Radeon parts with 512MB and 1GB VRAM (it's time, Apple, for 1GB VRAM in pro-level laptops), and the iMacs would get the 5750 and above desktop Radeon parts.
The more I think about it the next MacBook Pros need something better than a 9600M GT, Nvidia or ATI. We may not have all the apps ready to use that power, if you're not a gamer, but hopefully we'll start to see that in 2010. And as I may have mentioned, for the Pro market, a decent 1GB VRAM card on the 17" and 15" high-end would surely help Pro work.
...The good news is that by the time gpu computing becomes important and by the time software developers finally catch up with quad cores and gpus Apple will have much better 'rubbish' gpus in their machines which will seem more powerful than today's rubbish gpus because software developers are actually beginning to use the entire rigs potential to do er...useful stuff. Ergo things will seem less rubbish than they are now. ie we have an iMac which now has quad core. That consigns the low end Mac Pro to irrelevance. You can have a machine with a better gpu and a gorgeous screen for less! And with next year's bump to the iMac range? That value equation is going mainstream...
I think with the global economy recovering 2010 and 2011 may have some more surprises in terms of Tech, I think there's been a turning point. 2009 was a cautious year but we still saw some interesting developments from companies still investing in R&D. So 2010 and 2011 may see more new, good Tech come out and maybe more innovative companies can get the funding to deliver good apps that are going to make use of all those cores and powerful GPUs.
CES in a few weeks time will probably see the floodgates open with all sorts of newfangled stuff that people have been cautious with due to the 2009 economy. But with all signs pointing to a recovery in 2010, however slow that recovery may be, I think the Tech scene will start to go back to churning out all kinds of things. Some will be just rubbish, some will be valuable.
2010 may be the very, very beginning of a new "Tech bubble" that will rise over the next 5 years. What comes out of that, I think, towards the middle of the next decade, will be more technology than we really know how to usefully apply.
ATI's 5 series is a new architecture and die shrink. It's a totally different class now in terms of performance-per-watt compared to anything Nvidia currently offers and of course Intel is not even worth mentioning.
The emphasis in performance-per-watt would be on the watt part though. Apple will still have a maximum consumption they'd like to put in a laptop so most of the high end GPUs will be out immediately as they would impact on their battery life.
From looking at the chart here:
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Mobile-...ist.844.0.html
it looks to me like the best we can hope for is something in the second group of GPUs. The only one that lists a reasonable power consumption is the NVidia GTS 250M. It has 96 stream processors which is significantly higher than the 32 in the 9600M GT - the benchmark is 50-100% higher and it will play Crysis on high quality all the while maintaining a 28W power consumption vs 23W in the 9600M GT.
It's already used in gaming notebooks alongside the Core-i7 mobile CPUs:
http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/03/m...t-powerful-ga/
If the Core-i7 drains too much power, which it seems like it does, they can use it with a fast Core 2 Duo and still give very good battery life. The graphics look very nice:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2-sTa5kkoE
The power draw for the Radeons isn't listed so readily but I'd be surprised if they are under 30W. Most of them are listed between 45-75W.
Apple might not go to the 250M right away because they always like to leave an option for them to upgrade to. They could pair the 9600M GT with Arrandale and then bump up the GPU with a mid-year revision.
The 23W 240M is a possibility too and that will give a 25-50% boost over the 9600M GT. The compute performance of the 250M should be what Apple go for though:
9600M GT = 32 sp, 23W, 120GFlops, Crysis high = 14fps
GT 240M = 48 sp, 23W, 174GFlops, Crysis high = 21fps
GTS 250M = 96 sp, 28W, 360GFlops, Crysis high = 26 fps
If they paired the GTS 250M with a 2.0 GHz Core i7-620LM 2-core/4-thread Arrandale, which has turbo boost to 2.8GHz and a 25W TDP, that would make a very nice little gaming/computing Mini and well worth their entry price.
Some Mobility Radeons of the 4000 series are now on 40nm so they offer better thermals.
Also, TDP is a specification, actual power use and throttling may vary.
According to Fudzilla, as I may have posted previously, ATI scored a lot of wins with the latest Core 2 notebooks ( http://www.fudzilla.com/content/view/16805/1/ ) ... Maybe those laptops have looser thermal requirements than Apple.
The key is "Cedar", the 5-series, 40nm Mobility Radeon offerings. That will make or break ATI's play in the mobile space for 2010 to early 2011.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/video...rategy5000.png
Early leaks on HP's all-in one show the HD 5350, codenamed Evora Cedar, replacing the HD 4350 and HD 4550 parts, while the HD 5570, codenamed Jaguar, should replace HD 4650, HD 4670 and to some extend HD 4770 cards. At 40nm I would think the HD 5570 would not exceed 30W at all.
But... We will have to wait and see if ATI can come to the game with enough 40nm chips and with good enough thermals for Apple and other laptop brands.
http://www.fudzilla.com/content/view/16814/1/
...Apple might not go to the 250M right away because they always like to leave an option for them to upgrade to. They could pair the 9600M GT with Arrandale and then bump up the GPU with a mid-year revision.
The 23W 240M is a possibility too and that will give a 25-50% boost over the 9600M GT. The compute performance of the 250M should be what Apple go for though:
9600M GT = 32 sp, 23W, 120GFlops, Crysis high = 14fps
GT 240M = 48 sp, 23W, 174GFlops, Crysis high = 21fps
GTS 250M = 96 sp, 28W, 360GFlops, Crysis high = 26 fps...
I hope the next MacBook Pro 15" mid-range model will have the GTS 250M minimum, if they go with Nvidia. Sure, it's only DX10 not 11, but that doesn't matter too much in the Mac space.
My only concern is the years-old architecture of the GPU, but again, I have to admit, in the Mac space, it may not matter.
Intel has responded to this competitive challenge by embarking on a similar anticompetitive strategy, which aims to preserve its CPU monopoly by smothering potential competition from GPU chips such as those made by Nvidia, the FTC complaint charges. As part of this latest campaign, Intel misled and deceived potential competitors in order to protect its monopoly. The complaint alleges that there also is a dangerous probability that Intel’s unfair methods of competition could allow it to extend its monopoly into the GPU chip markets.
About freaking time the FTC got involved. Intel make great CPUs, but they act like douche nozzles and need to be cut down a notch.
http://www.9to5mac.com/intel_sued_by...ntelligence%29
"Intel has responded to this competitive challenge by embarking on a similar anticompetitive strategy, which aims to preserve its CPU monopoly by smothering potential competition from GPU chips such as those made by Nvidia, the FTC complaint charges. As part of this latest campaign, Intel misled and deceived potential competitors in order to protect its monopoly. The complaint alleges that there also is a dangerous probability that Intel’s unfair methods of competition could allow it to extend its monopoly into the GPU chip markets."
About freaking time the FTC got involved. Intel make great CPUs, but they act like douche nozzles and need to be cut down a notch.
Hey, thanks for the link. Clarkdale and Arrandale forced-bundling of rubbish Intel GPUs needs to be added to this lawsuit, if it hasn't already been included.
That quote about smothering GPU competition I think has to do with Nvidia and AMD-ATI trying to use the GPU to do more CPU work and also pushing way beyond whatever Intel's integrated GPU nonsense is able to do.
As I mentioned previously on this thread, the "bundling" of GPUs with the CPUs (Clarkdale and Arrandale) and forcing desktop and laptop manufacturers to accept Intel GPUs as the de facto GPU is yet another thing the FTC should look into. Intel's getting worse.
...The 23W 240M is a possibility too and that will give a 25-50% boost over the 9600M GT. The compute performance of the 250M should be what Apple go for though:
9600M GT = 32 sp, 23W, 120GFlops, Crysis high = 14fps
GT 240M = 48 sp, 23W, 174GFlops, Crysis high = 21fps
GTS 250M = 96 sp, 28W, 360GFlops, Crysis high = 26 fps
If they paired the GTS 250M with a 2.0 GHz Core i7-620LM 2-core/4-thread Arrandale, which has turbo boost to 2.8GHz and a 25W TDP, that would make a very nice little gaming/computing Mini and well worth their entry price.
Here's the first real benchmark of a Mobility Radeon 5-series. Just out:
http://www.fudzilla.com/content/view/16916/1/
Original german article: http://www.notebookjournal.de/tests/...tx-nkmo-1073/6
We're looking at the Mobility Radeon 5650 which is a DX11, 40nm part. Compute power appears to be about just under that of the GTS 250M.
No real info on wattage but Fudzilla infers from the German article that the power draw is good.
For the next Arrandale Core i5 MacBook Pro 15" discrete GPU, an Nvidia GTS250M or ATI 5650 would be great.
Here's the first real benchmark of a Mobility Radeon 5-series. Just out:
http://www.fudzilla.com/content/view/16916/1/
Original german article: http://www.notebookjournal.de/tests/...tx-nkmo-1073/6
We're looking at the Mobility Radeon 5650 which is a DX11, 40nm part. Compute power appears to be about just under that of the GTS 250M.
No real info on wattage but Fudzilla infers from the German article that the power draw is good.
For the next Arrandale Core i5 MacBook Pro 15" discrete GPU, an Nvidia GTS250M or ATI 5650 would be great.
That GPU is listed as being 15-20W here, though it's only rumored:
http://www.notebookcheck.net/ATI-Mob...0.23697.0.html
so that certainly would be better than the GTS 250M even if the performance is a bit lower (10-15% slower). Supporting the latest standards is a plus. It says it plays GTA 4 (which seems to be more demanding than Crysis) albeit with slightly reduced settings. Far Cry 2 plays at 45fps on high quality.
They are supposed to arrive Q1 2010 and it would be nice to see Apple take on new GPUs as soon as they arrive but on the other hand, it's good for them to be cautious and let other manufacturers find any faults first. Whether they go with that one or the 250M, they would both be very powerful and efficient GPUs and it'll be very interesting to see what they do on the low end.
The 9400M has a 13W power draw and really, even a few watts isn't going to dent a 5 hour battery life noticeably or heat up a lot more so the 5650 could be used throughout the entire low end, all but eradicating NVidia's presence from the Mac lineup.