The only thing that matters here is that Intels integrated graphics suck big time. So unkees they made some amazing strides in performance on rational person would want to buy a machine with one of these processors. Stepping backwards performance wise seldom flies in the mainstream PC world.
Besides this integrated GPU is just an example of Intel at it's worst. In effect it is an effort to slow down innovation in the PC market place. For a PC the rational approach would have been to integrate everything but the GPU so that customers could still realize the benefits of innovation in the GPU market.
Frankly GPUs are the only place we are seeing significant innovation. Arrandale at best represents a modest improvement over the previous generation. GPUs on the other hand continue a rapid increase in performance at significantly lower power levels.
It is no wonder intel is playing dirty here. They can't compete, have to much legacy to support and have no vision. GPUs are RISC ( in some ways) tech coming back to punch intel in the nose
Dave
Quote:
Originally Posted by xwiredtva
On the contrary, because we are eliminating the Bridge chips and the GPU on Bridge, consolodating 3 Chips (two of which are LARGE- not CPU) into one we now have space for a dedicated graphics chip to go along with integrated, Ala MacBook Pro's 15/17". This will probably bring dual graphics to the 13" MBP and allow the MBAir to go slimmer, smaller, cooler (ULV chips not out yet...).
Basically this consolidation will give engineers more space on the same size board and PC engineers can now make things cheaper and creakier.
That could be likened to the difference bewtween a garden tractor and a D9 dozer. The nvidia chip set is like 5 times faster, does OpenCL and accelerates video decode.
As pointed out by many posters already, the Intel HD IGP performance is on a par with the 9400M, and it also includes HD video decode. There are many Intel IGP, Nvidia and ATI cards that can do hardware decode of video codecs, it's just that the 9400M was the first (and only IIRC) chip where Apple bothered to write the necessary OS X drivers.
Performance and reliability is one issue. For apple a bigger issue might be OpenCL. Apple can't afford to screw itself with this new technology.
As to custom Arrandales I think that is very possible. PA Semi gas a lot of talent and could do a really nice support chip which intel could integrate inplace. In the end Intel is going to have to consider custom hardware to keep ARM at bay
The only thing that matters here is that Intels integrated graphics suck big time. So unkees they made some amazing strides in performance on rational person would want to buy a machine with one of these processors. Stepping backwards performance wise seldom flies in the mainstream PC world.
Besides this integrated GPU is just an example of Intel at it's worst. In effect it is an effort to slow down innovation in the PC market place. For a PC the rational approach would have been to integrate everything but the GPU so that customers could still realize the benefits of innovation in the GPU market.
Frankly GPUs are the only place we are seeing significant innovation. Arrandale at best represents a modest improvement over the previous generation. GPUs on the other hand continue a rapid increase in performance at significantly lower power levels.
It is no wonder intel is playing dirty here. They can't compete, have to much legacy to support and have no vision. GPUs are RISC ( in some ways) tech coming back to punch intel in the nose
Dave
No, what Intel is doing is a technological limitation. Integrated GPUs use system memory, and so they need to be connected to the system's memory bus. This is why they are integrated with the memory controller. But a separate memory controller in the northbridge chip is becoming a thing of the past for both Intel and AMD. There's so much to gain from moving the memory controller onto the CPU for better memory latency and bandwidth, as well as decreased power consumption and packaging space from losing the northbridge. But once you move the memory controller onto the same die as the CPU (which will happen with the next generation Arrandales, unfortunately not this generation), you can't have a separate, off-die GPU that shares system memory anymore, unless you build a dedicated bus for that GPU to access system memory through the CPU, which would be difficult as it would require a lot more pins, and probably would be slow due to latency and more work for the CPU. So what we have with this move to on-CPU memory controllers is that integrated, shared memory GPUs by necessity have to be integrated into the CPU as well. Either that, or do away with integrated graphics all together. On the desktop, not having integrated graphics make sense. But on the laptop, it doesn't, it makes more sense to have both integrated graphics and discrete graphics so you can switch between a performance mode and a power savings mode. That is why the next generation of notebook CPUs from both Intel and AMD have integrated GPUs, it's the only way this could be done reasonably.
Just wanted to say welcome to AI, solarein and brianb. Hope you guys stick around, you've made some excellent posts.
I hadn't realised until recently that Arrandale was split across two dice. That the memory controller is not integrated on the CPU die and the apparently rather high power consumption of the whole chip, this is feeling like much more of a sideways step from C2D + 9400M than I was expecting
That's not just the graphics part but the total consumption at load - the difference between it and idle puts the integrated graphics at 18W - but the power draw of some much faster modern dedicated GPUs is so small that it just doesn't make sense to drop so much performance for largely negligible power saving. The 9600M GT is only 23W and the faster Radeon 5650 is between 15 and 25W.
I agree with the point above that what Intel are doing makes sense and it's inevitable that integrated graphics manufacturers will be locked out. The real issue is that it forces manufacturers to choose between relying on Intel's graphics alone (not good) or adding a dedicated GPU on top.
Adding an extra GPU adds cost and power consumption and a number of manufacturers will just go with Intel's option. I hope that Apple make the smart choice and push the hybrid option on all the lineup models that use Arrandale and that it doesn't need a logout to switch between them.
They can use the Intel junk for everyday tasks and then enable the dedicated GPU for high performance tasks and maybe even do computation without hanging the interface. This may be why we haven't seen many GPU computing examples yet because most of the lineup will lock up the interface. My concern is for the low end because Apple always screws the low end over forcing you to spend over £1,000 to get usable graphics and we finally get somewhere with the 9400M only for this dilemma to arise.
I don't think it's necessarily anti-competitive, it's just really inconvenient. On the other hand, if it forces Apple to put an Nvidia 250M GTS or at least 9600M GT into a Mini alongside Arrandale, which also has a GPU, that would be pretty awesome. I wonder if they'll announce that at this January event - the laptops are due a refresh.
Just wanted to say welcome to AI, solarein and brianb. Hope you guys stick around, you've made some excellent posts.
I hadn't realised until recently that Arrandale was split across two dice. That the memory controller is not integrated on the CPU die and the apparently rather high power consumption of the whole chip, this is feeling like much more of a sideways step from C2D + 9400M than I was expecting
It is a sideways step for sure, but Apple will bamboozle you with the "OMFG Arrandale is teh WIN!!!" when selling you their mid-range+ 15" and 17" Macbook Pros. Again, like I mentioned, these units may have on-the-fly switching to ATI discrete GPUs so you get power savings, OpenCL, HD decode, etc, etc all without the user "feeling" how retarded the Intel IGP is.
Strangely BluRay is still the big question mark on the MacBook Pros -- which again, Apple may not deliver while bamboozling(wow this word passed the spellcheck) you with the Arrandale upgrades.
That link is for Clarksdale, the desktop cpu/gpu part. The A-dales have TDPs between 18-35 watts.
Those won't make their way into any Mac laptop or mini.
From what I read at Anand, I'm not sure they'll find their way into an iMac either.
iMac 21" would be Arrandales on the next refresh, while 27" low-end would be Clarksdale. 27" mid- and higher custom builds should be Lynnfield. That's my thinking at this stage.
Any reason why Clarksdale wouldn't go on the lowest-end 27"? The 27" is already engineered for (very roughly) ~80W TDPs due to being able to handle Lynnfield. Clarksdale would be cheaper than putting in an Arrandale in the lowest-end 27", I think...
...So what we have with this move to on-CPU memory controllers is that integrated, shared memory GPUs by necessity have to be integrated into the CPU as well. Either that, or do away with integrated graphics all together. On the desktop, not having integrated graphics make sense. But on the laptop, it doesn't, it makes more sense to have both integrated graphics and discrete graphics so you can switch between a performance mode and a power savings mode. That is why the next generation of notebook CPUs from both Intel and AMD have integrated GPUs, it's the only way this could be done reasonably....
Actually, even on the desktop, there is a big push for integrated graphics. AMD's chipset, Fusion plans, ION/9400M, Intel's chipset with integrated graphics and now Clarksdale, all want to give you a CPU+chipset combo that is "all you would ever need, except for special use scenarios". Think about a vast majority of desktops for business or casual home Facebook/etc. use. They would not need a discrete GPU by any stretch of the imagination. 3D users and gamers would get a separate GPU, but even in the desktop, integrated graphics are here to stay, and roost.
That's not just the graphics part but the total consumption at load - the difference between it and idle puts the integrated graphics at 18W - but the power draw of some much faster modern dedicated GPUs is so small that it just doesn't make sense to drop so much performance for largely negligible power saving. The 9600M GT is only 23W and the faster Radeon 5650 is between 15 and 25W.
I agree with the point above that what Intel are doing makes sense and it's inevitable that integrated graphics manufacturers will be locked out. The real issue is that it forces manufacturers to choose between relying on Intel's graphics alone (not good) or adding a dedicated GPU on top.
Adding an extra GPU adds cost and power consumption and a number of manufacturers will just go with Intel's option. I hope that Apple make the smart choice and push the hybrid option on all the lineup models that use Arrandale and that it doesn't need a logout to switch between them.
They can use the Intel junk for everyday tasks and then enable the dedicated GPU for high performance tasks and maybe even do computation without hanging the interface. This may be why we haven't seen many GPU computing examples yet because most of the lineup will lock up the interface. My concern is for the low end because Apple always screws the low end over forcing you to spend over £1,000 to get usable graphics and we finally get somewhere with the 9400M only for this dilemma to arise.
I don't think it's necessarily anti-competitive, it's just really inconvenient. On the other hand, if it forces Apple to put an Nvidia 250M GTS or at least 9600M GT into a Mini alongside Arrandale, which also has a GPU, that would be pretty awesome. I wonder if they'll announce that at this January event - the laptops are due a refresh.
You do have a point. The 13" and low-end Macbook Pro 15" could remain Core 2 Duo 9400M on the next refresh, while the mid-15" and above could go totally Arrandale + ATI 40nm discrete GPU with the Intel IGP "disabled" as much as possible. Here's the kicker that would take the Macbook Pros up a real significant notch: 1680x1050 standard on the 15", 1920x1080 screen as option on the mid-15"+, Blu Ray on the mid-15"+ and 17" as options.
The above paragraph surely now describes a real compelling end-of-January refresh to the Macbook Pro to take it into the middle of the year when Nvidia(?)/ATI's 40nm offerings/yields improve, and Arrandale revisions with on-die controller/etc come to market.
Last serial posting from me. I promise.
Yeah, at lowest settings the Arrandale and Clarksdale shows promise of being able to play some games, but once you throw in a bit more detail settings into the graphics I think it will start to lag behind the 9400M.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
Plus, it's not just raw performance but feature support. Intel graphics consistently don't support features in motion graphics and 3D software such as hardware-accelerated particle rendering.
As for power consumption, the full load of 72W for that performance isn't that good. ATI's 5650, which is 50% faster than the 9600M GT is rumored to use just 15-25W and the NVidia 250M GTS (50-60% faster) draws 28W.
Basically for the same overall power draw, you will get at least 5x more performance using NVidia's or ATI's latest low-powered solutions with 350GFlops compute performance. Apple would have to be out of their minds to go down the Intel graphics route again.
More and more it does look that Apple will hold the fort for the 1st half of 2010 with 9400M Core2 Duo on the lower-end models and go fully ATI discrete with their entire line in the 2nd half of 2010.
iMac 21" would be Arrandales on the next refresh, while 27" low-end would be Clarksdale. 27" mid- and higher custom builds should be Lynnfield. That's my thinking at this stage.
Any reason why Clarksdale wouldn't go on the lowest-end 27"? The 27" is already engineered for (very roughly) ~80W TDPs due to being able to handle Lynnfield. Clarksdale would be cheaper than putting in an Arrandale in the lowest-end 27", I think...
I guess you could see Clarksdales on the 21.5" iMacs. But the 27s should go completely quad core with Lynnfield(i5) on the entry level 27" and i7 on the 'better' iMac.
That link is for Clarksdale, the desktop cpu/gpu part. The A-dales have TDPs between 18-35 watts.
I think it's the same 45nm graphics chip inside but they will have optimized it for using with Arrandale. An Overall 35W TDP sounds not too bad - I doubt the graphics part is significantly better than the 12W 9400M but will at least match it for battery life even though it's at a loss of performance and features support.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008
More and more it does look that Apple will hold the fort for the 1st half of 2010 with 9400M Core2 Duo on the lower-end models and go fully ATI discrete with their entire line in the 2nd half of 2010.
Yeah that is a possibility. They could put in higher clocked models. They can't hold out forever though so there will have to be a switch to Arrandale at some point and the same choice has to be made - dedicated or downgrade. I think it's about time they started putting proper dedicated chips in the lower end machines considering what they charge for them. Low end graphics makes the brand suffer.
With the current GPUs on offer today, they can get away with low enough powered chips in both but still make the MBP a premium model. The 9600M GT can go in the low end and the 5650/250M in the high end. The MBA will undoubtedly go Intel-only if it moves to Arrandale.
The Intel image looks terrible compared to the others - no particle grass, flat reflections - with visual effects turned off, it goes faster but you lose out. Also, the comparison is with a Core 2 Duo so some games will benefit from the new CPU.
The power consumption savings are negligible vs offerings from NVidia and AMD:
In summary, the GPU part of the Core i5 performs no better than 15 month old NVidia and AMD chips, has lower graphics support for advanced effects and has negligible power savings vs the competition. No surprises really.
I wonder if they will announce laptop updates on Wednesday alongside the mystery new product or if they'll draw it out a bit.
In summary, the GPU part of the Core i5 performs no better than 15 month old NVidia and AMD chips, has lower graphics support for advanced effects and has negligible power savings vs the competition. No surprises really.
I wonder if they will announce laptop updates on Wednesday alongside the mystery new product or if they'll draw it out a bit.
Hmm. Well if that is what they plan to put in my new MacBook pro I'm not very happy about it. I wonder if I should order one of the existing ones right now? I also notice that on the website the MacBook Pros still show delivery in 24 hours. If they were being refreshed would there be longer lead time by now?
Hmm. Well if that is what they plan to put in my new MacBook pro I'm not very happy about it. I wonder if I should order one of the existing ones right now? I also notice that on the website the MacBook Pros still show delivery in 24 hours. If they were being refreshed would there be longer lead time by now?
I'm not sure if they will dampen the interest in the tablet by updating the laptops but they make most of their profit from the Mac line so given that all eyes will be on this event, updating the products that comprise 70-80% of their shipping Macs would be a good idea.
I have an uneasy feeling that Apple will go Core i5 with Intel-only on the low-end and Core i5 with a Radeon 5650 on the models that currently have the 9600M GT.
Whether you get the higher end or the lower end, it's best to wait because the worst case is that you have to buy a 9400M model refurb in which case you get it cheaper. If you were going for the higher end model, the Core i5 + the latest GPUs will be 50% faster or more.
I will be very disappointed if Apple don't put dedicated GPUs in the whole lineup with the exception of the MBA but it's a step backwards they've made at least twice before.
I wonder if they will announce laptop updates on Wednesday alongside the mystery new product or if they'll draw it out a bit.
I hope they announce new MBP. I am in the market and want to at least know what the new ones are so I can decide if I want to run down to Apple now or wait until they get some new ones in stock.
Comments
Besides this integrated GPU is just an example of Intel at it's worst. In effect it is an effort to slow down innovation in the PC market place. For a PC the rational approach would have been to integrate everything but the GPU so that customers could still realize the benefits of innovation in the GPU market.
Frankly GPUs are the only place we are seeing significant innovation. Arrandale at best represents a modest improvement over the previous generation. GPUs on the other hand continue a rapid increase in performance at significantly lower power levels.
It is no wonder intel is playing dirty here. They can't compete, have to much legacy to support and have no vision. GPUs are RISC ( in some ways) tech coming back to punch intel in the nose
Dave
On the contrary, because we are eliminating the Bridge chips and the GPU on Bridge, consolodating 3 Chips (two of which are LARGE- not CPU) into one we now have space for a dedicated graphics chip to go along with integrated, Ala MacBook Pro's 15/17". This will probably bring dual graphics to the 13" MBP and allow the MBAir to go slimmer, smaller, cooler (ULV chips not out yet...).
Basically this consolidation will give engineers more space on the same size board and PC engineers can now make things cheaper and creakier.
That could be likened to the difference bewtween a garden tractor and a D9 dozer. The nvidia chip set is like 5 times faster, does OpenCL and accelerates video decode.
As pointed out by many posters already, the Intel HD IGP performance is on a par with the 9400M, and it also includes HD video decode. There are many Intel IGP, Nvidia and ATI cards that can do hardware decode of video codecs, it's just that the 9400M was the first (and only IIRC) chip where Apple bothered to write the necessary OS X drivers.
As to custom Arrandales I think that is very possible. PA Semi gas a lot of talent and could do a really nice support chip which intel could integrate inplace. In the end Intel is going to have to consider custom hardware to keep ARM at bay
Dave
As pointed out by many posters already, the Intel HD IGP performance is on a par with the 9400M, and it also includes HD video decode.
How are the comparative power consumption stats?
As for power consumption, the full load of 72W for that performance isn't that good.
Where did that 72 W number come from?
The only thing that matters here is that Intels integrated graphics suck big time. So unkees they made some amazing strides in performance on rational person would want to buy a machine with one of these processors. Stepping backwards performance wise seldom flies in the mainstream PC world.
Besides this integrated GPU is just an example of Intel at it's worst. In effect it is an effort to slow down innovation in the PC market place. For a PC the rational approach would have been to integrate everything but the GPU so that customers could still realize the benefits of innovation in the GPU market.
Frankly GPUs are the only place we are seeing significant innovation. Arrandale at best represents a modest improvement over the previous generation. GPUs on the other hand continue a rapid increase in performance at significantly lower power levels.
It is no wonder intel is playing dirty here. They can't compete, have to much legacy to support and have no vision. GPUs are RISC ( in some ways) tech coming back to punch intel in the nose
Dave
No, what Intel is doing is a technological limitation. Integrated GPUs use system memory, and so they need to be connected to the system's memory bus. This is why they are integrated with the memory controller. But a separate memory controller in the northbridge chip is becoming a thing of the past for both Intel and AMD. There's so much to gain from moving the memory controller onto the CPU for better memory latency and bandwidth, as well as decreased power consumption and packaging space from losing the northbridge. But once you move the memory controller onto the same die as the CPU (which will happen with the next generation Arrandales, unfortunately not this generation), you can't have a separate, off-die GPU that shares system memory anymore, unless you build a dedicated bus for that GPU to access system memory through the CPU, which would be difficult as it would require a lot more pins, and probably would be slow due to latency and more work for the CPU. So what we have with this move to on-CPU memory controllers is that integrated, shared memory GPUs by necessity have to be integrated into the CPU as well. Either that, or do away with integrated graphics all together. On the desktop, not having integrated graphics make sense. But on the laptop, it doesn't, it makes more sense to have both integrated graphics and discrete graphics so you can switch between a performance mode and a power savings mode. That is why the next generation of notebook CPUs from both Intel and AMD have integrated GPUs, it's the only way this could be done reasonably.
I hadn't realised until recently that Arrandale was split across two dice. That the memory controller is not integrated on the CPU die and the apparently rather high power consumption of the whole chip, this is feeling like much more of a sideways step from C2D + 9400M than I was expecting
Where did that 72 W number come from?
The link posted earlier:
http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/sho...spx?i=3704&p=4
That's not just the graphics part but the total consumption at load - the difference between it and idle puts the integrated graphics at 18W - but the power draw of some much faster modern dedicated GPUs is so small that it just doesn't make sense to drop so much performance for largely negligible power saving. The 9600M GT is only 23W and the faster Radeon 5650 is between 15 and 25W.
I agree with the point above that what Intel are doing makes sense and it's inevitable that integrated graphics manufacturers will be locked out. The real issue is that it forces manufacturers to choose between relying on Intel's graphics alone (not good) or adding a dedicated GPU on top.
Adding an extra GPU adds cost and power consumption and a number of manufacturers will just go with Intel's option. I hope that Apple make the smart choice and push the hybrid option on all the lineup models that use Arrandale and that it doesn't need a logout to switch between them.
They can use the Intel junk for everyday tasks and then enable the dedicated GPU for high performance tasks and maybe even do computation without hanging the interface. This may be why we haven't seen many GPU computing examples yet because most of the lineup will lock up the interface. My concern is for the low end because Apple always screws the low end over forcing you to spend over £1,000 to get usable graphics and we finally get somewhere with the 9400M only for this dilemma to arise.
I don't think it's necessarily anti-competitive, it's just really inconvenient. On the other hand, if it forces Apple to put an Nvidia 250M GTS or at least 9600M GT into a Mini alongside Arrandale, which also has a GPU, that would be pretty awesome. I wonder if they'll announce that at this January event - the laptops are due a refresh.
The link posted earlier:
http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/sho...spx?i=3704&p=4
.
That link is for Clarksdale, the desktop cpu/gpu part. The A-dales have TDPs between 18-35 watts.
Those won't make their way into any Mac laptop or mini.
From what I read at Anand, I'm not sure they'll find their way into an iMac either.
Just wanted to say welcome to AI, solarein and brianb. Hope you guys stick around, you've made some excellent posts.
I hadn't realised until recently that Arrandale was split across two dice. That the memory controller is not integrated on the CPU die and the apparently rather high power consumption of the whole chip, this is feeling like much more of a sideways step from C2D + 9400M than I was expecting
It is a sideways step for sure, but Apple will bamboozle you with the "OMFG Arrandale is teh WIN!!!" when selling you their mid-range+ 15" and 17" Macbook Pros. Again, like I mentioned, these units may have on-the-fly switching to ATI discrete GPUs so you get power savings, OpenCL, HD decode, etc, etc all without the user "feeling" how retarded the Intel IGP is.
Strangely BluRay is still the big question mark on the MacBook Pros -- which again, Apple may not deliver while bamboozling(wow this word passed the spellcheck) you with the Arrandale upgrades.
That link is for Clarksdale, the desktop cpu/gpu part. The A-dales have TDPs between 18-35 watts.
Those won't make their way into any Mac laptop or mini.
From what I read at Anand, I'm not sure they'll find their way into an iMac either.
iMac 21" would be Arrandales on the next refresh, while 27" low-end would be Clarksdale. 27" mid- and higher custom builds should be Lynnfield. That's my thinking at this stage.
Any reason why Clarksdale wouldn't go on the lowest-end 27"? The 27" is already engineered for (very roughly) ~80W TDPs due to being able to handle Lynnfield. Clarksdale would be cheaper than putting in an Arrandale in the lowest-end 27", I think...
...So what we have with this move to on-CPU memory controllers is that integrated, shared memory GPUs by necessity have to be integrated into the CPU as well. Either that, or do away with integrated graphics all together. On the desktop, not having integrated graphics make sense. But on the laptop, it doesn't, it makes more sense to have both integrated graphics and discrete graphics so you can switch between a performance mode and a power savings mode. That is why the next generation of notebook CPUs from both Intel and AMD have integrated GPUs, it's the only way this could be done reasonably....
Actually, even on the desktop, there is a big push for integrated graphics. AMD's chipset, Fusion plans, ION/9400M, Intel's chipset with integrated graphics and now Clarksdale, all want to give you a CPU+chipset combo that is "all you would ever need, except for special use scenarios". Think about a vast majority of desktops for business or casual home Facebook/etc. use. They would not need a discrete GPU by any stretch of the imagination. 3D users and gamers would get a separate GPU, but even in the desktop, integrated graphics are here to stay, and roost.
The link posted earlier:
http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/sho...spx?i=3704&p=4
That's not just the graphics part but the total consumption at load - the difference between it and idle puts the integrated graphics at 18W - but the power draw of some much faster modern dedicated GPUs is so small that it just doesn't make sense to drop so much performance for largely negligible power saving. The 9600M GT is only 23W and the faster Radeon 5650 is between 15 and 25W.
I agree with the point above that what Intel are doing makes sense and it's inevitable that integrated graphics manufacturers will be locked out. The real issue is that it forces manufacturers to choose between relying on Intel's graphics alone (not good) or adding a dedicated GPU on top.
Adding an extra GPU adds cost and power consumption and a number of manufacturers will just go with Intel's option. I hope that Apple make the smart choice and push the hybrid option on all the lineup models that use Arrandale and that it doesn't need a logout to switch between them.
They can use the Intel junk for everyday tasks and then enable the dedicated GPU for high performance tasks and maybe even do computation without hanging the interface. This may be why we haven't seen many GPU computing examples yet because most of the lineup will lock up the interface. My concern is for the low end because Apple always screws the low end over forcing you to spend over £1,000 to get usable graphics and we finally get somewhere with the 9400M only for this dilemma to arise.
I don't think it's necessarily anti-competitive, it's just really inconvenient. On the other hand, if it forces Apple to put an Nvidia 250M GTS or at least 9600M GT into a Mini alongside Arrandale, which also has a GPU, that would be pretty awesome. I wonder if they'll announce that at this January event - the laptops are due a refresh.
You do have a point. The 13" and low-end Macbook Pro 15" could remain Core 2 Duo 9400M on the next refresh, while the mid-15" and above could go totally Arrandale + ATI 40nm discrete GPU with the Intel IGP "disabled" as much as possible. Here's the kicker that would take the Macbook Pros up a real significant notch: 1680x1050 standard on the 15", 1920x1080 screen as option on the mid-15"+, Blu Ray on the mid-15"+ and 17" as options.
The above paragraph surely now describes a real compelling end-of-January refresh to the Macbook Pro to take it into the middle of the year when Nvidia(?)/ATI's 40nm offerings/yields improve, and Arrandale revisions with on-die controller/etc come to market.
Last serial posting from me. I promise.
Yeah, at lowest settings the Arrandale and Clarksdale shows promise of being able to play some games, but once you throw in a bit more detail settings into the graphics I think it will start to lag behind the 9400M.
Plus, it's not just raw performance but feature support. Intel graphics consistently don't support features in motion graphics and 3D software such as hardware-accelerated particle rendering.
As for power consumption, the full load of 72W for that performance isn't that good. ATI's 5650, which is 50% faster than the 9600M GT is rumored to use just 15-25W and the NVidia 250M GTS (50-60% faster) draws 28W.
Basically for the same overall power draw, you will get at least 5x more performance using NVidia's or ATI's latest low-powered solutions with 350GFlops compute performance. Apple would have to be out of their minds to go down the Intel graphics route again.
More and more it does look that Apple will hold the fort for the 1st half of 2010 with 9400M Core2 Duo on the lower-end models and go fully ATI discrete with their entire line in the 2nd half of 2010.
iMac 21" would be Arrandales on the next refresh, while 27" low-end would be Clarksdale. 27" mid- and higher custom builds should be Lynnfield. That's my thinking at this stage.
Any reason why Clarksdale wouldn't go on the lowest-end 27"? The 27" is already engineered for (very roughly) ~80W TDPs due to being able to handle Lynnfield. Clarksdale would be cheaper than putting in an Arrandale in the lowest-end 27", I think...
I guess you could see Clarksdales on the 21.5" iMacs. But the 27s should go completely quad core with Lynnfield(i5) on the entry level 27" and i7 on the 'better' iMac.
That link is for Clarksdale, the desktop cpu/gpu part. The A-dales have TDPs between 18-35 watts.
I think it's the same 45nm graphics chip inside but they will have optimized it for using with Arrandale. An Overall 35W TDP sounds not too bad - I doubt the graphics part is significantly better than the 12W 9400M but will at least match it for battery life even though it's at a loss of performance and features support.
More and more it does look that Apple will hold the fort for the 1st half of 2010 with 9400M Core2 Duo on the lower-end models and go fully ATI discrete with their entire line in the 2nd half of 2010.
Yeah that is a possibility. They could put in higher clocked models. They can't hold out forever though so there will have to be a switch to Arrandale at some point and the same choice has to be made - dedicated or downgrade. I think it's about time they started putting proper dedicated chips in the lower end machines considering what they charge for them. Low end graphics makes the brand suffer.
With the current GPUs on offer today, they can get away with low enough powered chips in both but still make the MBP a premium model. The 9600M GT can go in the low end and the 5650/250M in the high end. The MBA will undoubtedly go Intel-only if it moves to Arrandale.
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/gra...-performance/3
Some of the GPU benchmarks look ok at first but you can see the problem here:
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/gra...-performance/5
The Intel image looks terrible compared to the others - no particle grass, flat reflections - with visual effects turned off, it goes faster but you lose out. Also, the comparison is with a Core 2 Duo so some games will benefit from the new CPU.
The power consumption savings are negligible vs offerings from NVidia and AMD:
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/gra...-performance/7
In summary, the GPU part of the Core i5 performs no better than 15 month old NVidia and AMD chips, has lower graphics support for advanced effects and has negligible power savings vs the competition. No surprises really.
I wonder if they will announce laptop updates on Wednesday alongside the mystery new product or if they'll draw it out a bit.
In summary, the GPU part of the Core i5 performs no better than 15 month old NVidia and AMD chips, has lower graphics support for advanced effects and has negligible power savings vs the competition. No surprises really.
I wonder if they will announce laptop updates on Wednesday alongside the mystery new product or if they'll draw it out a bit.
Hmm. Well if that is what they plan to put in my new MacBook pro I'm not very happy about it. I wonder if I should order one of the existing ones right now? I also notice that on the website the MacBook Pros still show delivery in 24 hours. If they were being refreshed would there be longer lead time by now?
Hmm. Well if that is what they plan to put in my new MacBook pro I'm not very happy about it. I wonder if I should order one of the existing ones right now? I also notice that on the website the MacBook Pros still show delivery in 24 hours. If they were being refreshed would there be longer lead time by now?
I'm not sure if they will dampen the interest in the tablet by updating the laptops but they make most of their profit from the Mac line so given that all eyes will be on this event, updating the products that comprise 70-80% of their shipping Macs would be a good idea.
I have an uneasy feeling that Apple will go Core i5 with Intel-only on the low-end and Core i5 with a Radeon 5650 on the models that currently have the 9600M GT.
Whether you get the higher end or the lower end, it's best to wait because the worst case is that you have to buy a 9400M model refurb in which case you get it cheaper. If you were going for the higher end model, the Core i5 + the latest GPUs will be 50% faster or more.
I will be very disappointed if Apple don't put dedicated GPUs in the whole lineup with the exception of the MBA but it's a step backwards they've made at least twice before.
I wonder if they will announce laptop updates on Wednesday alongside the mystery new product or if they'll draw it out a bit.
I hope they announce new MBP. I am in the market and want to at least know what the new ones are so I can decide if I want to run down to Apple now or wait until they get some new ones in stock.