Might you not think that the long delivery schedule is in fact the result of having to deal with crap Intel technology or work arounds for it? Further the power profile of discrete GPU's is so low now that it doesn't even make sense to have an integrated GPU. Even in a thirteen inch Mac Book Pro, the Intel hardware is basically wasted energy.
Dave
From what I recall from reading other sources, the new Intel chips with integrated GPU was a problem with Apple. There were rumors that Apple was not going to use the Arrandale chip in the MBPs and was waiting for the next generation of chips after Arrandale. It appears that Apple is now working on a solution and it is best to wait rather than force a change in HW that we may all regret. Being a long time Mac user, I can recall changes when Apple went from the old 68000 chip to the Power PC Chip and finally the Intel chips, from System 6 and 7 to OS 9 and now OS X-- so I don't want to see such a drastic change where you have to get a new computer, new peripherals and spend about $500-$1000 for new software.
Took my Mac in for a new battery. They also gave me a new battery cover since it was missing a foot and a new trackpad since the battery pressing on it affected the usage after the new battery was inserted. Not sure if the other two were my fault or not since I am rough with my machines.
All consumer electronics will have issues, but not all consumer electronic companies will offer such great service.
Everything you posted contradicts what I've seen with the Core 2010 processors or takes what I said out of context: "Well no again. The GPU is still a second chip mounted along side a CPU chip. This makes the solution a multichip module. The only manufacture with a publicly offered up road map for a x86 SoC as you describe is AMD/ATI."
The point is that the graphic chip is on the same module (45nm for the graphics and 32nm for the CPU). I was there for the launch and saw the chip, the performance stats and ran tests on my own first hand. I think you're going to be pleasantly surprised with the Core 2010s.
You should see that this is not all that great if you have to compromise with the Intel tech. The fact that the chip sucks as a GPU and as an OpenCL processor means that it is virtually useless for modern OS'es. Thus it is dead weight
I have no idea where you're getting this conclusion from. It's not like we're talking about only having integrated graphics. We'll have integrated graphics which are much more efficient while meeting the needs of many, and discrete graphics which will be more battery draining, but speed things up.
It just simply doesn't make sense to continue down the road of having graphics such as the 9400M that are integrated, but lack the advantages that Intel is bringing with the Core 2010 series.
Well no again. The GPU is still a second chip mounted along side a CPU chip. This makes the solution a multichip module. The only manufacture with a publicly offered up road map for a x86 SoC as you describe is AMD/ATI.
Variants of Sandy Bridge are supposed to include a quad core with IGP, PCIe controller and memory controller all in an integrated 32nm die. It was supposed to be due late 2010, but now looks pushed back into early 2011 so Intel's probably still hoping to get it out just ahead of AMD's solution.
This article is all sorts of misinformation. The main problem is that it makes it sound as if the new Nehalem-based platforms are just like the older platforms, except Intel stopped letting nvidia make chipsets for it and now everyone is stuck with Intel integrated graphics with the new platform.
This is a half-truth, at best. Really it's just downright misinformed. With Nehalem, the chipset as we knew it is completely gone. With the first generation Nehalems we have already seen the disappearance of the FSB and the northbridge, with the memory controller (usually the most important component of a chipset, besides an integrated GPU if its included) included into the processor itself. Even at this point, the traditional idea of the chipset is pretty much no more. The new generation of Nehalem, Clarkdale/Arrandale, pushes this even further, integrating not only the memory controller but the GPU and PCI-express bus onto the CPU package as well. So what this means is that we need to stop talking about chipsets and chipset-based integrated graphics. Those concepts just don't make sense anymore. What Intel is doing is simply a technological advance, one that was heralded years ago when AMD first integrated memory controllers onto the CPU with the Athlon 64. Back then everyone knew that that was the future, that chipsets as we knew them would disappear, and with Nehalem Intel hopped onto that bandwagon too. But now we have all this nonsensical bashing of Intel's advance as if it was some kind of anti-competitive move to squeeze out nvidia.
If you read this and think, "well we are still stuck with crappy Intel integrated graphics", perhaps a little math will help. The Intel IGP in the new Arrandales isn't the same as the old nvidia 9400M IGP at all. Instead of a northbridge with graphics components built-in, the Intel IGP is actually integrated onto the CPU package. So let's just count how many chips the old nvidia solution needed. You had 1 CPU + 1 northbridge with 9400M IGP + 1 southbridge = 3 chips. With the Arrandales it takes 1 CPU with Intel IGP + 1 southbridge = 2 chips to do the same thing, with lower power consumption than the old 3 chip solution too. But what if you want to maintain the same power consumption as before, and have space for 3 chips like before? I think you can see where I'm going with this. You can have 1 CPU with Intel IGP + 1 southbridge + 1 discrete GPU = 3 chips! This is a step forwards, not backwards.
You're telling me things I already know buddy... I've read nearly every page of the entire "waiting for Arrandale" thread over at macrumors. Read the thread... its got 6000+ comments. We've explored virtually every nuance of the Intel/ Nvidia dilemma (months ago)... and we're patiently waiting for an i5/i7 Arrandale MBP along with a discrete gpu. Yes, the Intel IGP is wimpy, but people seem to forget that Apple can still put whatever discrete gpu they want into the MacBook Pro... and Nvidia's Optimus tech is a likely candidate.
so mr 6000 post macrumour god thread poster.
Do Ya Think that instead of using One GPU chip or the other >>
Which is of course two great options. <<
Maybe apple can use both G P U chips AT the same time giving us
This article is all sorts of misinformation. The main problem is that it makes it sound as if the new Nehalem-based platforms are just like the older platforms, except Intel stopped letting nvidia make chipsets for it and now everyone is stuck with Intel integrated graphics with the new platform.
This is a half-truth, at best. Really it's just downright misinformed. With Nehalem, the chipset as we knew it is completely gone. With the first generation Nehalems we have already seen the disappearance of the FSB and the northbridge, with the memory controller (usually the most important component of a chipset, besides an integrated GPU if its included) included into the processor itself. Even at this point, the traditional idea of the chipset is pretty much no more. The new generation of Nehalem, Clarkdale/Arrandale, pushes this even further, integrating not only the memory controller but the GPU and PCI-express bus onto the CPU package as well. So what this means is that we need to stop talking about chipsets and chipset-based integrated graphics. Those concepts just don't make sense anymore. What Intel is doing is simply a technological advance, one that was heralded years ago when AMD first integrated memory controllers onto the CPU with the Athlon 64. Back then everyone knew that that was the future, that chipsets as we knew them would disappear, and with Nehalem Intel hopped onto that bandwagon too. But now we have all this nonsensical bashing of Intel's advance as if it was some kind of anti-competitive move to squeeze out nvidia.
If you read this and think, "well we are still stuck with crappy Intel integrated graphics", perhaps a little math will help. The Intel IGP in the new Arrandales isn't the same as the old nvidia 9400M IGP at all. Instead of a northbridge with graphics components built-in, the Intel IGP is actually integrated onto the CPU package. So let's just count how many chips the old nvidia solution needed. You had 1 CPU + 1 northbridge with 9400M IGP + 1 southbridge = 3 chips. With the Arrandales it takes 1 CPU with Intel IGP + 1 southbridge = 2 chips to do the same thing, with lower power consumption than the old 3 chip solution too. But what if you want to maintain the same power consumption as before, and have space for 3 chips like before? I think you can see where I'm going with this. You can have 1 CPU with Intel IGP + 1 southbridge + 1 discrete GPU = 3 chips! This is a step forwards, not backwards.
i agree. but it is frustrating to have Blu-Ray get stonewalled by corporate agenda instead of putting the customers first.
its beyond ridiculous that Blu-Ray has Digital Copies of movies for itunes, but itunes is showing no love back to BD. Apple just doesn't want BD.
And don't get me started on General Mao... he can license almost anything he wants. music/movies/books etc.... but its only when he has a corporate agenda do they stonewall Blu-Ray.
sad to say, if apple made a MBP with a BD Superdrive... i'd buy it in an instant. but Apple just won't let me buy that.
alot of us need BD for storage also, ie backing up photography and video to BD discs. getting them off hard drives.
BD is already dead
the disc is dead
flash drives is the future
BD is fantastic for about 30 percent of all media content
BD suck's for dinner with andre type flicks .
BD is A closed system forcing us to pay gatekeepers money to watch HD
the world need's flexible HD across the board with no gatekeepers over charging us
what will you do with all your $ 50 dollar BD dvd's when the new 3d drives come about ??
BD is fantastic for about 30 percent of all media content
BD suck's for dinner with andre type flicks .
BD is A closed system forcing us to pay gatekeepers money to watch HD
the world need's flexible HD across the board with no gatekeepers over charging us
what will you do with all your $ 50 dollar BD dvd's when the new 3d drives come about ??
we NEED open HD , NOT new layers of billing
Cool. Where's this "open HD" you speak of?
Oh wait, it doesn't exist. All I get on my Mac is DVD-quality and I should be satisfied with that because brucep and Steve Jobs say it's good enough. Silly me!
Oh wait, it doesn't exist. All I get on my Mac is DVD-quality and I should be satisfied with that because brucep and Steve Jobs say it's good enough. Silly me!
Dvd quality ? And thats bad ??
BD is fantastic
but it not the only game in town
i placed a video file on my desktop
a gift from a buddy
i clicked on it and quick time opened and played sherlock Holmes in wonderful quality
not as good BD or itunes HD
but still better than most shows i watch
Yet go to the ABC TV site and play some TV episodes . THE quality is very fine
open HD is out here already
steve jobs says to me
hey brucep why pay fro BD when quick time x is almost as good for free
and why install a BD drive when soon digital files on flash DRIVES will emerge as the best media content holder anyway
Of course itunes HD is almost as good AS BD and apple give you 2 files for your mac and your ipod player.
apple has done right by me over the years
BD will join beta max and floppy drives soon enough
264 will be the winner
if you love BD fine
prices will plummet very soon
as roku boxes now offer netflix /amazon HD movies for sale
Hahahaha, iTunes HD "almost as good as BD"? You're either blind or trolling. iTunes "HD" is not even proper 720p (it's heavily compressed).
Digital distribution is indeed the future. But it's a couple of years off - internet speeds are not sufficient, Apple is not offering content at an acceptable quality (no 1080p) and their digital distribution model is not even available outside the United States (no iTunes store outside the US sells movies). Get back to me when we all have 1GBps-connections and Apple is offering 1080p-quality files in iTunes stores all over the world; until then I want Blu-Ray.
Hahahaha, iTunes HD "almost as good as BD"? You're either blind or trolling. iTunes "HD" is not even proper 720p (it's heavily compressed).
¿Que? Since when has compression been part of the definition vertical resolution? That is a bullocks argument since all BR discs are using H.264 (or VC-1) lossy compression just like iTS video.
Is BR video better quality than iTS video? Absolutely, but that doesn't make it a pointless option for many people. I simple don't need or want High Profile H.264 in 1080p for most movies. On top of that, iTS offers things Blu-ray simply can't offer, like convenience. Instance downloads, mobile viewing and TV Shows available the next day.
¿Que? Since when has compression been part of the definition vertical resolution? That is a bullocks argument since all BR discs are using H.264 (or VC-1) lossy compression just like iTS video.
Is BR video better quality than iTS video? Absolutely, but that doesn't make it a pointless option for many people. I simple don't need or want High Profile H.264 in 1080p for most movies. On top of that, iTS offers things Blu-ray simply can't offer, like convenience. Instance downloads, mobile viewing and TV Shows available the next day.
I'm just saying that it looks 'even worse' due to visible compression artefacts. I'm not sure what kind and degree of compression iTunes-movies are using, but the artefacts are very noticeable.
And I'm not saying that digitally distributed video is "pointless", I'm saying it hasn't come into its own yet and its dominance - which coincides with the death of optical media - is still years away. Until then, I want Blu-Ray.
Understand that convenience and quality rarely go together. I sometimes buy music on the ITMS when I just can't be bothered to buy the CD, but I usually buy the physical disc because it simply offers better quality. When it comes to music, Apple leaves me a choice between quality (CDs) and convenience (iTunes). When it comes to movies, they don't give me a choice at all, they're completely withholding the "quality"-paradigm (= Blu-Ray) from their computers and are only offering a "convenient", yet terrible looking solution (iTunes video), which I'm not interested in (yet).
When it comes to movies, they don't give me a choice at all, they're completely withholding the "quality"-paradigm (= Blu-Ray) from their computers and are only offering a "convenient", yet terrible looking solution (iTunes video), which I'm not interested in (yet).
1) Saying it's terrible is hyperbolic. Take a gander at Hulu's default 360p.
2) Offering High Profile 1080p in 2010 the day after the show airs just isn't going to happen.
3) I don't understand this desire for Blu-ray on a PC. It's a home theater technology. There was a time when CDs and DVDs had a great cost-to-MB ratio for consumers, but that time is gone and Blu-ray in computers is simply an expensive option, that offers little to no benefit with plenty of negatives to go along with it.
4) Most PCs that Apple sells are 13" notebooks with 1280x800 resolution displays. What good does a High Profile 1080p video going to do on such a small display. Then there is the UX issues that have to be dealt with, like using a Blu-ray player to watch a movie on a long flight just to find that the battery dies before you get to the ending.
5) Apple will remove the optical drives from notebooks before it adds AACS support. Optical drives take up a huge part of the machine, they require 5" of port-side space for disc entry thus reducing engineering options, they use a lot of power, are finicky devices with moving parts likely toward the top of repairs Apple Care does, they read and write very slowly compared to storage mediums, they are loud and discs can be pricey. It's great for the home theater, but not for a consumer PC.
6) BRDs are not selling well in the non-Mac PC space. Other vendors offer them but they build systems that allow for the option of cheap BRDs. Apple doesn't have that luxury since they have a 9.5mm ultra-slim slot-loading optical drive.
1) Saying it's terrible is hyperbolic. Take a gander at Hulu's default 360p.
2) Offering High Profile 1080p in 2010 the day after the show airs just isn't going to happen.
3) I don't understand this desire for Blu-ray on a PC. It's a home theater technology. There was a time when CDs and DVDs had a great cost-to-MB ratio for consumers, but that time is gone and Blu-ray in computers is simply an expensive option, that offers little to no benefit with plenty of negatives to go along with it.
4) Most PCs that Apple sells are 13" notebooks with 1280x800 resolution displays. What good does a High Profile 1080p video going to do on such a small display. Then there is the UX issues that have to be dealt with, like using a Blu-ray player to watch a movie on a long flight just to find that the battery dies before you get to the ending.
5) Apple will remove the optical drives from notebooks before it adds AACS support. Optical drives take up a huge part of the machine, they require 5" of port-side space for disc entry thus reducing engineering options, they use a lot of power, are finicky devices with moving parts likely toward the top of repairs Apple Care does, they read and write very slowly compared to storage mediums, they are loud and discs can be pricey. It's great for the home theater, but not for a consumer PC.
6) BRDs are not selling well in the non-Mac PC space. Other vendors offer them but they build systems that allow for the option of cheap BRDs. Apple doesn't have that luxury since they have a 9.5mm ultra-slim slot-loading optical drive.
1) It's terrible compared to 1080p, which is the current standard. I expect current-gen technology in a 2000-3000$ device.
2) Maybe not the day after, but shows and movies are being released in 1080p-quality all the time. It's called Blu-Ray and I'd like to take advantage of it.
3) I have neither the money nor the space for a home theater setup. I have never owned a television and likely never will. I have been watching all of my movies on my Mac for close to a decade now. Why should this change? Why should I invest thousands into a home theater system when my MBP would be able to play Blu-Rays just fine, if it had the necessary drive?
In fact, most everyone I know uses their laptop for movie-watching. I know exactly one person my age who owns an HDTV. We're all students, so we have little money and space and our laptops are our primary media hubs. And Blu-Ray offers a lot of benefits, the first and foremost being amazing image quality that cannot yet be reached by digital downloads.
4) The upcoming Vaio Z has a fullHD 13" display... But I'll admit that this is somewhat niche. What isn't niche, however, is FullHD on 15" displays. The 15" MBP has a pitifully low resolution compared to its similarly priced PC-brethren. 1080p video looks amazing on an HP Envy, for example, which also has a 15" display. I guess one of the problems here is that Apple still hasn't implemented full resolution independence in OS X. Anyway, I'm not just expecting Apple to slap a BR-drive into the MBP and call it a day. I obviously expect them to update the screens to current quality standards so that we will be able to really take advantage of Blu-Ray's capabilities.
BTW, even at the 13"-MBP's puny resolution one would discern a leap in quality from DVD to BR.
And why would the battery crap out playing BR any sooner than playing a DVD?
5) You know, I'm all for the death of optical media and the removal of disc drives from Macs, but it's just not happening yet, for the exact reasons I outlined in my previous post(s). Apple is not providing us with a suitable alternative. This is not like the iMac launch when they left out the Floppy drive and only offered a CD-drive. That was a radical move too, but it paid off because Apple offered the superior and more modern technology - the CD-drive - and customers realized that they didn't need the Floppy. In this case, Apple is selling Macs with obsolete media capabilities that no one really likes - people like myself who want to watch movies on their MBPs dislike the Superdrive because it doesn't play BR, others would like to get rid of the Superdrive too because they don't watch movies on their laptops anway. Nobody is happy with the current situation! If Apple is indeed serious about abandoning optical media, as you theorize, they should simply DO IT ALREADY and start offering laptops without these drives and start selling digital media at 1080p all over the world. That would be a believable strategy. Instead, they're still offering downloads at terrible quality and they're still including the obsolete technology in their Macs (Superdrive) and pretending that there's nothing better around. I'm fine with Apple not giving me everything I want, but if they decide to omit the current standard for optical media from their computers, they had better be ready and willing to provide an alternative. They're not.
6) As far as I know, BR sales aren't bad when compared to DVD sales at the same point in their respective life-cycles.
Hahahaha, iTunes HD "almost as good as BD"? You're either blind or trolling. iTunes "HD" is not even proper 720p (it's heavily compressed).
Digital distribution is indeed the future. But it's a couple of years off - internet speeds are not sufficient, Apple is not offering content at an acceptable quality (no 1080p) and their digital distribution model is not even available outside the United States (no iTunes store outside the US sells movies). Get back to me when we all have 1GBps-connections and Apple is offering 1080p-quality files in iTunes stores all over the world; until then I want Blu-Ray.
trolling ?? f u
battle star galatica on itunes HD played on my 15'MBP last model sold is incredible quality
BD is fantastic no doubt on sci fi or over the top action movies
so big deal
no reason to put a fading format on macs
some one will encode for free very soon A BD quality format
that is why already BD is very very cheap and getting cheaper
YOU must be stupid to miss the secret words we all speak lately <<<digital files >>> get it ???
5 dollar pirate movies already are on flash drives
the movie studio/apple answer will be DIGITAL FILES IN A 264 plus format sold to us very cheap
8 to 12 dollars for HD units on flash drives or DL .
greet the future
having said that i will buy the extended play battle star galatica full series and 3 movies and 2 mini series on BD ina heart beat
You have not offered any proof that the quality of iTunes' "HD"-files can compete with the quality of Blu-Ray (hint: it can't). You have not offered any proof for your thesis that Blu-Ray is a "fading format" (hint: it isn't). You are merely posting inconsistent ramblings that do not address any of my points and read as if you were posting under the influence of LSD or some rather hard liquor. Therefore, I will henceforth ignore your posts, amusing though they may be.
Hahahaha, iTunes HD "almost as good as BD"? You're either blind or trolling. iTunes "HD" is not even proper 720p (it's heavily compressed).
Digital distribution is indeed the future. But it's a couple of years off - internet speeds are not sufficient, Apple is not offering content at an acceptable quality (no 1080p) and their digital distribution model is not even available outside the United States (no iTunes store outside the US sells movies). Get back to me when we all have 1GBps-connections and Apple is offering 1080p-quality files in iTunes stores all over the world; until then I want Blu-Ray.
you can't even tell 1080p from 720 unless your 15 ft away on a 52 in screen
and 1080 on a mac is a joke720 is over kill already
and amazon offers HD Movies for tv that look great on my 42"plasma 600MHz TV
Digital distribution is right now via net flix roku amazon hulu
Yeah, yeah, I get it. Apple doesn't offer it, so it's not needed. What's there is good enough for us. Steve has made up his mind and anyone who doubts him must be reprimanded. Greet the future! Now featuring digital distribution systems that offer vastly inferior quality and are only available in one country on earth, hooray!
This is boring. Anyone want to seriously discuss Blu-Ray? Anyone?
Comments
Might you not think that the long delivery schedule is in fact the result of having to deal with crap Intel technology or work arounds for it? Further the power profile of discrete GPU's is so low now that it doesn't even make sense to have an integrated GPU. Even in a thirteen inch Mac Book Pro, the Intel hardware is basically wasted energy.
Dave
From what I recall from reading other sources, the new Intel chips with integrated GPU was a problem with Apple. There were rumors that Apple was not going to use the Arrandale chip in the MBPs and was waiting for the next generation of chips after Arrandale. It appears that Apple is now working on a solution and it is best to wait rather than force a change in HW that we may all regret. Being a long time Mac user, I can recall changes when Apple went from the old 68000 chip to the Power PC Chip and finally the Intel chips, from System 6 and 7 to OS 9 and now OS X-- so I don't want to see such a drastic change where you have to get a new computer, new peripherals and spend about $500-$1000 for new software.
Took my Mac in for a new battery. They also gave me a new battery cover since it was missing a foot and a new trackpad since the battery pressing on it affected the usage after the new battery was inserted. Not sure if the other two were my fault or not since I am rough with my machines.
All consumer electronics will have issues, but not all consumer electronic companies will offer such great service.
beplug
...a 15-30-second arpeggio of cacophonous clicking...
ok, just stop that right now!
...
Dave
Everything you posted contradicts what I've seen with the Core 2010 processors or takes what I said out of context: "Well no again. The GPU is still a second chip mounted along side a CPU chip. This makes the solution a multichip module. The only manufacture with a publicly offered up road map for a x86 SoC as you describe is AMD/ATI."
The point is that the graphic chip is on the same module (45nm for the graphics and 32nm for the CPU). I was there for the launch and saw the chip, the performance stats and ran tests on my own first hand. I think you're going to be pleasantly surprised with the Core 2010s.
You should see that this is not all that great if you have to compromise with the Intel tech. The fact that the chip sucks as a GPU and as an OpenCL processor means that it is virtually useless for modern OS'es. Thus it is dead weight
I have no idea where you're getting this conclusion from. It's not like we're talking about only having integrated graphics. We'll have integrated graphics which are much more efficient while meeting the needs of many, and discrete graphics which will be more battery draining, but speed things up.
It just simply doesn't make sense to continue down the road of having graphics such as the 9400M that are integrated, but lack the advantages that Intel is bringing with the Core 2010 series.
Well no again. The GPU is still a second chip mounted along side a CPU chip. This makes the solution a multichip module. The only manufacture with a publicly offered up road map for a x86 SoC as you describe is AMD/ATI.
Variants of Sandy Bridge are supposed to include a quad core with IGP, PCIe controller and memory controller all in an integrated 32nm die. It was supposed to be due late 2010, but now looks pushed back into early 2011 so Intel's probably still hoping to get it out just ahead of AMD's solution.
http://www.guru3d.com/news/intel-qua...dge-taped-out/
The first Sandy Bridge is already reportedly taped out and die shots leaked.
This is a half-truth, at best. Really it's just downright misinformed. With Nehalem, the chipset as we knew it is completely gone. With the first generation Nehalems we have already seen the disappearance of the FSB and the northbridge, with the memory controller (usually the most important component of a chipset, besides an integrated GPU if its included) included into the processor itself. Even at this point, the traditional idea of the chipset is pretty much no more. The new generation of Nehalem, Clarkdale/Arrandale, pushes this even further, integrating not only the memory controller but the GPU and PCI-express bus onto the CPU package as well. So what this means is that we need to stop talking about chipsets and chipset-based integrated graphics. Those concepts just don't make sense anymore. What Intel is doing is simply a technological advance, one that was heralded years ago when AMD first integrated memory controllers onto the CPU with the Athlon 64. Back then everyone knew that that was the future, that chipsets as we knew them would disappear, and with Nehalem Intel hopped onto that bandwagon too. But now we have all this nonsensical bashing of Intel's advance as if it was some kind of anti-competitive move to squeeze out nvidia.
If you read this and think, "well we are still stuck with crappy Intel integrated graphics", perhaps a little math will help. The Intel IGP in the new Arrandales isn't the same as the old nvidia 9400M IGP at all. Instead of a northbridge with graphics components built-in, the Intel IGP is actually integrated onto the CPU package. So let's just count how many chips the old nvidia solution needed. You had 1 CPU + 1 northbridge with 9400M IGP + 1 southbridge = 3 chips. With the Arrandales it takes 1 CPU with Intel IGP + 1 southbridge = 2 chips to do the same thing, with lower power consumption than the old 3 chip solution too. But what if you want to maintain the same power consumption as before, and have space for 3 chips like before? I think you can see where I'm going with this. You can have 1 CPU with Intel IGP + 1 southbridge + 1 discrete GPU = 3 chips! This is a step forwards, not backwards.
You're telling me things I already know buddy... I've read nearly every page of the entire "waiting for Arrandale" thread over at macrumors. Read the thread... its got 6000+ comments. We've explored virtually every nuance of the Intel/ Nvidia dilemma (months ago)... and we're patiently waiting for an i5/i7 Arrandale MBP along with a discrete gpu. Yes, the Intel IGP is wimpy, but people seem to forget that Apple can still put whatever discrete gpu they want into the MacBook Pro... and Nvidia's Optimus tech is a likely candidate.
so mr 6000 post macrumour god thread poster.
Do Ya Think that instead of using One GPU chip or the other >>
Which is of course two great options. <<
Maybe apple can use both G P U chips AT the same time giving us
a THRID powerful option??
so whadda think ??
peace
9
This article is all sorts of misinformation. The main problem is that it makes it sound as if the new Nehalem-based platforms are just like the older platforms, except Intel stopped letting nvidia make chipsets for it and now everyone is stuck with Intel integrated graphics with the new platform.
This is a half-truth, at best. Really it's just downright misinformed. With Nehalem, the chipset as we knew it is completely gone. With the first generation Nehalems we have already seen the disappearance of the FSB and the northbridge, with the memory controller (usually the most important component of a chipset, besides an integrated GPU if its included) included into the processor itself. Even at this point, the traditional idea of the chipset is pretty much no more. The new generation of Nehalem, Clarkdale/Arrandale, pushes this even further, integrating not only the memory controller but the GPU and PCI-express bus onto the CPU package as well. So what this means is that we need to stop talking about chipsets and chipset-based integrated graphics. Those concepts just don't make sense anymore. What Intel is doing is simply a technological advance, one that was heralded years ago when AMD first integrated memory controllers onto the CPU with the Athlon 64. Back then everyone knew that that was the future, that chipsets as we knew them would disappear, and with Nehalem Intel hopped onto that bandwagon too. But now we have all this nonsensical bashing of Intel's advance as if it was some kind of anti-competitive move to squeeze out nvidia.
If you read this and think, "well we are still stuck with crappy Intel integrated graphics", perhaps a little math will help. The Intel IGP in the new Arrandales isn't the same as the old nvidia 9400M IGP at all. Instead of a northbridge with graphics components built-in, the Intel IGP is actually integrated onto the CPU package. So let's just count how many chips the old nvidia solution needed. You had 1 CPU + 1 northbridge with 9400M IGP + 1 southbridge = 3 chips. With the Arrandales it takes 1 CPU with Intel IGP + 1 southbridge = 2 chips to do the same thing, with lower power consumption than the old 3 chip solution too. But what if you want to maintain the same power consumption as before, and have space for 3 chips like before? I think you can see where I'm going with this. You can have 1 CPU with Intel IGP + 1 southbridge + 1 discrete GPU = 3 chips! This is a step forwards, not backwards.
GREAT
timely
info
!!
i agree. but it is frustrating to have Blu-Ray get stonewalled by corporate agenda instead of putting the customers first.
its beyond ridiculous that Blu-Ray has Digital Copies of movies for itunes, but itunes is showing no love back to BD. Apple just doesn't want BD.
And don't get me started on General Mao... he can license almost anything he wants. music/movies/books etc.... but its only when he has a corporate agenda do they stonewall Blu-Ray.
sad to say, if apple made a MBP with a BD Superdrive... i'd buy it in an instant. but Apple just won't let me buy that.
alot of us need BD for storage also, ie backing up photography and video to BD discs. getting them off hard drives.
BD is already dead
the disc is dead
flash drives is the future
BD is fantastic for about 30 percent of all media content
BD suck's for dinner with andre type flicks .
BD is A closed system forcing us to pay gatekeepers money to watch HD
the world need's flexible HD across the board with no gatekeepers over charging us
what will you do with all your $ 50 dollar BD dvd's when the new 3d drives come about ??
we NEED open HD , NOT new layers of billing
BD is already dead
the disc is dead
flash drives is the future
BD is fantastic for about 30 percent of all media content
BD suck's for dinner with andre type flicks .
BD is A closed system forcing us to pay gatekeepers money to watch HD
the world need's flexible HD across the board with no gatekeepers over charging us
what will you do with all your $ 50 dollar BD dvd's when the new 3d drives come about ??
we NEED open HD , NOT new layers of billing
Cool. Where's this "open HD" you speak of?
Oh wait, it doesn't exist. All I get on my Mac is DVD-quality and I should be satisfied with that because brucep and Steve Jobs say it's good enough. Silly me!
Cool. Where's this "open HD" you speak of?
Oh wait, it doesn't exist. All I get on my Mac is DVD-quality and I should be satisfied with that because brucep and Steve Jobs say it's good enough. Silly me!
Dvd quality ? And thats bad ??
BD is fantastic
but it not the only game in town
i placed a video file on my desktop
a gift from a buddy
i clicked on it and quick time opened and played sherlock Holmes in wonderful quality
not as good BD or itunes HD
but still better than most shows i watch
Yet go to the ABC TV site and play some TV episodes . THE quality is very fine
open HD is out here already
steve jobs says to me
hey brucep why pay fro BD when quick time x is almost as good for free
and why install a BD drive when soon digital files on flash DRIVES will emerge as the best media content holder anyway
Of course itunes HD is almost as good AS BD and apple give you 2 files for your mac and your ipod player.
apple has done right by me over the years
BD will join beta max and floppy drives soon enough
264 will be the winner
if you love BD fine
prices will plummet very soon
as roku boxes now offer netflix /amazon HD movies for sale
all disc drives will fade
welcome the future
Digital distribution is indeed the future. But it's a couple of years off - internet speeds are not sufficient, Apple is not offering content at an acceptable quality (no 1080p) and their digital distribution model is not even available outside the United States (no iTunes store outside the US sells movies). Get back to me when we all have 1GBps-connections and Apple is offering 1080p-quality files in iTunes stores all over the world; until then I want Blu-Ray.
Hahahaha, iTunes HD "almost as good as BD"? You're either blind or trolling. iTunes "HD" is not even proper 720p (it's heavily compressed).
¿Que? Since when has compression been part of the definition vertical resolution? That is a bullocks argument since all BR discs are using H.264 (or VC-1) lossy compression just like iTS video.
Is BR video better quality than iTS video? Absolutely, but that doesn't make it a pointless option for many people. I simple don't need or want High Profile H.264 in 1080p for most movies. On top of that, iTS offers things Blu-ray simply can't offer, like convenience. Instance downloads, mobile viewing and TV Shows available the next day.
¿Que? Since when has compression been part of the definition vertical resolution? That is a bullocks argument since all BR discs are using H.264 (or VC-1) lossy compression just like iTS video.
Is BR video better quality than iTS video? Absolutely, but that doesn't make it a pointless option for many people. I simple don't need or want High Profile H.264 in 1080p for most movies. On top of that, iTS offers things Blu-ray simply can't offer, like convenience. Instance downloads, mobile viewing and TV Shows available the next day.
I'm just saying that it looks 'even worse' due to visible compression artefacts. I'm not sure what kind and degree of compression iTunes-movies are using, but the artefacts are very noticeable.
And I'm not saying that digitally distributed video is "pointless", I'm saying it hasn't come into its own yet and its dominance - which coincides with the death of optical media - is still years away. Until then, I want Blu-Ray.
Understand that convenience and quality rarely go together. I sometimes buy music on the ITMS when I just can't be bothered to buy the CD, but I usually buy the physical disc because it simply offers better quality. When it comes to music, Apple leaves me a choice between quality (CDs) and convenience (iTunes). When it comes to movies, they don't give me a choice at all, they're completely withholding the "quality"-paradigm (= Blu-Ray) from their computers and are only offering a "convenient", yet terrible looking solution (iTunes video), which I'm not interested in (yet).
When it comes to movies, they don't give me a choice at all, they're completely withholding the "quality"-paradigm (= Blu-Ray) from their computers and are only offering a "convenient", yet terrible looking solution (iTunes video), which I'm not interested in (yet).
1) Saying it's terrible is hyperbolic. Take a gander at Hulu's default 360p.
2) Offering High Profile 1080p in 2010 the day after the show airs just isn't going to happen.
3) I don't understand this desire for Blu-ray on a PC. It's a home theater technology. There was a time when CDs and DVDs had a great cost-to-MB ratio for consumers, but that time is gone and Blu-ray in computers is simply an expensive option, that offers little to no benefit with plenty of negatives to go along with it.
4) Most PCs that Apple sells are 13" notebooks with 1280x800 resolution displays. What good does a High Profile 1080p video going to do on such a small display. Then there is the UX issues that have to be dealt with, like using a Blu-ray player to watch a movie on a long flight just to find that the battery dies before you get to the ending.
5) Apple will remove the optical drives from notebooks before it adds AACS support. Optical drives take up a huge part of the machine, they require 5" of port-side space for disc entry thus reducing engineering options, they use a lot of power, are finicky devices with moving parts likely toward the top of repairs Apple Care does, they read and write very slowly compared to storage mediums, they are loud and discs can be pricey. It's great for the home theater, but not for a consumer PC.
6) BRDs are not selling well in the non-Mac PC space. Other vendors offer them but they build systems that allow for the option of cheap BRDs. Apple doesn't have that luxury since they have a 9.5mm ultra-slim slot-loading optical drive.
1) Saying it's terrible is hyperbolic. Take a gander at Hulu's default 360p.
2) Offering High Profile 1080p in 2010 the day after the show airs just isn't going to happen.
3) I don't understand this desire for Blu-ray on a PC. It's a home theater technology. There was a time when CDs and DVDs had a great cost-to-MB ratio for consumers, but that time is gone and Blu-ray in computers is simply an expensive option, that offers little to no benefit with plenty of negatives to go along with it.
4) Most PCs that Apple sells are 13" notebooks with 1280x800 resolution displays. What good does a High Profile 1080p video going to do on such a small display. Then there is the UX issues that have to be dealt with, like using a Blu-ray player to watch a movie on a long flight just to find that the battery dies before you get to the ending.
5) Apple will remove the optical drives from notebooks before it adds AACS support. Optical drives take up a huge part of the machine, they require 5" of port-side space for disc entry thus reducing engineering options, they use a lot of power, are finicky devices with moving parts likely toward the top of repairs Apple Care does, they read and write very slowly compared to storage mediums, they are loud and discs can be pricey. It's great for the home theater, but not for a consumer PC.
6) BRDs are not selling well in the non-Mac PC space. Other vendors offer them but they build systems that allow for the option of cheap BRDs. Apple doesn't have that luxury since they have a 9.5mm ultra-slim slot-loading optical drive.
1) It's terrible compared to 1080p, which is the current standard. I expect current-gen technology in a 2000-3000$ device.
2) Maybe not the day after, but shows and movies are being released in 1080p-quality all the time. It's called Blu-Ray and I'd like to take advantage of it.
3) I have neither the money nor the space for a home theater setup. I have never owned a television and likely never will. I have been watching all of my movies on my Mac for close to a decade now. Why should this change? Why should I invest thousands into a home theater system when my MBP would be able to play Blu-Rays just fine, if it had the necessary drive?
In fact, most everyone I know uses their laptop for movie-watching. I know exactly one person my age who owns an HDTV. We're all students, so we have little money and space and our laptops are our primary media hubs. And Blu-Ray offers a lot of benefits, the first and foremost being amazing image quality that cannot yet be reached by digital downloads.
4) The upcoming Vaio Z has a fullHD 13" display... But I'll admit that this is somewhat niche. What isn't niche, however, is FullHD on 15" displays. The 15" MBP has a pitifully low resolution compared to its similarly priced PC-brethren. 1080p video looks amazing on an HP Envy, for example, which also has a 15" display. I guess one of the problems here is that Apple still hasn't implemented full resolution independence in OS X. Anyway, I'm not just expecting Apple to slap a BR-drive into the MBP and call it a day. I obviously expect them to update the screens to current quality standards so that we will be able to really take advantage of Blu-Ray's capabilities.
BTW, even at the 13"-MBP's puny resolution one would discern a leap in quality from DVD to BR.
And why would the battery crap out playing BR any sooner than playing a DVD?
5) You know, I'm all for the death of optical media and the removal of disc drives from Macs, but it's just not happening yet, for the exact reasons I outlined in my previous post(s). Apple is not providing us with a suitable alternative. This is not like the iMac launch when they left out the Floppy drive and only offered a CD-drive. That was a radical move too, but it paid off because Apple offered the superior and more modern technology - the CD-drive - and customers realized that they didn't need the Floppy. In this case, Apple is selling Macs with obsolete media capabilities that no one really likes - people like myself who want to watch movies on their MBPs dislike the Superdrive because it doesn't play BR, others would like to get rid of the Superdrive too because they don't watch movies on their laptops anway. Nobody is happy with the current situation! If Apple is indeed serious about abandoning optical media, as you theorize, they should simply DO IT ALREADY and start offering laptops without these drives and start selling digital media at 1080p all over the world. That would be a believable strategy. Instead, they're still offering downloads at terrible quality and they're still including the obsolete technology in their Macs (Superdrive) and pretending that there's nothing better around. I'm fine with Apple not giving me everything I want, but if they decide to omit the current standard for optical media from their computers, they had better be ready and willing to provide an alternative. They're not.
6) As far as I know, BR sales aren't bad when compared to DVD sales at the same point in their respective life-cycles.
Hahahaha, iTunes HD "almost as good as BD"? You're either blind or trolling. iTunes "HD" is not even proper 720p (it's heavily compressed).
Digital distribution is indeed the future. But it's a couple of years off - internet speeds are not sufficient, Apple is not offering content at an acceptable quality (no 1080p) and their digital distribution model is not even available outside the United States (no iTunes store outside the US sells movies). Get back to me when we all have 1GBps-connections and Apple is offering 1080p-quality files in iTunes stores all over the world; until then I want Blu-Ray.
trolling ?? f u
battle star galatica on itunes HD played on my 15'MBP last model sold is incredible quality
BD is fantastic no doubt on sci fi or over the top action movies
so big deal
no reason to put a fading format on macs
some one will encode for free very soon A BD quality format
that is why already BD is very very cheap and getting cheaper
YOU must be stupid to miss the secret words we all speak lately <<<digital files >>> get it ???
5 dollar pirate movies already are on flash drives
the movie studio/apple answer will be DIGITAL FILES IN A 264 plus format sold to us very cheap
8 to 12 dollars for HD units on flash drives or DL .
greet the future
having said that i will buy the extended play battle star galatica full series and 3 movies and 2 mini series on BD ina heart beat
i will not buy milli vanilla greatest hits on BD
Hahahaha, iTunes HD "almost as good as BD"? You're either blind or trolling. iTunes "HD" is not even proper 720p (it's heavily compressed).
Digital distribution is indeed the future. But it's a couple of years off - internet speeds are not sufficient, Apple is not offering content at an acceptable quality (no 1080p) and their digital distribution model is not even available outside the United States (no iTunes store outside the US sells movies). Get back to me when we all have 1GBps-connections and Apple is offering 1080p-quality files in iTunes stores all over the world; until then I want Blu-Ray.
you can't even tell 1080p from 720 unless your 15 ft away on a 52 in screen
and 1080 on a mac is a joke720 is over kill already
and amazon offers HD Movies for tv that look great on my 42"plasma 600MHz TV
Digital distribution is right now via net flix roku amazon hulu
greet the future
This is boring. Anyone want to seriously discuss Blu-Ray? Anyone?