I don?t understand why it?s always assumed it will be a Core-i3 if it?s a SFF CULV. I?d think Apple would go for the SFF CULV Core-i7, then i5, and possibly not even touch the Core-i3.
I and most other people assume that Apple is wanting the MBA to be cheaper than MBP 15"/17" machines. It doesn't make sense for Apple to undermine their higher end systems by putting a Core-i7 in it. It may be nearly the same performance, but the branding is going to be confusing. Maybe Apple will push the MBA back into $1800+ territory again. No problem with a Core-i7 there, but the MBA didn't do that well there. The MBA won't do well in terms of units unless it is priced really cheaply, and Apple isn't going to do that. So, it basically has to ride a niche at the $1299 to $1499 price points.
Anyways, I think Apple is going to market the MBA with its battery life performance. They have to be gunning for 10+ hours. They really can't play the CPU power or expandability game with the form factor. The only unique advantages it could really have are lighter weight and longer battery life. So, that have to scale everything else to meet that presumed goal, while maintaing comparable CPU/GPU performance to the previous model.
I and most other people assume that Apple is wanting the MBA to be cheaper than MBP 15"/17" machines. It doesn't make sense for Apple to undermine their higher end systems by putting a Core-i7 in it.
Yeah, that?s the thing? it doesn?t. The number after the "Core-i? doesn?t denote clockspeed of chip. As I?ve shown in my posts the only way to use a SFF CULV Core-i chip is to use a Core-i5 or −i7. Core-i3 isn?t even an option.
A calculator is not a 'computer' because it can't do anything beyond its existing purpose.
The only feature I've seen ascribed to a computer that the iPad doesn't currently have is an ability to program for it on the iPad itself. But I don't know of any accepted definition of a computer that requires this. If that were the case, then the original Mac wasn't a computer because you had to program for it on a Lisa.
I still haven't seen anyone make the case authoritatively that the iPad isn't a computer.
I'm still waiting.
What, write programs for calculator, thats unpossible
Yeah, that?s the thing? it doesn?t. The number after the "Core-i? doesn?t denote clockspeed of chip. As I?ve shown in my posts the only way to use a SFF CULV Core-i chip is to use a Core-i5 or −i7. Core-i3 isn?t even an option.
Apple can ask Intel to bin a run of i3 chips to fit in a 2 GHz 25 Watt envelope. That's essentially what they did with the first MBA.
Anyways, I don't think Apple would do it. It causes brand confusion. As long as the purported price point is below $1499, they won't do it.
A calculator is not a 'computer' because it can't do anything beyond its existing purpose.
The only feature I've seen ascribed to a computer that the iPad doesn't currently have is an ability to program for it on the iPad itself. But I don't know of any accepted definition of a computer that requires this. If that were the case, then the original Mac wasn't a computer because you had to program for it on a Lisa.
I still haven't seen anyone make the case authoritatively that the iPad isn't a computer.
I'm still waiting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cycomiko
What, write programs for calculator, thats unpossible
I had programmable HP calculator in the late 1970's.
I believe we will soon see an app like HyperCard on the iPad -- runs on the iPad and creates apps that run on the iPad.
Okay. The only benchmarks I could find show that the Core i7-620UM clocked at 1ghz, is actually faster at Cinebench than the MacBook Air Core 2 Duo 2.13ghz:
Core i7-620UM 18W does 2111, 4004 on Cinebench single and multi
Core 2 Duo 2.13ghz 17W does 2054, 3281 on Cinebench single and multi
If the Core i7 18W Arrandales' Intel GPU could do enough of what Mac OS X and iLife applications require, these might be a possibility in the 11.6" MacBook Air. Apple would also be saving space since they wouldn't have to allocate space for the Nvidia 320M. Based on Solipsism's Intel links below, even the most expensive Core i7 18W CPU is the same price as the 2.13GHZ Core 2 Duo 17W.
Interesting... The only question is how will the Intel GPU in the Core i7 18W series do under OS X tasks. Does anyone know how often the Intel graphics switch to the discreet graphics in the MacBook Pro 15"? Say, when rendering iMovie or editing adjustments to photos in iPhoto?
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
Core-i5 and Core-i7, which the Core-i7 being the preferred option considering the machine type and the chips currently used in the MBA.
The price is pretty negligible. In fact, I bet the SFF ULV C2D plus the Nvidia 320M costs more for parts than the Core-i7 with IntelHD IGP.
I and most other people assume that Apple is wanting the MBA to be cheaper than MBP 15"/17" machines. It doesn't make sense for Apple to undermine their higher end systems by putting a Core-i7 in it. It may be nearly the same performance, but the branding is going to be confusing. Maybe Apple will push the MBA back into $1800+ territory again. No problem with a Core-i7 there, but the MBA didn't do that well there. The MBA won't do well in terms of units unless it is priced really cheaply, and Apple isn't going to do that. So, it basically has to ride a niche at the $1299 to $1499 price points.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
Yeah, that’s the thing… it doesn’t. The number after the "Core-i” doesn’t denote clockspeed of chip. As I’ve shown in my posts the only way to use a SFF CULV Core-i chip is to use a Core-i5 or −i7. Core-i3 isn’t even an option.
It’ll fit if they use the 16:9 form factor. In fact, the width of the 12.1” 4:3 display is slightly less wide than the 11.6” 16:10 displays.
Also, if they use the 1280x800 resolution found in the current 13.3” MB/MBA/MBPs they will a PPI that is inline with the High-Resolution display options of the 15” and 17” MBPs and that of the 9.7” iPad.
I can agree with both posts. The point has always been that the Air, while a noble attempt, was no substitute for either a MBP or portability of a netbook. Certainly the weight saving was not enough to justify the price.
Getting tired of lugging around my MBP, along with its extra security worry (>$4000 with software) I bought a Sony X113 at discontinuation prices. It is very neat (black Kevlar body) and weighs less than the iPad or the optional keyboard for the iPad. It has 12' screen. With 64GB SSD, it has terrific battery life and plenty of inputs (2xUSB, 2xSD card slots), It is about the limit of a clamshell design that still has a keyboard perfectly acceptable to a touch-typist, which I am and do NOT want to sacrifice [note to others, you cannot touchtype on virtual screens; I type thousands of words a day and cannot tolerate anything other than the real thing]--so the iPad with keyboard and that L-shaped connector/support is not, so far, a good compromise.
Problem with the Sony is, as always, it is a PC. Damn thing takes forever to wake up from "sleep", as if it is doing a full boot (despite its SSD?)! And of course the non-multi-touch pad is very irritating to go back to once you are used to multi-touch. It serves the purpose for which I bought it: a very lightweight notepad for writing, surfing, emailing (and archiving from camera when travelling). But if there were a Mac equivalent I would have/would buy it in an instant.
Even better, if the new Mac Air-replacement has the iPad touchscreen etc I would pay appropriately! But it has to have USB & SD card slots.....
I think users are more positively affected by those first two over the last two, yet a recent AnandTech article reviewing a 13? MBP as a Windows machines pooh-poohs the 13? MBP for it?s continued use of the C2D at the current price point. What is odd about the article is that the reviewer triumphed how much better the MBP display was over everyone else?s display that was tested, how responsive that special Nvidia 320M GPU is and well built everything else. In the end his price point seems solely based on the CPU?s age, not it?s performance, not it?s cost from Intel compared to the Core-i chips, and not the quality or cost of any other component.
ASUS i5-540+GT335M Optimus vs MacBook13 (pages 4 and 5 of the article)
Futuremark and Cinebench scores of 2/3-3/4 of the i5
Video encoding slightly better than half
Futuremark 3D tests at about 60%
Game performance was typically 55-60% with a couple of games it pulled 75%
The battery in that system (page 6) even ends up being more efficient (min/WHr based on capacity) This still turns into longer actual charge times for the Mac of course.
Given all of the above and the fact that that ASUS system was typically the #1 or 2 system on pages 4 and 5, I dont' know how you can say that his final analysis was based entirely on the age of the cpu. Yes everything he praised is true and it is a good value for the money paid to Intel, but the performance is well behind comparable systems.
Okay. The only benchmarks I could find show that the Core i7-620UM clocked at 1ghz, is actually faster at Cinebench than the MacBook Air Core 2 Duo 2.13ghz:
Core i7-620UM 18W does 2111, 4004 on Cinebench single and multi
Core 2 Duo 2.13ghz 17W does 2054, 3281 on Cinebench single and multi
I benchmarked a 2.4GHz Core 2 Duo at 4723 multi-threaded so I reckon that 3281 is incorrect. Plus the GPU in the non-UM i7 gets under 2k for the 3D benchmark - the UM model is likely to be ~1500. The 320M scores 4600 so it's 2.5-3x faster graphics.
So by going the i-series route, all you do is significantly lose graphics performance and I'd estimate the CPU performance would come out the same or worse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008
If the Core i7 18W Arrandales' Intel GPU could do enough of what Mac OS X and iLife applications require, these might be a possibility in the 11.6" MacBook Air. Apple would also be saving space since they wouldn't have to allocate space for the Nvidia 320M.
I'm not convinced they're making an 11.6" model. We've seen a photo of the 13" and it had 2 chips in it. There's no way they would build a smaller 11.6" model with a UM i-series chip and have it be the only model in the entire lineup that can't run OpenCL on the GPU and drop so much GPU performance compared to the 13" model.
I'm not convinced they're making an 11.6" model. We've seen a photo of the 13" and it had 2 chips in it. There's no way they would build a smaller 11.6" model with a UM i-series chip and have it be the only model in the entire lineup that can't run OpenCL on the GPU and drop so much GPU performance compared to the 13" model.
Apple is making a netbook. Let that sink in, everyone. Or not, if 11.6" doesn't eventuate.
I get your points though... clouded, the future, is. This one will go down to the wire.
Standardizing the new Air around flash storage could also see the notebook sport incredibly fast boot times and "instant-on" capabilities when waking up from sleep, similar to iPhones and iPads. Although the existing Air is offered with a SSD drive, the base model includes a HDD, impeding Apple's ability to offer such technology across its inaugural design of the notebook.
Ummm.
``Instant-on' ' capabilities of a device depend more on the type of the OS, than on the type of storage inside. Mobile devices are not supposed to reboot often and don't run any applications, which can enter infinite loops.
MBA on the contrary is so far running the Mac OS, which --- while being relatively stable --- is still under real threat of clumsily written and sometimes malicious third-party code.
They though may put the A4 inside and then boot in the iOS...
Okay. The only benchmarks I could find show that the Core i7-620UM clocked at 1ghz, is actually faster at Cinebench than the MacBook Air Core 2 Duo 2.13ghz:
That is virtually useless as most people will not be doing video processing on an 11" computer.
Quote:
Core i7-620UM 18W does 2111, 4004 on Cinebench single and multi
Core 2 Duo 2.13ghz 17W does 2054, 3281 on Cinebench single and multi
The i series chips only have a very modest (less than 10%) improvement over the Core 2 chips integer wise. That is clock for clock if you are lucky. i Series has seen improvements to the floating point unit and vast improvement to vector or SIMD capabilities. The question you have to ask your self is so? Really when looking at an ultra thing small laptop is this sort of performance what is important to most users? How many AIR users use the device for this sort of work and how many are inclined to use an even smaller machine for this sort of work.
Quote:
If the Core i7 18W Arrandales' Intel GPU could do enough of what Mac OS X and iLife applications require, these might be a possibility in the 11.6" MacBook Air.
I would be extremely surprised to see any i series chip in such an AIR. To many compromises and to much power. Most importantly where is the OpenCL support. That one little feature is key to the future of Mac OS/X, without support for OpenCL Apple would be forced to run everything through the i86 cpus.
This one little issue, OpenCL, is why I think AMD's Zacate Fusion product has a chance on this platform. Yeah the CPU performance isn't outstanding but the big concern is over all capability and long battery life.
Quote:
Apple would also be saving space since they wouldn't have to allocate space for the Nvidia 320M.
True but then they have to live with crappy Intel video!
Quote:
Based on Solipsism's Intel links below, even the most expensive Core i7 18W CPU is the same price as the 2.13GHZ Core 2 Duo 17W.
I doubt Apple pays those prices. When buying by the hundreds of thousands you do get discounts.
Quote:
Interesting... The only question is how will the Intel GPU in the Core i7 18W series do under OS X tasks.
Interesting? Come on man we already know the answer to that one.
Quote:
Does anyone know how often the Intel graphics switch to the discreet graphics in the MacBook Pro 15"? Say, when rendering iMovie or editing adjustments to photos in iPhoto?
Depends upon your software. Besides Apples goal was to make that switching transparent so you have to go out of your way to know. In any event you don't want Mac OS/X to be held back by Intel Integrated GPU technology when alternatives are available.
Also consider this, what does the performance look like with that i7 18 watt CPU when running single threaded or modestly threaded software that doesn't afford itself GPU acceleration? In a way they are suckering you in with references to Cinebench which matches up well with the i series architecture. Instead look for benchmarks that cover more common software on such a platform.
Apple is making a netbook. Let that sink in, everyone. Or not, if 11.6" doesn't eventuate.
Which brings up the question of why they would even think about an i series processor on the platform. A netbook, sub compact laptop or whatever you want to call it needs a processor solution suitable for the niche. They do need to address the issue of performance but there are now products on the market that address that very well (Fusion) so why not?
Quote:
I get your points though... clouded, the future, is. This one will go down to the wire.
I know I'm a promoter right now of the AMD Zacate Fusion processor in this product, but of course I have no idea what Apple is up to. So as you say down to the wire. Whatever they offer up will be interesting to say the least. While we have been focused on the computing part of the platform it will also be interesting to see how the product develops outside of the CPU.
Comments
11.6 Form Factor?
I thought Apple said they weren't going to do netbooks.
If a "netbook" is a cheap, crippled laptop, then no, they are not doing a netbook. It won't cost $299.
Have any legitimate reasons to dislike glossy, or did you just want to take a potshot at me?
No I don't have any legitimate reasons to dislike glossy because you say so.
Now piss off to macrumors with your kin.
I don?t understand why it?s always assumed it will be a Core-i3 if it?s a SFF CULV. I?d think Apple would go for the SFF CULV Core-i7, then i5, and possibly not even touch the Core-i3.
I and most other people assume that Apple is wanting the MBA to be cheaper than MBP 15"/17" machines. It doesn't make sense for Apple to undermine their higher end systems by putting a Core-i7 in it. It may be nearly the same performance, but the branding is going to be confusing. Maybe Apple will push the MBA back into $1800+ territory again. No problem with a Core-i7 there, but the MBA didn't do that well there. The MBA won't do well in terms of units unless it is priced really cheaply, and Apple isn't going to do that. So, it basically has to ride a niche at the $1299 to $1499 price points.
Anyways, I think Apple is going to market the MBA with its battery life performance. They have to be gunning for 10+ hours. They really can't play the CPU power or expandability game with the form factor. The only unique advantages it could really have are lighter weight and longer battery life. So, that have to scale everything else to meet that presumed goal, while maintaing comparable CPU/GPU performance to the previous model.
In the post-netbook world, I don't think these are going to sell well. a $1000 premium to run Mac OS X?
I and most other people assume that Apple is wanting the MBA to be cheaper than MBP 15"/17" machines. It doesn't make sense for Apple to undermine their higher end systems by putting a Core-i7 in it.
Yeah, that?s the thing? it doesn?t. The number after the "Core-i? doesn?t denote clockspeed of chip. As I?ve shown in my posts the only way to use a SFF CULV Core-i chip is to use a Core-i5 or −i7. Core-i3 isn?t even an option.
Any chance it will have Retina Display?
Define Retina Display.
Define Retina Display.
300+ ppi, so no, it won't.
Consider me less than optimistic on pricing. The $700 Mini has no keyboard, mouse or screen or battery.
In the post-netbook world, I don't think these are going to sell well. a $1000 premium to run Mac OS X?
I agree. As much as I'd love to have a smaller MacBook, I'm not likely to pay what Apple is likely to charge for one.
A calculator is not a 'computer' because it can't do anything beyond its existing purpose.
The only feature I've seen ascribed to a computer that the iPad doesn't currently have is an ability to program for it on the iPad itself. But I don't know of any accepted definition of a computer that requires this. If that were the case, then the original Mac wasn't a computer because you had to program for it on a Lisa.
I still haven't seen anyone make the case authoritatively that the iPad isn't a computer.
I'm still waiting.
What, write programs for calculator, thats unpossible
Yeah, that?s the thing? it doesn?t. The number after the "Core-i? doesn?t denote clockspeed of chip. As I?ve shown in my posts the only way to use a SFF CULV Core-i chip is to use a Core-i5 or −i7. Core-i3 isn?t even an option.
Apple can ask Intel to bin a run of i3 chips to fit in a 2 GHz 25 Watt envelope. That's essentially what they did with the first MBA.
Anyways, I don't think Apple would do it. It causes brand confusion. As long as the purported price point is below $1499, they won't do it.
A calculator is not a 'computer' because it can't do anything beyond its existing purpose.
The only feature I've seen ascribed to a computer that the iPad doesn't currently have is an ability to program for it on the iPad itself. But I don't know of any accepted definition of a computer that requires this. If that were the case, then the original Mac wasn't a computer because you had to program for it on a Lisa.
I still haven't seen anyone make the case authoritatively that the iPad isn't a computer.
I'm still waiting.
What, write programs for calculator, thats unpossible
I had programmable HP calculator in the late 1970's.
I believe we will soon see an app like HyperCard on the iPad -- runs on the iPad and creates apps that run on the iPad.
.
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Mobile-...st.2436.0.html
Core i7-620UM 18W does 2111, 4004 on Cinebench single and multi
Core 2 Duo 2.13ghz 17W does 2054, 3281 on Cinebench single and multi
If the Core i7 18W Arrandales' Intel GPU could do enough of what Mac OS X and iLife applications require, these might be a possibility in the 11.6" MacBook Air. Apple would also be saving space since they wouldn't have to allocate space for the Nvidia 320M. Based on Solipsism's Intel links below, even the most expensive Core i7 18W CPU is the same price as the 2.13GHZ Core 2 Duo 17W.
Interesting... The only question is how will the Intel GPU in the Core i7 18W series do under OS X tasks. Does anyone know how often the Intel graphics switch to the discreet graphics in the MacBook Pro 15"? Say, when rendering iMovie or editing adjustments to photos in iPhoto?
Core-i5 and Core-i7, which the Core-i7 being the preferred option considering the machine type and the chips currently used in the MBA.
The price is pretty negligible. In fact, I bet the SFF ULV C2D plus the Nvidia 320M costs more for parts than the Core-i7 with IntelHD IGP.
Core-i3 (1), Core-i5 (3), Core-i7 (4) at18W TDP and non-embedded (Total 8): Now compare with the 2 SFF ULV C2Ds that Apple currently uses (Total 2):
I and most other people assume that Apple is wanting the MBA to be cheaper than MBP 15"/17" machines. It doesn't make sense for Apple to undermine their higher end systems by putting a Core-i7 in it. It may be nearly the same performance, but the branding is going to be confusing. Maybe Apple will push the MBA back into $1800+ territory again. No problem with a Core-i7 there, but the MBA didn't do that well there. The MBA won't do well in terms of units unless it is priced really cheaply, and Apple isn't going to do that. So, it basically has to ride a niche at the $1299 to $1499 price points.
Yeah, that’s the thing… it doesn’t. The number after the "Core-i” doesn’t denote clockspeed of chip. As I’ve shown in my posts the only way to use a SFF CULV Core-i chip is to use a Core-i5 or −i7. Core-i3 isn’t even an option.
It’ll fit if they use the 16:9 form factor. In fact, the width of the 12.1” 4:3 display is slightly less wide than the 11.6” 16:10 displays.
Also, if they use the 1280x800 resolution found in the current 13.3” MB/MBA/MBPs they will a PPI that is inline with the High-Resolution display options of the 15” and 17” MBPs and that of the 9.7” iPad.
I can agree with both posts. The point has always been that the Air, while a noble attempt, was no substitute for either a MBP or portability of a netbook. Certainly the weight saving was not enough to justify the price.
Getting tired of lugging around my MBP, along with its extra security worry (>$4000 with software) I bought a Sony X113 at discontinuation prices. It is very neat (black Kevlar body) and weighs less than the iPad or the optional keyboard for the iPad. It has 12' screen. With 64GB SSD, it has terrific battery life and plenty of inputs (2xUSB, 2xSD card slots), It is about the limit of a clamshell design that still has a keyboard perfectly acceptable to a touch-typist, which I am and do NOT want to sacrifice [note to others, you cannot touchtype on virtual screens; I type thousands of words a day and cannot tolerate anything other than the real thing]--so the iPad with keyboard and that L-shaped connector/support is not, so far, a good compromise.
Problem with the Sony is, as always, it is a PC. Damn thing takes forever to wake up from "sleep", as if it is doing a full boot (despite its SSD?)! And of course the non-multi-touch pad is very irritating to go back to once you are used to multi-touch. It serves the purpose for which I bought it: a very lightweight notepad for writing, surfing, emailing (and archiving from camera when travelling). But if there were a Mac equivalent I would have/would buy it in an instant.
Even better, if the new Mac Air-replacement has the iPad touchscreen etc I would pay appropriately! But it has to have USB & SD card slots.....
I think users are more positively affected by those first two over the last two, yet a recent AnandTech article reviewing a 13? MBP as a Windows machines pooh-poohs the 13? MBP for it?s continued use of the C2D at the current price point. What is odd about the article is that the reviewer triumphed how much better the MBP display was over everyone else?s display that was tested, how responsive that special Nvidia 320M GPU is and well built everything else. In the end his price point seems solely based on the CPU?s age, not it?s performance, not it?s cost from Intel compared to the Core-i chips, and not the quality or cost of any other component.
ASUS i5-540+GT335M Optimus vs MacBook13 (pages 4 and 5 of the article)
Futuremark and Cinebench scores of 2/3-3/4 of the i5
Video encoding slightly better than half
Futuremark 3D tests at about 60%
Game performance was typically 55-60% with a couple of games it pulled 75%
The battery in that system (page 6) even ends up being more efficient (min/WHr based on capacity) This still turns into longer actual charge times for the Mac of course.
Given all of the above and the fact that that ASUS system was typically the #1 or 2 system on pages 4 and 5, I dont' know how you can say that his final analysis was based entirely on the age of the cpu. Yes everything he praised is true and it is a good value for the money paid to Intel, but the performance is well behind comparable systems.
Okay. The only benchmarks I could find show that the Core i7-620UM clocked at 1ghz, is actually faster at Cinebench than the MacBook Air Core 2 Duo 2.13ghz:
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Mobile-...st.2436.0.html
Core i7-620UM 18W does 2111, 4004 on Cinebench single and multi
Core 2 Duo 2.13ghz 17W does 2054, 3281 on Cinebench single and multi
I benchmarked a 2.4GHz Core 2 Duo at 4723 multi-threaded so I reckon that 3281 is incorrect. Plus the GPU in the non-UM i7 gets under 2k for the 3D benchmark - the UM model is likely to be ~1500. The 320M scores 4600 so it's 2.5-3x faster graphics.
So by going the i-series route, all you do is significantly lose graphics performance and I'd estimate the CPU performance would come out the same or worse.
If the Core i7 18W Arrandales' Intel GPU could do enough of what Mac OS X and iLife applications require, these might be a possibility in the 11.6" MacBook Air. Apple would also be saving space since they wouldn't have to allocate space for the Nvidia 320M.
I'm not convinced they're making an 11.6" model. We've seen a photo of the 13" and it had 2 chips in it. There's no way they would build a smaller 11.6" model with a UM i-series chip and have it be the only model in the entire lineup that can't run OpenCL on the GPU and drop so much GPU performance compared to the 13" model.
I'm not convinced they're making an 11.6" model. We've seen a photo of the 13" and it had 2 chips in it. There's no way they would build a smaller 11.6" model with a UM i-series chip and have it be the only model in the entire lineup that can't run OpenCL on the GPU and drop so much GPU performance compared to the 13" model.
Apple is making a netbook. Let that sink in, everyone. Or not, if 11.6" doesn't eventuate.
I get your points though... clouded, the future, is. This one will go down to the wire.
Standardizing the new Air around flash storage could also see the notebook sport incredibly fast boot times and "instant-on" capabilities when waking up from sleep, similar to iPhones and iPads. Although the existing Air is offered with a SSD drive, the base model includes a HDD, impeding Apple's ability to offer such technology across its inaugural design of the notebook.
Ummm.
``Instant-on' ' capabilities of a device depend more on the type of the OS, than on the type of storage inside. Mobile devices are not supposed to reboot often and don't run any applications, which can enter infinite loops.
MBA on the contrary is so far running the Mac OS, which --- while being relatively stable --- is still under real threat of clumsily written and sometimes malicious third-party code.
They though may put the A4 inside and then boot in the iOS...
Okay. The only benchmarks I could find show that the Core i7-620UM clocked at 1ghz, is actually faster at Cinebench than the MacBook Air Core 2 Duo 2.13ghz:
That is virtually useless as most people will not be doing video processing on an 11" computer.
Core i7-620UM 18W does 2111, 4004 on Cinebench single and multi
Core 2 Duo 2.13ghz 17W does 2054, 3281 on Cinebench single and multi
The i series chips only have a very modest (less than 10%) improvement over the Core 2 chips integer wise. That is clock for clock if you are lucky. i Series has seen improvements to the floating point unit and vast improvement to vector or SIMD capabilities. The question you have to ask your self is so? Really when looking at an ultra thing small laptop is this sort of performance what is important to most users? How many AIR users use the device for this sort of work and how many are inclined to use an even smaller machine for this sort of work.
If the Core i7 18W Arrandales' Intel GPU could do enough of what Mac OS X and iLife applications require, these might be a possibility in the 11.6" MacBook Air.
I would be extremely surprised to see any i series chip in such an AIR. To many compromises and to much power. Most importantly where is the OpenCL support. That one little feature is key to the future of Mac OS/X, without support for OpenCL Apple would be forced to run everything through the i86 cpus.
This one little issue, OpenCL, is why I think AMD's Zacate Fusion product has a chance on this platform. Yeah the CPU performance isn't outstanding but the big concern is over all capability and long battery life.
Apple would also be saving space since they wouldn't have to allocate space for the Nvidia 320M.
True but then they have to live with crappy Intel video!
Based on Solipsism's Intel links below, even the most expensive Core i7 18W CPU is the same price as the 2.13GHZ Core 2 Duo 17W.
I doubt Apple pays those prices. When buying by the hundreds of thousands you do get discounts.
Interesting... The only question is how will the Intel GPU in the Core i7 18W series do under OS X tasks.
Interesting? Come on man we already know the answer to that one.
Does anyone know how often the Intel graphics switch to the discreet graphics in the MacBook Pro 15"? Say, when rendering iMovie or editing adjustments to photos in iPhoto?
Depends upon your software. Besides Apples goal was to make that switching transparent so you have to go out of your way to know. In any event you don't want Mac OS/X to be held back by Intel Integrated GPU technology when alternatives are available.
Also consider this, what does the performance look like with that i7 18 watt CPU when running single threaded or modestly threaded software that doesn't afford itself GPU acceleration? In a way they are suckering you in with references to Cinebench which matches up well with the i series architecture. Instead look for benchmarks that cover more common software on such a platform.
Apple is making a netbook. Let that sink in, everyone. Or not, if 11.6" doesn't eventuate.
Which brings up the question of why they would even think about an i series processor on the platform. A netbook, sub compact laptop or whatever you want to call it needs a processor solution suitable for the niche. They do need to address the issue of performance but there are now products on the market that address that very well (Fusion) so why not?
I get your points though... clouded, the future, is. This one will go down to the wire.
I know I'm a promoter right now of the AMD Zacate Fusion processor in this product, but of course I have no idea what Apple is up to. So as you say down to the wire. Whatever they offer up will be interesting to say the least. While we have been focused on the computing part of the platform it will also be interesting to see how the product develops outside of the CPU.