The point is that the key to power efficiency is in the power management software and drivers. Not what the base OS is. That iOS/OSX is power efficient has zero to do with any unix heritage but the attention that Apple has given to power management. There is no inherent power advantage in being unix based vs nt or winCE based.
Well yes for the most part but there are details to consider. It is completely possible for one OS to be more efficient than another imply due to the way it is written and how much overhead is involved in support of legacy software. Also the OS and the drivers / power management software must communicate it isn't like anyone component works in a vacuum.
I tend to agree with you but on the other hand I don't think you are entirely correct. This simply on the basis that an OS uses CPU cycles and the OS that uses them most efficiently should be less power hungry. However i'm not going to dive into the tar pit over which is which in this case. In the end a good part of the equation is directly related to attention to detail which is of course one of Apples strong points.
As expected, Sandy Bridge has great CPU, but the GPU is still....
RUBBISH, PLAIN AND SIMPLE.
No way even the lowest end MacBook Air would have Sandy Bridge-only graphics. End of story.
(POST NO.001 For Reference)
My concern is how it compares to the Nvidia 320M in Mac notebooks. IOW, will it be good enough to warrant being the only GPU in the future, smaller Mac notebooks?
Future MacBooks set to arrive in 2011 will rely on Intel's forthcoming Sandy Bridge processor, which means Nvidia's graphics processors will not be included in at least some models 13 inches and under, according to a new report.
Citing anonymous sources, Cnet on Thursday said that MacBook models with screen sizes of 13 inches and under will switch to Sandy Bridge-only graphics. Apple's larger, higher-end MacBooks, with screen sizes of 15 and 17 inches, will allegedly rely on GPUs from AMD.
"Adoption of Sandy Bridge in popular small MacBook designs would constitute one of the strongest endorsements of Intel technology since Apple made the seminal transition from IBM-Motorola PowerPC chips to Intel back in 2005," the report said. "And a recognition that Intel's graphics technology, while maybe not the best, now offers the best price-performance for low-end MacBooks."
Starting in 2010 with its Arrandale processors, Intel began building in the major northbridge chipset memory controller components to its chips. The architectural changes in Arrandale, along with a lawsuit, forced Nvidia to halt the development of future chipsets.
Previously, Apple has not typically relied on Intel's graphics solutions for its notebooks. This year, in its updated MacBook Pro line, Apple introduced a proprietary automated graphics switching solution that dynamically switches between Intel's integrated graphics processor and Nvidia's discrete graphics chip.
For the new MacBook Air and 13-inch MacBook Pro, Apple relies on older Core 2 Duo processors because Nvidia is still capable of creating chipsets for use with those processors. But if Nvidia loses its legal battle with Intel, it would not be able to make chipsets for the current Core i series or the forthcoming Sandy Bridge line of processors.
Nathan Brookwood, principal analyst at Insight64, told Cnet he believes that Apple's lower-end MacBooks are "sitting ducks" for AMD's Fusion technology, which combines the company's central processors and graphics processors. In April, AppleInsider reported that Apple and AMD were in advanced discussions to potentially adopt AMD processors in at least some of its MacBook line.
Intel will formally unveil its Sandy Bridge processors at the Consumer Electronics Show on Jan. 5, 2011. The company's chief executive, Paul Otellini, has said that he is "more excited by Sandy Bridge" than any other product the company has launched in years.
Do you really think there is a difference if you are an average computer user between sandy bridge and core2 duo processors? what is this big deal?
Do you really think there is a difference if you are an average computer user between sandy bridge and core2 duo processors? what is this big deal?
This is due to so much software these days being tied to good GPU performance. Much of the Mac GUI is accelerated on the GPU so that is an issue. Further you have the fact that even an average computer user these days makes use of a game or two or other software that depends upon the GPU.
Given the above we have to realize there is a wide range of what is acceptable to the "average user" if there is such a thing. The Mac Book AIRs have gained strong acceptance even though they are not outstanding graphics machines simply because they fill the needs for one class of user. For the MBP however most people really aren't all that happy with the current GPU's so obviously they would have a different need.
In the long run I can still see Apple going AMD here. Mainly because their vision just seems to be better aligned with Apples. At least in some models because for many users the GPU is really more important than the CPU performance. In the end AIRs demonstrate that people will buy lower performance CPU's if the overall feel of the machine is good and the GPU has a whole lot to do with a machines feel.
Sadly it looks like a long wait (another month?) until we know for sure what is up.
As expected, Sandy Bridge has great CPU, but the GPU is still....
RUBBISH, PLAIN AND SIMPLE.
No way even the lowest end MacBook Air would have Sandy Bridge-only graphics. End of story.
(POST NO.001 For Reference)
They aren't all that great but if Apple doesn't go AMD I can see them using this chip in Mac Books. Maybe even in Minis but the chip is useless for anything called a MBP.
Comments
The point is that the key to power efficiency is in the power management software and drivers. Not what the base OS is. That iOS/OSX is power efficient has zero to do with any unix heritage but the attention that Apple has given to power management. There is no inherent power advantage in being unix based vs nt or winCE based.
Well yes for the most part but there are details to consider. It is completely possible for one OS to be more efficient than another imply due to the way it is written and how much overhead is involved in support of legacy software. Also the OS and the drivers / power management software must communicate it isn't like anyone component works in a vacuum.
I tend to agree with you but on the other hand I don't think you are entirely correct. This simply on the basis that an OS uses CPU cycles and the OS that uses them most efficiently should be less power hungry. However i'm not going to dive into the tar pit over which is which in this case. In the end a good part of the equation is directly related to attention to detail which is of course one of Apples strong points.
As expected, Sandy Bridge has great CPU, but the GPU is still....
RUBBISH, PLAIN AND SIMPLE.
No way even the lowest end MacBook Air would have Sandy Bridge-only graphics. End of story.
(POST NO.001 For Reference)
Well, the benchmarks are out at Anandtech (http://www.anandtech.com/show/4083/t...i3-2100-tested)
As expected, Sandy Bridge has great CPU, but the GPU is still....
RUBBISH, PLAIN AND SIMPLE.
No way even the lowest end MacBook Air would have Sandy Bridge-only graphics. End of story.
(POST NO.001 For Reference)
My concern is how it compares to the Nvidia 320M in Mac notebooks. IOW, will it be good enough to warrant being the only GPU in the future, smaller Mac notebooks?
Future MacBooks set to arrive in 2011 will rely on Intel's forthcoming Sandy Bridge processor, which means Nvidia's graphics processors will not be included in at least some models 13 inches and under, according to a new report.
Citing anonymous sources, Cnet on Thursday said that MacBook models with screen sizes of 13 inches and under will switch to Sandy Bridge-only graphics. Apple's larger, higher-end MacBooks, with screen sizes of 15 and 17 inches, will allegedly rely on GPUs from AMD.
"Adoption of Sandy Bridge in popular small MacBook designs would constitute one of the strongest endorsements of Intel technology since Apple made the seminal transition from IBM-Motorola PowerPC chips to Intel back in 2005," the report said. "And a recognition that Intel's graphics technology, while maybe not the best, now offers the best price-performance for low-end MacBooks."
Starting in 2010 with its Arrandale processors, Intel began building in the major northbridge chipset memory controller components to its chips. The architectural changes in Arrandale, along with a lawsuit, forced Nvidia to halt the development of future chipsets.
Previously, Apple has not typically relied on Intel's graphics solutions for its notebooks. This year, in its updated MacBook Pro line, Apple introduced a proprietary automated graphics switching solution that dynamically switches between Intel's integrated graphics processor and Nvidia's discrete graphics chip.
For the new MacBook Air and 13-inch MacBook Pro, Apple relies on older Core 2 Duo processors because Nvidia is still capable of creating chipsets for use with those processors. But if Nvidia loses its legal battle with Intel, it would not be able to make chipsets for the current Core i series or the forthcoming Sandy Bridge line of processors.
Nathan Brookwood, principal analyst at Insight64, told Cnet he believes that Apple's lower-end MacBooks are "sitting ducks" for AMD's Fusion technology, which combines the company's central processors and graphics processors. In April, AppleInsider reported that Apple and AMD were in advanced discussions to potentially adopt AMD processors in at least some of its MacBook line.
Intel will formally unveil its Sandy Bridge processors at the Consumer Electronics Show on Jan. 5, 2011. The company's chief executive, Paul Otellini, has said that he is "more excited by Sandy Bridge" than any other product the company has launched in years.
Do you really think there is a difference if you are an average computer user between sandy bridge and core2 duo processors? what is this big deal?
Do you really think there is a difference if you are an average computer user between sandy bridge and core2 duo processors? what is this big deal?
This is due to so much software these days being tied to good GPU performance. Much of the Mac GUI is accelerated on the GPU so that is an issue. Further you have the fact that even an average computer user these days makes use of a game or two or other software that depends upon the GPU.
Given the above we have to realize there is a wide range of what is acceptable to the "average user" if there is such a thing. The Mac Book AIRs have gained strong acceptance even though they are not outstanding graphics machines simply because they fill the needs for one class of user. For the MBP however most people really aren't all that happy with the current GPU's so obviously they would have a different need.
In the long run I can still see Apple going AMD here. Mainly because their vision just seems to be better aligned with Apples. At least in some models because for many users the GPU is really more important than the CPU performance. In the end AIRs demonstrate that people will buy lower performance CPU's if the overall feel of the machine is good and the GPU has a whole lot to do with a machines feel.
Sadly it looks like a long wait (another month?) until we know for sure what is up.
Well, the benchmarks are out at Anandtech (http://www.anandtech.com/show/4083/t...i3-2100-tested)
As expected, Sandy Bridge has great CPU, but the GPU is still....
RUBBISH, PLAIN AND SIMPLE.
No way even the lowest end MacBook Air would have Sandy Bridge-only graphics. End of story.
(POST NO.001 For Reference)
They aren't all that great but if Apple doesn't go AMD I can see them using this chip in Mac Books. Maybe even in Minis but the chip is useless for anything called a MBP.