The 2.3GHz Sandy Bridge should be about as fast as my 2.66GHz 2010 15" MacBook Pro. I think most MacBook Air buyers, whether new to Apple or old-timers, would be happy with such performance. Regardless, Ivy Bridge will bring quad-core 25W CPUs in 2012.
Well we need to see those ULV machines out in the wild to know how they will perform. Sandy Bridge chips can run extremely hot when loaded, so I'm not at all sure how they will perform in an AIR.
Quote:
I'm not convinced that any extra thickness would be needed, but would not complain about an extra millimeter if needed. I can't imagine two millimeters being needed for additional stiffness.
It doesn't take much to up the volume. An extra mm or two in battery compartment thickness could add up to a sizable gain in battery capacity. In any event I'm not at all worried about a mm or two has it wouldn't even be noticed in a 15" platform.
Quote:
Long-term, the trend is toward integration of everything, including the GPU. Within a few years, the integrated GPUs will give as much performance as anyone needs. I don't think Sandy Bridge will include sufficient graphics performance for many users, but Ivy Bridge might.
AMD is already there, they have a very good GPU in their Fusion product. Ivy Bridge is supposedly much better but we will have to see what Intel actually delivers.
Quote:
This imminent introduction of Sandy Bridge MacBook Air models will be a good opportunity to add a 15" model to the line, but not the only opportunity.
True! On the other hand it would have some synergy with Lion to really drive sales.
As such we are talking about slow processors to begin with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjteix
What Fusion processor would that be?
The DC 1.9GHz (A4-3300M) or the QC 1.5GHz (A8-3500M) both at 35W? With phenon-based cores not even on par with C2D cores at the same clock. You would give up a lot of cpu performance and a lot of battery life (compared to LV Core i7-26xxM cpus).
Actually I like the quad core A8 myself. Such a processor would be a big jump in performance over the current AIRs. AMD was able to extract a 6% performance gain out of them so that is a good start. Then you have four cores which is a big plus. Ad the ability to speed step and you are well out in front of the current pokey C2D.
Not to mention the GPU is far better than the Intel offering and it runs at lower power. Of course the GPU supports OpenCL which is huge for the apps that support it. Also the AMD chip supports more modern 3D features and more importantly doesn't barf on 3D.
All of this from a processor that consumes 35 watts and doesn't have the problems intel has with peak power usage.
Quote:
I' rather have a DC 1.8GHz Core i7-2677M (17W) + a dedicated gpu like the 6490M (10-15W) of the entry-level 15" MBP, in an hypothetical 15" MBA, than any of AMD's apu models at 35W. And if they can put a DC 2.3GHz Core i7-2649M (25W) + a 6490M (35-40W total), even better.
you would likely end up with a machine that performs like crap and eats batteries like crazy. It surprises a lot of people but AMD made great advances in power usage with this chips. Further Intels power numbers and AMDs are not the same, intel can and will peak at a lot higher power levels than the labeled power. Add to that the power cost of communicating with the GPU and it's RAM and you end up using a lot of power.
Quote:
Oh, and Intel's cores can run OpenCL code just fine.
No they don't. You can't run OpenCL code on SB's GPU, the last OpenCL libs I saw from Intel where for OpenCL on the CPU. That is a fairly useless feature if you ask me.
with a Radeon HD 6490M/256MB, and a 2nd SSD blade slot (if possible)
$1600 is way to much for a 15" AIR.
You are probably close with respect to configurations though. I'm not sure Apple is ready to support two chip suppliers. I honestly believe though that AMD has the better chip. In the end P better GPU performance is more important than CPU performance on these machines. Even then we would see a CPU boost over the current machines. Beyond all of that a Fusion based machine should draw less power on average.
To bad this isn't a public forum where I could ask for a show of hands. The question to ask would be how many AIR owners purchased their machines for CPU performance. Not many I would suspect.
I disagree emphatically. The current 15" MacBook Pro (which for me is a much less desirable machine than our hypothetical 15" MacBook Air) starts at $1799. A 2.13GHz 13" MacBook Air with 4GB currently costs $1799. $1799 used to be the entry-level price for the most basic 13" MacBook Air.
In my opinion $1599 would be a great price for a low-end 15" MacBook Air. I would not hesitate to pay $2499 for a better configured 15" MacBook Air with:
- 2.3GHz Core i7-2649M Sandy Bridge
- 4GB RAM
- 256GB SSD
- 1680x1050 (or higher)
- backlit keyboard
- Thunderbolt
- 2x USB
- SD card slot
Note that I did not include a discreet GPU in the list of features for which I would pay $2499. I would prefer a discreet GPU, but I would much rather live with integrated Sandy Bridge graphics than have to lug around an optical brick.
Well you are free to do so but you'd be wrong. Especially considering that such machines offer little in the way of features over an 11" AIR. The bigger screens don't cost that much.
Quote:
The current 15" MacBook Pro (which for me is a much less desirable machine than our hypothetical 15" MacBook Air) starts at $1799.
Yes and that is a feature rich machine. AIR is not so rich in features and can hardly justify the high price on the 13" machine now.
Quote:
A 2.13GHz 13" MacBook Air with 4GB currently costs $1799. $1799 used to be the entry-level price for the most basic 13" MacBook Air.
yes but is that price really justified? To put it bluntly I'm getting a little tired of inflating Apples margins because I want a machine with additional capabilities over the base model. IPad here is the worst considering what they charge for more flash. However the thought is the same, there is nothing extra in that 13" AIR that justifies the huge increase in pricing.
Quote:
In my opinion $1599 would be a great price for a low-end 15" MacBook Air.
I'm sorry but $1600 is not low end in anybodies book.
Quote:
I would not hesitate to pay $2499 for a better configured 15" MacBook Air with:
Apple must love you.
Quote:
- 2.3GHz Core i7-2649M Sandy Bridge
- 4GB RAM
- 256GB SSD
- 1680x1050 (or higher)
- backlit keyboard
- Thunderbolt
- 2x USB
- SD card slot
You do realize that is a run of the mill configuration
Quote:
Note that I did not include a discreet GPU in the list of features for which I would pay $2499. I would prefer a discreet GPU, but I would much rather live with integrated Sandy Bridge graphics than have to lug around an optical brick.
Your willingness to part with your money is shocking. Basically you are saying to Apple build this machine and I'll pay whatever you want It doesn't matter if the value equation is screwed up you just say here's my money - take it.
Frankly I was in the Apple store three days ago and still find it shocking that people would pay so much for the 13" AIR. For what a screen that is just a hair bigger and a slightly fast processor. Apple is basically offering up the technology of an $800 laptop for a $1000 more. No I would be the first to admit there is value in Apples higher quality chassis and general build quality but that might be worth $500 not $1000.
is that price really justified? To put it bluntly I'm getting a little tired of inflating Apples margins because I want a machine with additional capabilities over the base model. IPad here is the worst considering what they charge for more flash. However the thought is the same, there is nothing extra in that 13" AIR that justifies the huge increase in pricing.
Apple's prices are justified by the fact that millions of buyers are willing to pay Apple's prices. Nothing else could possibly justify any other price. Apple's cost of production is irrelevant, so long as it is below the market retail price.
Is it worth $1000 to me to reduce the weight of my laptop by 500 grams? Yes, absolutely worth it.
Apple's prices are justified by the fact that millions of buyers are willing to pay Apple's prices. Nothing else could possibly justify any other price. Apple's cost of production is irrelevant, so long as it is below the market retail price.
Is it worth $1000 to me to reduce the weight of my laptop by 500 grams? Yes, absolutely worth it.
Sorry but I need more out of my $1000 than a slightly lighter laptop. I don't mind that Apple makes a reasonable profit but I do mind when the price on the upper end models is all out of proportion to the actual value of the added circuitry. Things like paying 200 dollars for a faster CPU when Intel only charges 25 to 50 dollars more is a little hard to take. Then we have Apple outlandish pricing on RAM.
Of course the reasonable thing to do for most Apple hardware is to buy the base machine and upgrade yourself. However with AIR you run into kinda of a brick wall trying to do that. The thing is one gets the feeling they are being taken advantage of with Apples pricing and that can lead to a simmering disgust with Apple in general.
How likely is a 15" MacBook Air or is this thread pure speculation?
The more I read about such a machine, the more I want one. It would be perfect in so many ways. Perhaps Appleinsider (Caspar) can tell us whether there is a legitimate business case for this model?
Maybe this machine is actually the next generation MacBook Pro, but instead of being called an Air it will still be called the 15" MBP but dispense with the on-board DVD drive?
In the meantime, assuming that the 13" MBA gets a Core i7-2649M (4M cache, 2 Cores, 4 Threads, 2.30 GHz, 25W), how will this compare to the 2009 13" MacBook Pro's 2.53 Ghz Core 2 Duo chip?
I don't mind that Apple makes a reasonable profit but I do mind when the price on the upper end models is all out of proportion to the actual value of the added circuitry. ... The thing is one gets the feeling they are being taken advantage of with Apples pricing and that can lead to a simmering disgust with Apple in general.
You must have a hell of a problem with software margins. Microsoft's profit margins are much higher than Apple's. Microsoft charges an arm and a leg and doesn't add any circuitry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tailpipe
assuming that the 13" MBA gets a Core i7-2649M (4M cache, 2 Cores, 4 Threads, 2.30 GHz, 25W)
The only way to put a 25W CPU in a 13" MacBook Air is to drop the discreet GPU.
The only way to put a 25W CPU in a 13" MacBook Air is to drop the discreet GPU.
Thanks for that. perhaps what I should have asked is what is the most likely top end processor for the SB 13" Air and how will that compare to a 2009 C2D 13 MBP?
My guess is a 30% chance of a 15" MacBook Air in 2011.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tailpipe
or is this thread pure speculation?
Of course it's speculation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tailpipe
what is the most likely top end processor for the SB 13" Air?
With a discreet GPU: 2677M
Without a discreet GPU: 2649M
I have little idea how good the integrated graphics of the 2649M are at 1440x900, so I cannot evaluate which of the above makes more sense. My guess is that the new 13" MacBook Air will have a 2677M plus a discreet GPU.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tailpipe
how will that compare to a 2009 C2D 13 MBP?
Faster, obviously. We'll have to wait for benchmarks to know how much faster.
How likely is a 15" MacBook Air or is this thread pure speculation?
Seriously? Of course it is speculation. If I had inside information I'd open up my own web site.
Frankly it blows my mind that you would ask this question.
Quote:
The more I read about such a machine, the more I want one. It would be perfect in so many ways. Perhaps Appleinsider (Caspar) can tell us whether there is a legitimate business case for this model?
What in the hell does Casper know?
The business case is that there seems to be a strong appeal for such a machine in the community. One of the reasons I continue to talk about is because it would be a good idea in my mind. Apple would need to determine if such a machine is feasible and would attrack enough buyers to pursue.
Quote:
Maybe this machine is actually the next generation MacBook Pro, but instead of being called an Air it will still be called the 15" MBP but dispense with the on-board DVD drive?
How is it that you have become so confused??????? As far as anybody here knows this is not an Apple product. It is speculation about something many of us would like to see from Apple. How could you have missed this.
Quote:
In the meantime, assuming that the 13" MBA gets a Core i7-2649M (4M cache, 2 Cores, 4 Threads, 2.30 GHz, 25W), how will this compare to the 2009 13" MacBook Pro's 2.53 Ghz Core 2 Duo chip?
It will likely be pretty good as long as you do nothing that is demanding of the GPU. Remember these processors are much faster than Core on a per clock basis. On top of that they can Turbo Boost some.
The big problem is that the GPUs suck on Intel processors. It will be a step backwards in this regards. Sadly a lot of people underestimate the importance of the GPU these days.
Comments
The 2.3GHz Sandy Bridge should be about as fast as my 2.66GHz 2010 15" MacBook Pro. I think most MacBook Air buyers, whether new to Apple or old-timers, would be happy with such performance. Regardless, Ivy Bridge will bring quad-core 25W CPUs in 2012.
Well we need to see those ULV machines out in the wild to know how they will perform. Sandy Bridge chips can run extremely hot when loaded, so I'm not at all sure how they will perform in an AIR.
I'm not convinced that any extra thickness would be needed, but would not complain about an extra millimeter if needed. I can't imagine two millimeters being needed for additional stiffness.
It doesn't take much to up the volume. An extra mm or two in battery compartment thickness could add up to a sizable gain in battery capacity. In any event I'm not at all worried about a mm or two has it wouldn't even be noticed in a 15" platform.
Long-term, the trend is toward integration of everything, including the GPU. Within a few years, the integrated GPUs will give as much performance as anyone needs. I don't think Sandy Bridge will include sufficient graphics performance for many users, but Ivy Bridge might.
AMD is already there, they have a very good GPU in their Fusion product. Ivy Bridge is supposedly much better but we will have to see what Intel actually delivers.
This imminent introduction of Sandy Bridge MacBook Air models will be a good opportunity to add a 15" model to the line, but not the only opportunity.
True! On the other hand it would have some synergy with Lion to really drive sales.
What Fusion processor would that be?
The DC 1.9GHz (A4-3300M) or the QC 1.5GHz (A8-3500M) both at 35W? With phenon-based cores not even on par with C2D cores at the same clock. You would give up a lot of cpu performance and a lot of battery life (compared to LV Core i7-26xxM cpus).
Actually I like the quad core A8 myself. Such a processor would be a big jump in performance over the current AIRs. AMD was able to extract a 6% performance gain out of them so that is a good start. Then you have four cores which is a big plus. Ad the ability to speed step and you are well out in front of the current pokey C2D.
Not to mention the GPU is far better than the Intel offering and it runs at lower power. Of course the GPU supports OpenCL which is huge for the apps that support it. Also the AMD chip supports more modern 3D features and more importantly doesn't barf on 3D.
All of this from a processor that consumes 35 watts and doesn't have the problems intel has with peak power usage.
I' rather have a DC 1.8GHz Core i7-2677M (17W) + a dedicated gpu like the 6490M (10-15W) of the entry-level 15" MBP, in an hypothetical 15" MBA, than any of AMD's apu models at 35W. And if they can put a DC 2.3GHz Core i7-2649M (25W) + a 6490M (35-40W total), even better.
you would likely end up with a machine that performs like crap and eats batteries like crazy. It surprises a lot of people but AMD made great advances in power usage with this chips. Further Intels power numbers and AMDs are not the same, intel can and will peak at a lot higher power levels than the labeled power. Add to that the power cost of communicating with the GPU and it's RAM and you end up using a lot of power.
Oh, and Intel's cores can run OpenCL code just fine.
No they don't. You can't run OpenCL code on SB's GPU, the last OpenCL libs I saw from Intel where for OpenCL on the CPU. That is a fairly useless feature if you ask me.
11" MBA starting at $999
Core i5-2557M (3M cache, 2 Cores, 4 Threads, 1.70 GHz, 17W) $250
Core i7-2677M (4M cache, 2 Cores, 4 Threads, 1.80 GHz, 17W) $317
13" MBA starting at $1299
Core i7-2677M (4M cache, 2 Cores, 4 Threads, 1.80 GHz, 17W) $317 (better battery life)
Core i7-2649M (4M cache, 2 Cores, 4 Threads, 2.30 GHz, 25W) $346 (better performance)
15" MBA starting at $1599 (if released this year)
Core i7-2677M (4M cache, 2 Cores, 4 Threads, 1.80 GHz, 17W) $317 (better battery life)
Core i7-2649M (4M cache, 2 Cores, 4 Threads, 2.30 GHz, 25W) $346 (better performance)
with a Radeon HD 6490M/256MB, and a 2nd SSD blade slot (if possible)
$1600 is way to much for a 15" AIR.
You are probably close with respect to configurations though. I'm not sure Apple is ready to support two chip suppliers. I honestly believe though that AMD has the better chip. In the end P better GPU performance is more important than CPU performance on these machines. Even then we would see a CPU boost over the current machines. Beyond all of that a Fusion based machine should draw less power on average.
To bad this isn't a public forum where I could ask for a show of hands. The question to ask would be how many AIR owners purchased their machines for CPU performance. Not many I would suspect.
$1600 is way to much for a 15" AIR.
I disagree emphatically. The current 15" MacBook Pro (which for me is a much less desirable machine than our hypothetical 15" MacBook Air) starts at $1799. A 2.13GHz 13" MacBook Air with 4GB currently costs $1799. $1799 used to be the entry-level price for the most basic 13" MacBook Air.
In my opinion $1599 would be a great price for a low-end 15" MacBook Air. I would not hesitate to pay $2499 for a better configured 15" MacBook Air with:
- 2.3GHz Core i7-2649M Sandy Bridge
- 4GB RAM
- 256GB SSD
- 1680x1050 (or higher)
- backlit keyboard
- Thunderbolt
- 2x USB
- SD card slot
Note that I did not include a discreet GPU in the list of features for which I would pay $2499. I would prefer a discreet GPU, but I would much rather live with integrated Sandy Bridge graphics than have to lug around an optical brick.
I disagree emphatically.
Well you are free to do so but you'd be wrong. Especially considering that such machines offer little in the way of features over an 11" AIR. The bigger screens don't cost that much.
The current 15" MacBook Pro (which for me is a much less desirable machine than our hypothetical 15" MacBook Air) starts at $1799.
Yes and that is a feature rich machine. AIR is not so rich in features and can hardly justify the high price on the 13" machine now.
A 2.13GHz 13" MacBook Air with 4GB currently costs $1799. $1799 used to be the entry-level price for the most basic 13" MacBook Air.
yes but is that price really justified? To put it bluntly I'm getting a little tired of inflating Apples margins because I want a machine with additional capabilities over the base model. IPad here is the worst considering what they charge for more flash. However the thought is the same, there is nothing extra in that 13" AIR that justifies the huge increase in pricing.
In my opinion $1599 would be a great price for a low-end 15" MacBook Air.
I'm sorry but $1600 is not low end in anybodies book.
I would not hesitate to pay $2499 for a better configured 15" MacBook Air with:
Apple must love you.
- 2.3GHz Core i7-2649M Sandy Bridge
- 4GB RAM
- 256GB SSD
- 1680x1050 (or higher)
- backlit keyboard
- Thunderbolt
- 2x USB
- SD card slot
You do realize that is a run of the mill configuration
Note that I did not include a discreet GPU in the list of features for which I would pay $2499. I would prefer a discreet GPU, but I would much rather live with integrated Sandy Bridge graphics than have to lug around an optical brick.
Your willingness to part with your money is shocking. Basically you are saying to Apple build this machine and I'll pay whatever you want It doesn't matter if the value equation is screwed up you just say here's my money - take it.
Frankly I was in the Apple store three days ago and still find it shocking that people would pay so much for the 13" AIR. For what a screen that is just a hair bigger and a slightly fast processor. Apple is basically offering up the technology of an $800 laptop for a $1000 more. No I would be the first to admit there is value in Apples higher quality chassis and general build quality but that might be worth $500 not $1000.
is that price really justified? To put it bluntly I'm getting a little tired of inflating Apples margins because I want a machine with additional capabilities over the base model. IPad here is the worst considering what they charge for more flash. However the thought is the same, there is nothing extra in that 13" AIR that justifies the huge increase in pricing.
Apple's prices are justified by the fact that millions of buyers are willing to pay Apple's prices. Nothing else could possibly justify any other price. Apple's cost of production is irrelevant, so long as it is below the market retail price.
Is it worth $1000 to me to reduce the weight of my laptop by 500 grams? Yes, absolutely worth it.
Apple's prices are justified by the fact that millions of buyers are willing to pay Apple's prices. Nothing else could possibly justify any other price. Apple's cost of production is irrelevant, so long as it is below the market retail price.
Is it worth $1000 to me to reduce the weight of my laptop by 500 grams? Yes, absolutely worth it.
Sorry but I need more out of my $1000 than a slightly lighter laptop. I don't mind that Apple makes a reasonable profit but I do mind when the price on the upper end models is all out of proportion to the actual value of the added circuitry. Things like paying 200 dollars for a faster CPU when Intel only charges 25 to 50 dollars more is a little hard to take. Then we have Apple outlandish pricing on RAM.
Of course the reasonable thing to do for most Apple hardware is to buy the base machine and upgrade yourself. However with AIR you run into kinda of a brick wall trying to do that. The thing is one gets the feeling they are being taken advantage of with Apples pricing and that can lead to a simmering disgust with Apple in general.
How likely is a 15" MacBook Air or is this thread pure speculation?
The more I read about such a machine, the more I want one. It would be perfect in so many ways. Perhaps Appleinsider (Caspar) can tell us whether there is a legitimate business case for this model?
Maybe this machine is actually the next generation MacBook Pro, but instead of being called an Air it will still be called the 15" MBP but dispense with the on-board DVD drive?
In the meantime, assuming that the 13" MBA gets a Core i7-2649M (4M cache, 2 Cores, 4 Threads, 2.30 GHz, 25W), how will this compare to the 2009 13" MacBook Pro's 2.53 Ghz Core 2 Duo chip?
I don't mind that Apple makes a reasonable profit but I do mind when the price on the upper end models is all out of proportion to the actual value of the added circuitry. ... The thing is one gets the feeling they are being taken advantage of with Apples pricing and that can lead to a simmering disgust with Apple in general.
You must have a hell of a problem with software margins. Microsoft's profit margins are much higher than Apple's. Microsoft charges an arm and a leg and doesn't add any circuitry.
assuming that the 13" MBA gets a Core i7-2649M (4M cache, 2 Cores, 4 Threads, 2.30 GHz, 25W)
The only way to put a 25W CPU in a 13" MacBook Air is to drop the discreet GPU.
How likely is a 15" MacBook Air
Not.
or is this thread pure speculation?
Yep.
The only way to put a 25W CPU in a 13" MacBook Air is to drop the discreet GPU.
Thanks for that. perhaps what I should have asked is what is the most likely top end processor for the SB 13" Air and how will that compare to a 2009 C2D 13 MBP?
How likely is a 15" MacBook Air
My guess is a 30% chance of a 15" MacBook Air in 2011.
or is this thread pure speculation?
Of course it's speculation.
what is the most likely top end processor for the SB 13" Air?
With a discreet GPU: 2677M
Without a discreet GPU: 2649M
I have little idea how good the integrated graphics of the 2649M are at 1440x900, so I cannot evaluate which of the above makes more sense. My guess is that the new 13" MacBook Air will have a 2677M plus a discreet GPU.
how will that compare to a 2009 C2D 13 MBP?
Faster, obviously. We'll have to wait for benchmarks to know how much faster.
@Wizard69
How likely is a 15" MacBook Air or is this thread pure speculation?
Seriously? Of course it is speculation. If I had inside information I'd open up my own web site.
Frankly it blows my mind that you would ask this question.
The more I read about such a machine, the more I want one. It would be perfect in so many ways. Perhaps Appleinsider (Caspar) can tell us whether there is a legitimate business case for this model?
What in the hell does Casper know?
The business case is that there seems to be a strong appeal for such a machine in the community. One of the reasons I continue to talk about is because it would be a good idea in my mind. Apple would need to determine if such a machine is feasible and would attrack enough buyers to pursue.
Maybe this machine is actually the next generation MacBook Pro, but instead of being called an Air it will still be called the 15" MBP but dispense with the on-board DVD drive?
How is it that you have become so confused??????? As far as anybody here knows this is not an Apple product. It is speculation about something many of us would like to see from Apple. How could you have missed this.
In the meantime, assuming that the 13" MBA gets a Core i7-2649M (4M cache, 2 Cores, 4 Threads, 2.30 GHz, 25W), how will this compare to the 2009 13" MacBook Pro's 2.53 Ghz Core 2 Duo chip?
It will likely be pretty good as long as you do nothing that is demanding of the GPU. Remember these processors are much faster than Core on a per clock basis. On top of that they can Turbo Boost some.
The big problem is that the GPUs suck on Intel processors. It will be a step backwards in this regards. Sadly a lot of people underestimate the importance of the GPU these days.