The Mac Book and the Mac Book Pro are two entirely different classes of machines.
Quote:
Their targets are to get high performance from low wattage. Also saying performance depends on the wattage alone is completely batty. i5 and i7 CPUs are the same wattage yet the i7 performs better. Funny how that works.
For any given processor performance scales with clock rate as does power (wattage). This has always been the case, up the clock rate on a CPU and it uses more power. This should be obvious to anybody commenting in this thread.
As to comparing an i5 to an i7 that is BS. It makes about as much sense as comparing to a Sparc.
Quote:
So tempted to pull the "All dem yanks be fat!" card... oh so tempted.
The fact remains there will be considerations far more important than weight when choosing a laptop. If you are focused on weight as the only factor in a purchase decision you need to get to the gym.
Quote:
Really? My dad has a HP ProBook. Its very heavy and very big. My slimmer and lighter MacBook Pro out-performs it. Funny how that works.
Of course it does it is a Mac. In any event the statement is meaningless, a Prime computer was big and heavy but these days a Mini would out perform it.
Quote:
Also, the Intel Atom is a low Wattage processor (typically) at 1.6GHz.
It is a lower wattage i86 type processor, it is not however a low wattage processor.
Quote:
The ARM CPUs in portable devices like the iPad and Smart Phones run at much lower clock rates (1.0GHz) and much lower wattage, yet they appear to out-perform the Atom, or are at least on par with it. Funny how that works.
So you are saying you have seen an iPad, or any iOS device, running iOS to base that statement upon? The fact is you really don't know, but just throw out a statement based on your faith in ARM.
Quote:
And you do? Could've fooled me...
Apparently.
Quote:
Firstly, I refer you back to my Atom v ARM statement.
Secondly, All about clock rate? You have NO idea how a processor works if you base it all on clock rate.
You have not convinced me that you know what you are talking about yourself. You seem to be especially confused about the concept of a processor generation. Within a processor generation clock rate is an important factor in performance. Why do you think Intel, AMD and the rest charge extra for higher clock rate devices? Sure there are other things to tweak such as cache size but even then a faster clock still leads to faster performance.
So where am I wrong? Take your i7, if you up the clock rate does performance improve? If you up the clock rate does power (wattage) go up.
Quote:
By that logic the 2.0GHz Quad i7 in my MBP should be slower in single thread operations than the Single Core AMD V-140 in my Compaq CQ56. Strangely enough, its not!
What is strange here is your wandering off track to engage in worthless comparisons. Maybe you don't grasp the concept of a processor generation.
Quote:
Funny how that works. You also contradict yourself; first by saying higher wattage leads to higher performance, then suddenly claiming its all about clock rate that is independent of the wattage. So which is it, then?
I'm not sure what your issue is here but wattage scales with clock rate on CMOS processes. It always has and most likely always will. At a given process node increasing performance by upping clock rate leads to more power being used. I really don't believe you have a clue here.
Quote:
A Processor's ability to process data is based on the number of transistors, architecture (sandy-bridge, K10 etc.), cache, on-chip features, instruction-set features (eg: SSE4) and so on. The raw clock rate hasn't been a significant factor in determining processor performance since the 90s - it all depends on how many calculations the processor can perform per clock cycle.
That is no surprise. It is also meaningless in the context of this discussion.
Quote:
A fantastic example of this is the Emotion Engine (EE) CPU in the Playstation 2. The EE was only clocked at 294~299Mhz, yet it out performed the original xbox's 700MHz CPU. Why? The xbox used a scalar processor (Single Instruction, Single Data) where the EE was a Superscalar CPU (Multiple Instructions, Multiple Data) with an on die Vector Processing Unit to operate on several data items in one clock cycle, rather than a single operation per cycle like in "traditional" CPUs. (on a side note, why don't intel get off their backsides and make a true Vector Processor? The performance would be astronomical!)
Why don't you compare a 6502 to an i7, it would have as much validity. Look everybody here understands the strides made in computer architecture over the years. That has little to do with the statements made here. Given a chip performance goes up with clock rate as does power disapated.
The Mac Book and the Mac Book Pro are two entirely different classes of machines.
You need to firmly establish the context of your sentences. Also sarcasm.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
For any given processor performance scales with clock rate as does power (wattage). This has always been the case, up the clock rate on a CPU and it uses more power. This should be obvious to anybody commenting in this thread.
Strange how you should say the clock directly relates to wattage.
Current Gen Ivy bridge Mobile Processors as a prime example:
i7 2630QM - 2.0GHz 45W
i7 2860QM - 2.5GHz 45W
i7 2640M - 2.8GHz 35W
If its directly related to wattage then why the hell has the 2.8 got a 35W TDP? Please explain your logic.
The reason the QM range will need a higher wattage is because its on chip features require a higher power draw - screw the clock speed. Its clearly shown to be irrelevant here in processors of the same generation and family.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
As to comparing an i5 to an i7 that is BS. It makes about as much sense as comparing to a Sparc.
It was to establish that clock and wattage mean nothing when two CPUs with different specs but identical clock and wattage can perform vastly different. By your logic they should be neck and neck. Also, why couldn't you pit an x86 and a Sparc together to see which performed better? I think that would be a rather interesting comparison.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
The fact remains there will be considerations far more important than weight when choosing a laptop. If you are focused on weight as the only factor in a purchase decision you need to get to the gym. Of course it does it is a Mac. In any event the statement is meaningless, a Prime computer was big and heavy but these days a Mini would out perform it.
Yes, there are more important factors. But saying someone goes for a light machine because they are a weakling just shows the idiocy on your part. I wanted a really lightweight machine when I attended University because it was on my back the majority of the day in a bag full to the brim with stupid-thick text books. Because I also needed something powerful for programming.
The HP ProBook my dad has is a BRAND NEW SANDY BRIDGE MACHINE. Its not an old 'prime' computer from 6 years ago, its brand spanking new! You say thinness sacrifices performance, up to a certain point (sub notebooks), yes. Though the MacBook Pro clearly out performs the ProBook and yet is strangely thinner AND lighter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
It is a lower wattage i86 type processor, it is not however a low wattage processor.
So its low wattage but it isn't. What? Compared to other CPUs yes, but its still a Low Wattage, Low Voltage CPU.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
So you are saying you have seen an iPad, or any iOS device, running iOS to base that statement upon? The fact is you really don't know, but just throw out a statement based on your faith in ARM.
I own two iPads (1,2), an iPhone 4 and an iPod touch. So yes I have clearly seen an iOS device to base it upon. But my point still remains - by your logic of wattage = performance, why do the ARM CPUs seem to outperform or be neck and neck with the Atom when the atom has a higher clock and higher wattage (2~10 vs 0.5~2)? You have been harping on about wattage and clock rate equating to better performance?
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
You have not convinced me that you know what you are talking about yourself. You seem to be especially confused about the concept of a processor generation. Within a processor generation clock rate is an important factor in performance. Why do you think Intel, AMD and the rest charge extra for higher clock rate devices? Sure there are other things to tweak such as cache size but even then a faster clock still leads to faster performance.
With the AMD and Intel comparison I was making, I was highlighting your statement of "higher clock = better performance". The AMD V140 and Sandy i7 are both current Gen CPUs. The AMD runs at a higher clock rate, yet performs far worse. You either need to explain yourself better or rethink the statements you are making.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
So where am I wrong? Take your i7, if you up the clock rate does performance improve? If you up the clock rate does power (wattage) go up.
No, the wattage would not increase above 45W. I have a 2.0GHz i7, the 2.5GHz i7 in the same family/gen is still 45W TDP. When my i7 turbo boosts to 2.9GHz, its still 45W TDP. I think you might be confusing wattage with voltage. In which case yes you would be correct. Voltage governs the clock rate, though I shouldn't need to tell you how over-clocking works since you apparently know everything :roll:
Also, to answer your question of "why do they charge more for higher clock rates" - they do to make money, but is always poor value. Over-clocking has shown that all it takes is a minute increase in voltage to up the clock rate to the level of the top-of-the-line processor of the same family/gen and gain the same performance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
What is strange here is your wandering off track to engage in worthless comparisons. Maybe you don't grasp the concept of a processor generation.
All comparisons I've made are new and recent processors. I think you may be confusing generation with family.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
I'm not sure what your issue is here but wattage scales with clock rate on CMOS processes. It always has and most likely always will. At a given process node increasing performance by upping clock rate leads to more power being used. I really don't believe you have a clue here.
I honestly think you are confusing wattage with voltage. A higher clock rate increases the voltage.
The definition of voltage is "Voltage is equal to the work which would have to be done".
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
That is no surprise. It is also meaningless in the context of this discussion.
I was showing that a processor with a 299MHz clock could outperform a 700MHz processor (that by your logic is impossible) from the same generation despite its lower wattage and vastly slower clock speed, yet the Emotion Engine came out on top because of its on chip features. Not its clock rate and wattage. Funny how that works.
I think it's the right way to go. AMD might manage to outperform their chips by sticking to higher power usage but Intel is going to allow better hardware designs like Apple without compromising the performance significantly. Those Ivy Bridge Macbook Pros are going to be very nice machines but I hope they don't skimp on the SSD drives. IMO, the 15" should start at 256GB.
15" MBP 2012
quad Ivy Bridge 20% faster, 25W TDP
512MB-1GB 28nm 15W Radeon 7000-series GPU, 100% faster than 6000-series
You need to firmly establish the context of your sentences. Also sarcasm.
Strange how you should say the clock directly relates to wattage.
Current Gen Ivy bridge Mobile Processors as a prime example:
i7 2630QM - 2.0GHz 45W
i7 2860QM - 2.5GHz 45W
i7 2640M - 2.8GHz 35W
If its directly related to wattage then why the hell has the 2.8 got a 35W TDP? Please explain your logic.
The reason the QM range will need a higher wattage is because its on chip features require a higher power draw - screw the clock speed. Its clearly shown to be irrelevant here in processors of the same generation and family.
Are the 2630 the 2640 and the 2860 not different models? Take any one of those chips and run it at different clock speeds and get back to me.
If that doesn't convince you then explain why Intel uses variable clock rates in its new chips to manage power usage.
Quote:
It was to establish that clock and wattage mean nothing when two CPUs with different specs but identical clock and wattage can perform vastly different. By your logic they should be neck and neck. Also, why couldn't you pit an x86 and a Sparc together to see which performed better? I think that would be a rather interesting comparison.
Your inability to read for content is amazing, this discussion was never about different CPUs with different specs. It is about what happens when you up the clock rate on any given chip. Point in fact they run hotter.
As to the x86 and Sparc comparison the two chips aren't even designed for the same types of workloads. Well that and it just pulls the discussion off track which seems to be your goal here.
Quote:
Yes, there are more important factors. But saying someone goes for a light machine because they are a weakling just shows the idiocy on your part. I wanted a really lightweight machine when I attended University because it was on my back the majority of the day in a bag full to the brim with stupid-thick text books. Because I also needed something powerful for programming.
I can see where you might not like that, however I stand by my remarks. It is silly to focus on weight at the expense of all other features. Frankly I suspect that this was a big factor in the Netbook failure.
Quote:
The HP ProBook my dad has is a BRAND NEW SANDY BRIDGE MACHINE. Its not an old 'prime' computer from 6 years ago, its brand spanking new! You say thinness sacrifices performance, up to a certain point (sub notebooks), yes. Though the MacBook Pro clearly out performs the ProBook and yet is strangely thinner AND lighter.
So its low wattage but it isn't. What? Compared to other CPUs yes, but its still a Low Wattage, Low Voltage CPU.
ATOM as it currently stands is pretty much a worthless offering. It is not low wattage in the sense of the common ARM chips. Further at slightly higher wattages you can get much better performance out of AMDs Zacate/Ontario chips.
Quote:
I own two iPads (1,2), an iPhone 4 and an iPod touch. So yes I have clearly seen an iOS device to base it upon. But my point still remains - by your logic of wattage = performance, why do the ARM CPUs seem to outperform or be neck and neck with the Atom when the atom has a higher clock and higher wattage (2~10 vs 0.5~2)? You have been harping on about wattage and clock rate equating to better performance?
You have not seen an ATOM based iOS device, unless of course you work for Apple. Thus you have no idea how an ATOM based iOS device would function. In any event you missed that point just like you missed the point on wattage.
Quote:
With the AMD and Intel comparison I was making, I was highlighting your statement of "higher clock = better performance". The AMD V140 and Sandy i7 are both current Gen CPUs. The AMD runs at a higher clock rate, yet performs far worse. You either need to explain yourself better or rethink the statements you are making.
I'm really wondering how in the hell you will make it through school, you repeatedly twist simple statemeevenings false representations even after I've repeatedly explained where your problems is. there is no value in comparing clock rates between different manufactures hardware, you can't even do it with different chips from the same manufacture. It isn't my statements that are messed up, it is you that have taken the wrong position and the try to pull in totally unrelated information into the argument.
Maybe you are trolling or maybe you just don't grasp the technology, but you have yet to address anything I've said.
Quote:
No, the wattage would not increase above 45W. I have a 2.0GHz i7, the 2.5GHz i7 in the same family/gen is still 45W TDP. When my i7 turbo boosts to 2.9GHz, its still 45W TDP. I think you might be confusing wattage with voltage. In which case yes you would be correct. Voltage governs the clock rate, though I shouldn't need to tell you how over-clocking works since you apparently know everything :roll:
Again you are referencing material that isn't related to the argument. Ask your self why the wattage stays at 45 watts when turbo boosting. I will help you along here, it is because the chip either turns off or throttle some of the other cores on the chip. When that core turbo boosts to 2.9GHz it is expending a lot more power than at its base speed. It really seems like this concept has gone completely over your head. Increasing clock rate increases power in CMOS circuits, it always has and always will.
Look at this another way, if you take that 2.0 GHz chip of yours and over clock it's base frequency will it run hotter?
Quote:
Also, to answer your question of "why do they charge more for higher clock rates" - they do to make money, but is always poor value. Over-clocking has shown that all it takes is a minute increase in voltage to up the clock rate to the level of the top-of-the-line processor of the same family/gen and gain the same performance.
OK what do over clockers concentrate on to get those chips to operate reliably over clocked? Usually the first thing an Over clocker installs is a better than stock heat sink. Why? Because the chip runs hotter. Why does it run hotter - well two things impact this. One is the bump in voltage and the other is the increase in clock rate.
Quote:
All comparisons I've made are new and recent processors. I think you may be confusing generation with family.
I honestly think you are confusing wattage with voltage. A higher clock rate increases the voltage.
The definition of voltage is "Voltage is equal to the work which would have to be done".
No I'm not confusing anything here. If you increase the voltage to a processor core you increase disapated power. By the way the clock rate does not increase voltage on most processors, people do that from their BIOS settings. Wattage does go up with clock rate though, it is a rather fundamental point too.
Quote:
I was showing that a processor with a 299MHz clock could outperform a 700MHz processor (that by your logic is impossible)
My god are you dense or what? Seriously where have I ever said such a thing? Seriously where do you come up with this stuff?
Quote:
from the same generation despite its lower wattage and vastly slower clock speed, yet the Emotion Engine came out on top because of its on chip features. Not its clock rate and wattage. Funny how that works.
I'm beginning to think you have a reading comprehension problem because even a troll would not make such convoluted arguments. This discussion has never been about how specialized processor perform in comparison to more run of the mill processors. It is about what happens when you up the clock rate on a given processor. When you do that you increase performance and increase the power disapated. There is no magic here, it is the way CMOS circuits work.
What may be causing you some confusion is that modern processors actively manage power. They do that by turning off cores and adjusting clock rates. This only goes to prove my point though, one can adjust the power disapated by a processor by adjusting its clock rate dynamically. Don't buy this from me then read some of Intels documentation.
I really don't know how to make this any clearer. I suggest you read what I say instead of pulling unrelated information into the discussion. In the end what don't you like about the idea that power disapated varies with clock rate?
Intel is taking a big step forward with Power management on Ivy Bridge which should result in some very interesting new hardware. Hardware that allows you to adjust performance for sapped or battery lifetime is now a real possibility. That is possible to some extent today but it looks like Intel has a whole new generation of functionality here.
Quote:
I think it's the right way to go. AMD might manage to outperform their chips by sticking to higher power usage but Intel is going to allow better hardware designs like Apple without compromising the performance significantly. Those Ivy Bridge Macbook Pros are going to be very nice machines but I hope they don't skimp on the SSD drives. IMO, the 15" should start at 256GB.
I don't think it is a matter of AMD sticking to higher power usage, rather they are limited by what process technologies they have available to them. That being said AMD has been very aggressive in managing power on their Llano chip. For some workloads it does better than Sandy Bridge as far as power usage goes.
Quote:
15" MBP 2012
quad Ivy Bridge 20% faster, 25W TDP
This I have problems with. Who would be willing to buy a 15" MBP and give up the performance another ten to twenty watts of power would provide? Before someone gets bent out of shape at that statement the assumption here is that Ivy Bridge will come in a range of performance capabilities that intel will market as various wattage Ivy Bridge processors.
The thing is this, on an AIR I'd expect lower performance so a 15 to 25 watt processor is no problem. If I'm to buy a MBP the expectation would be that the machine has all the performance the state of the art will allow. That is not a 25 watt processor. At the minimal a MBP should have a 35 watt processor.
Arguments about good enough or similar to today's performance are meaningless. The whole point in the MBP is to get the best performance possible given what is state of the art. The point of the AIR is to maximize portability, there a 15 watt or so CPU will deliver what is needed.
Quote:
512MB-1GB 28nm 15W Radeon 7000-series GPU, 100% faster than 6000-series
256GB SSD, possibly with HDD bay
no optical
4.5lbs
10 hour battery life
Like you I'm concerned about the SSD. I'd like to see them use an industry standard card format and design the machine to support more than a couple of those cards. I also agree that 256 GB should be considered a minimal size these days and that it would be better to have an even larger "drive" in the base configuration. One of the mistakes I made with my 2008 MBP was getting "only" a 200GB drive in the unit, it is too small and that is with media on an external drive.
As to video / GPU AMD has been doing excellent with their chips so the 7000 series would be most welcomed. However at this point base RAM for the GPU should be 1GB with a 2GB option. Why so much RAM, to reduce pressure on main memory and make for a more flexible OpenCL platform. Well that and maybe this would allow for a rational GPU implementation in the Mini, given that the Mini is always designed to be underpowered in Apple land.
As a side note I'm really hoping that Apple has both a new 15" MBP and a 15" AIR coming. I'd be very tempted to go the AIR route if they can manage the performance I'd like to see. I suspect though that an even slightly thicker MBP would allow for much more in the way of hardware and battery space. In any event these machines are a few months off.
The thing is this, on an AIR I'd expect lower performance so a 15 to 25 watt processor is no problem. If I'm to buy a MBP the expectation would be that the machine has all the performance the state of the art will allow. That is not a 25 watt processor. At the minimal a MBP should have a 35 watt processor.
Arguments about good enough or similar to today's performance are meaningless. The whole point in the MBP is to get the best performance possible given what is state of the art. The point of the AIR is to maximize portability, there a 15 watt or so CPU will deliver what is needed.
If the articles are accurate intel is aiming at the 17 watt mark for their mainstream laptop cpus come 2013. That would support Apple's desire to transition fully to thin enclosures. My hope would be rather than more of the wedge design, they go for a flat/moderately thin and port friendly design. If 500GB SSDs are a relatively cheap upgrade by that point, it could work out fairly well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Like you I'm concerned about the SSD. I'd like to see them use an industry standard card format and design the machine to support more than a couple of those cards. I also agree that 256 GB should be considered a minimal size these days and that it would be better to have an even larger "drive" in the base configuration. One of the mistakes I made with my 2008 MBP was getting "only" a 200GB drive in the unit, it is too small and that is with media on an external drive.
Bleh those don't take enough ram either. Anything I buy today is getting 16GB minimum seeing as I can address most of that on a regular basis and I hate disk paging. I like larger drives. Even if I'm not storing everything on the boot drive, leaving a bit of capacity helps performance (even in SSDs although not in the same way).
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
As to video / GPU AMD has been doing excellent with their chips so the 7000 series would be most welcomed. However at this point base RAM for the GPU should be 1GB with a 2GB option. Why so much RAM, to reduce pressure on main memory and make for a more flexible OpenCL platform. Well that and maybe this would allow for a rational GPU implementation in the Mini, given that the Mini is always designed to be underpowered in Apple land.
2GB of vram is still sort of a mid to high end option these days. It's kind of odd that it's an option on the imac at all. I can't remember if AMD has any cards that exceed 2GB. with NVidia the ones that do are the higher end workstation class cards, in the $1k-$5k range peaking around 6GB. 2GB will probably be the norm by next year.
You might see what goes in the mini start to change as tdp drops within intel's line. As I mentioned they're claiming they will get the cpus Apple uses in the macbook pro today down to 17W like those currently in the Air by Haswell. At some point we may be back to a similar comparison to the old macbook / macbook pro combination. This time they'd both just be slimmer. Intel still has terrible integrated graphics sadly, but I don't see a laptop becoming my primary computer (for now) so I guess it doesn't matter too much.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
As a side note I'm really hoping that Apple has both a new 15" MBP and a 15" AIR coming. I'd be very tempted to go the AIR route if they can manage the performance I'd like to see. I suspect though that an even slightly thicker MBP would allow for much more in the way of hardware and battery space. In any event these machines are a few months off.
If they could get rid of the 11" and make it a 13 and 15 inch air setup, that might work quite well. I guess it just comes down to manufacturing costs, but the 11 inch doesn't seem like it would be that popular. The 13" is actually functional as a primary computer for many people.
Arguments about good enough or similar to today's performance are meaningless. The whole point in the MBP is to get the best performance possible given what is state of the art.
To some extent but if it's still faster than the current model while saving 10-20W, I think it's good enough. You could use the same criticism up until you get to the 55W i7XM and the laptop melts your pants to your legs. There will always be compromise and the best option brings the best advantages with the fewest flaws.
The highest end CPUs don't usually exceed the far lower TDP ones by much at all - sometimes as little as 10-15%. Here is the highest end 55W i7XM overclocked:
and runs at 45W. It's not worth doing IMO. To drop a potential 20% even to gain a couple of hours extra battery and far lower fan noise as well as reducing the weight considerably is a compromise worth making.
To some extent but if it's still faster than the current model while saving 10-20W, I think it's good enough. You could use the same criticism up until you get to the 55W i7XM and the laptop melts your pants to your legs. There will always be compromise and the best option brings the best advantages with the fewest flaws.
The goal should be as much performance as possible in the MBP, while keeping the thermals manageable.
Quote:
The highest end CPUs don't usually exceed the far lower TDP ones by much at all - sometimes as little as 10-15%. Here is the highest end 55W i7XM overclocked:
Currently the Pros are significantly faster than the AIRs. I would expect Apple to keep this distinction. You say 10 to 15% and frankly I'm not sure where your info comes from but today we are talking the difference between 2 and 4 cores and maybe a GHz of clock rate. Often the higher wattage chips also have larger caches. This can result in massive performance differences between the MBPs and AIRs.
Granted workloads are a factor here but the AIR are not computational power houses today.
I'm not a big fan of benchmarks. In the end it is what the machine and software can do for you that counts. This is one of the reasons I'm excited about Ivy Bridge in an AIR as the chip does address many of the weak points in the AIR. Still if you have an IB running at 2GHz in an AIR and an IB in a MBP running at 3.5GHz with two additional cores there will still be a dramatic difference in performance.
Maybe they will be able to do a four core chip in an AIR with IB, it certainly would be nice, however I don't running as aggressively as would be possible in a MBP enclosure
Quote:
and runs at 45W. It's not worth doing IMO. To drop a potential 20% even to gain a couple of hours extra battery and far lower fan noise as well as reducing the weight considerably is a compromise worth making.
For the AIR certainly! For the MBP NO. Besides the difference can be far greater than the 20% you are claiming. Again it is a matter of usage and software but even simple things like compiling a program can experience significant speed ups simply by adding more cores. Is it worth it - hell yeah! A fast computer can make programming in C almost as fluid as working in Python. Further the heavily multi threaded apps take on a new feel when you have many cores servicing those threads.
Now I've written a lot of gibberish about cores above but that is only part of what distinguishes a MBP from the AIRs. RAM expand ability is a big issue. You also have a GPU with its own RAM. On top of that you have more versatility with respect to storage devices. So while I don't want to see the MBP loose performance that the state of the art allows, I also am concerned about these other features. An ultra thin MBP that gives up to much capability might as well be an AIR.
This is one of the reasons I'm excited about Ivy Bridge in an AIR as the chip does address many of the weak points in the AIR. Still if you have an IB running at 2GHz in an AIR and an IB in a MBP running at 3.5GHz with two additional cores there will still be a dramatic difference in performance.
Ivy Bridge should remove this distinction between the Air and Pro to some extent. Apple should be able to fit chips that are faster than the ones in the current 13" MBP into the Air and the Ivy Bridge equivalents for the 15" and 17" models should allow a redesign to an Air-like design.
The lower ones would still be dual-core vs the quad-core in 15"/17" but there would be a single 13" model that replaces the 13" MBP and the Air should probably be renamed back to just Macbook.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
the difference can be far greater than the 20% you are claiming.
If you could overclock an Ivy Bridge chip for the MBP and use say 45W vs 25W, you could gain more of a performance boost, which an Air design would restrict but I think it's the way they should go.
Ivy Bridge should remove this distinction between the Air and Pro to some extent. Apple should be able to fit chips that are faster than the ones in the current 13" MBP into the Air and the Ivy Bridge equivalents for the 15" and 17" models should allow a redesign to an Air-like design.
Intel will have IB chips in wattages all the way up to 77 watts with performance scaling along the way. Obviously we can't put a 77 watt processor in a notebook, however why would you want to take the performance hit a 25 watt chip implies? This is the Mac Book Pro we are talking about here. Note the word Pro in that name.
Quote:
The lower ones would still be dual-core vs the quad-core in 15"/17" but there would be a single 13" model that replaces the 13" MBP and the Air should probably be renamed back to just Macbook.
I still think you mis the Point, Apple still has a Pro market to serve. This is a market that will not be happy if they know that Apple compromised on performance simply to deliver a thinner MBP. The AIRs are already in place to take care of the simple users.
To look at this another way how would you like to pay the price tag on the MBP knowing that Apple is running a lower teir processor that they could. Such a shift in performance would require that Apple drastically lower the price on the MBP. It would be like being charged V8 prices in a truck with a 4 cylinder engine.
Quote:
If you could overclock an Ivy Bridge chip for the MBP and use say 45W vs 25W, you could gain more of a performance boost, which an Air design would restrict but I think it's the way they should go.
There is no over clocking to speak of. IB will range all the way up to 77 watts. Granted some of those are destine for the desktop.
Here is the thing if they don't go for performance in the MBP there is little reason to keep it around. IB in AIRs will mean that this platform will pick up even more users. That is if the rumors about IB are accurate the AIRs will be suitable for an ever wider array of users. The MBP will have to offer up features the AIR doesn't have to survive. One of those features would be significantly better CPU performance.
The last thing I want to see is Apple with only one line of Laptops to choose from.
Intel will have IB chips in wattages all the way up to 77 watts with performance scaling along the way. Obviously we can't put a 77 watt processor in a notebook, however why would you want to take the performance hit a 25 watt chip implies? This is the Mac Book Pro we are talking about here. Note the word Pro in that name.
Intel already stated this as their direction. It isn't Apple doing this. They may have influenced the cpu direction, but it's a matter of what Intel will make. Pretty soon 35-45W laptop cpus may no longer exist. It seems like a significant compromise today because they're the norm, but Intel has stated concern regarding ARM and what Apple will use in the future. I don't really see this as a big deal. If the performance gains aren't enough, it's easy to just keep using what you already have. On a macbook pro, considering that this is their top laptop line, I'd be happier to see them define it by making a cooler machine capable of running silent at high loads without the amount of heat it currently kicks off. Common complaints with laptops are heat and weak gpus, so addressing these things could make for a better product than just going thinner. Even thinned out it wouldn't be nearly as light as an air without quite a lot of reworking. The amount of shell material is only a fraction of what keeps the weight so low on the Air, and it takes a significant compromise on display quality.
If they want good product differentiation, why not go for something completely uncompromising on the macbook pro? Give it a higher quality display, even an ips display (they can still go pretty thin these days). Make the machine run silent at higher loads without letting off the kind of heat it does today. Dropping to an air like form factor and ditching the optical (seeing as that is the popular suggestion anyway) would allow some of the weight reductions the macbook air enjoys anyway. The point is that there are more ways you could make use of the alleviated design restrictions. Thinner does more for aesthetics than weight anyway. It's light more because of the lack of internals and smaller size (11 or 13" compared to 15 as the norm).
Just to prove my point.....
13" Air 2.96 lb. 13" Pro 4.5 lb. 15" Pro 5.6 lb. 17" pro 6.6 lb.
If you factor out the weight of the optical drive and SATA form hard drive, the difference in weight would come out under a pound between a 13" air and a 13" pro. There are quite a few other internal differences. The thickness isn't what is driving the weight down. They did it to look cool. Difference in aluminum used probably contributes under 1/3 of a pound to the weight.
A 35W Ivy Bridge CPU will still be a lot faster than a 45W Sandy Bridge CPU, with 16 EUs versus 12.
I read your link and it states that :
"Intel's base idea is that it will lower energy consumption overall with its mobile processors. From 35-45W to 10-20W. This is made a lot easier with Ivy Bridge's new transistors and manufacturing technology, but at the same time Intel doesn't want to lose the top performance of its mobile chips. To counteract this Ivy Bridge will ship with a variable TDP (Thermal Design Power) where it has used a new generation Turbo technology to challenge the nominal TDP."
"Intel's base idea is that it will lower energy consumption overall with its mobile processors. From 35-45W to 10-20W. This is made a lot easier with Ivy Bridge's new transistors and manufacturing technology, but at the same time Intel doesn't want to lose the top performance of its mobile chips. To counteract this Ivy Bridge will ship with a variable TDP (Thermal Design Power) where it has used a new generation Turbo technology to challenge the nominal TDP."
... and the very next sentence reads:
"The idea is to let the processors increase their frequencies so that the TDP will increase from say 15 watt to 35 watt."
But isn't that just when they turbo boost for sort periods of time?
No it means if it can handle it, it can live in turbo boost mode as they do now. If you're doing something cpu intensive and the machine is not overheating, it will simply run at the stated 35W. Their goal for the generation after was to cut maximum tdp needed once again.
But isn't that just when they turbo boost for sort periods of time?
This in part depends upon the design of the hardware it is plugged into. If the processor starts to run to hot the boost will be cut back. So the amount of time the processor can run boosted is dependent how effectively the cooling system removes heat.
A 35W Ivy Bridge CPU will still be a lot faster than a 45W Sandy Bridge CPU, with 16 EUs versus 12.
If all the rumored improvements make it into shipping processors they should be very powerful CPUs with the ability to significantly increase clock rate at a given wattage level. However initial leaked numbers seem to be lower than expected or Intel is gaming the market.
This is especially the case with the GPU. The best performance numbers I've seen is a 60% speed up in a very synthetic benchmark. Most other tests are showing more conservative numbers in the 20-30% range. Of course there are many unknowns here, clock rate, drivers and other features fall into the mix. Ideally shipping hardware and drivers will do better.
I'm waiting forward to Ivy Bridge but have tried to maintain conservative expectations of overall performance.
Comments
MacBook Pro
The Mac Book and the Mac Book Pro are two entirely different classes of machines.
Their targets are to get high performance from low wattage. Also saying performance depends on the wattage alone is completely batty. i5 and i7 CPUs are the same wattage yet the i7 performs better. Funny how that works.
For any given processor performance scales with clock rate as does power (wattage). This has always been the case, up the clock rate on a CPU and it uses more power. This should be obvious to anybody commenting in this thread.
As to comparing an i5 to an i7 that is BS. It makes about as much sense as comparing to a Sparc.
So tempted to pull the "All dem yanks be fat!" card... oh so tempted.
The fact remains there will be considerations far more important than weight when choosing a laptop. If you are focused on weight as the only factor in a purchase decision you need to get to the gym.
Really? My dad has a HP ProBook. Its very heavy and very big. My slimmer and lighter MacBook Pro out-performs it. Funny how that works.
Of course it does it is a Mac.
Also, the Intel Atom is a low Wattage processor (typically) at 1.6GHz.
It is a lower wattage i86 type processor, it is not however a low wattage processor.
The ARM CPUs in portable devices like the iPad and Smart Phones run at much lower clock rates (1.0GHz) and much lower wattage, yet they appear to out-perform the Atom, or are at least on par with it. Funny how that works.
So you are saying you have seen an iPad, or any iOS device, running iOS to base that statement upon? The fact is you really don't know, but just throw out a statement based on your faith in ARM.
And you do? Could've fooled me...
Apparently.
Firstly, I refer you back to my Atom v ARM statement.
Secondly, All about clock rate? You have NO idea how a processor works if you base it all on clock rate.
You have not convinced me that you know what you are talking about yourself. You seem to be especially confused about the concept of a processor generation. Within a processor generation clock rate is an important factor in performance. Why do you think Intel, AMD and the rest charge extra for higher clock rate devices? Sure there are other things to tweak such as cache size but even then a faster clock still leads to faster performance.
So where am I wrong? Take your i7, if you up the clock rate does performance improve? If you up the clock rate does power (wattage) go up.
By that logic the 2.0GHz Quad i7 in my MBP should be slower in single thread operations than the Single Core AMD V-140 in my Compaq CQ56. Strangely enough, its not!
What is strange here is your wandering off track to engage in worthless comparisons. Maybe you don't grasp the concept of a processor generation.
Funny how that works. You also contradict yourself; first by saying higher wattage leads to higher performance, then suddenly claiming its all about clock rate that is independent of the wattage. So which is it, then?
I'm not sure what your issue is here but wattage scales with clock rate on CMOS processes. It always has and most likely always will. At a given process node increasing performance by upping clock rate leads to more power being used. I really don't believe you have a clue here.
A Processor's ability to process data is based on the number of transistors, architecture (sandy-bridge, K10 etc.), cache, on-chip features, instruction-set features (eg: SSE4) and so on. The raw clock rate hasn't been a significant factor in determining processor performance since the 90s - it all depends on how many calculations the processor can perform per clock cycle.
That is no surprise. It is also meaningless in the context of this discussion.
A fantastic example of this is the Emotion Engine (EE) CPU in the Playstation 2. The EE was only clocked at 294~299Mhz, yet it out performed the original xbox's 700MHz CPU. Why? The xbox used a scalar processor (Single Instruction, Single Data) where the EE was a Superscalar CPU (Multiple Instructions, Multiple Data) with an on die Vector Processing Unit to operate on several data items in one clock cycle, rather than a single operation per cycle like in "traditional" CPUs. (on a side note, why don't intel get off their backsides and make a true Vector Processor? The performance would be astronomical!)
Why don't you compare a 6502 to an i7, it would have as much validity. Look everybody here understands the strides made in computer architecture over the years. That has little to do with the statements made here. Given a chip performance goes up with clock rate as does power disapated.
I'm done. As you were
The Mac Book and the Mac Book Pro are two entirely different classes of machines.
You need to firmly establish the context of your sentences. Also sarcasm.
For any given processor performance scales with clock rate as does power (wattage). This has always been the case, up the clock rate on a CPU and it uses more power. This should be obvious to anybody commenting in this thread.
Strange how you should say the clock directly relates to wattage.
Current Gen Ivy bridge Mobile Processors as a prime example:
i7 2630QM - 2.0GHz 45W
i7 2860QM - 2.5GHz 45W
i7 2640M - 2.8GHz 35W
If its directly related to wattage then why the hell has the 2.8 got a 35W TDP? Please explain your logic.
The reason the QM range will need a higher wattage is because its on chip features require a higher power draw - screw the clock speed. Its clearly shown to be irrelevant here in processors of the same generation and family.
As to comparing an i5 to an i7 that is BS. It makes about as much sense as comparing to a Sparc.
It was to establish that clock and wattage mean nothing when two CPUs with different specs but identical clock and wattage can perform vastly different. By your logic they should be neck and neck. Also, why couldn't you pit an x86 and a Sparc together to see which performed better? I think that would be a rather interesting comparison.
The fact remains there will be considerations far more important than weight when choosing a laptop. If you are focused on weight as the only factor in a purchase decision you need to get to the gym. Of course it does it is a Mac.
Yes, there are more important factors. But saying someone goes for a light machine because they are a weakling just shows the idiocy on your part. I wanted a really lightweight machine when I attended University because it was on my back the majority of the day in a bag full to the brim with stupid-thick text books. Because I also needed something powerful for programming.
The HP ProBook my dad has is a BRAND NEW SANDY BRIDGE MACHINE. Its not an old 'prime' computer from 6 years ago, its brand spanking new! You say thinness sacrifices performance, up to a certain point (sub notebooks), yes. Though the MacBook Pro clearly out performs the ProBook and yet is strangely thinner AND lighter.
It is a lower wattage i86 type processor, it is not however a low wattage processor.
So its low wattage but it isn't. What? Compared to other CPUs yes, but its still a Low Wattage, Low Voltage CPU.
So you are saying you have seen an iPad, or any iOS device, running iOS to base that statement upon? The fact is you really don't know, but just throw out a statement based on your faith in ARM.
I own two iPads (1,2), an iPhone 4 and an iPod touch. So yes I have clearly seen an iOS device to base it upon. But my point still remains - by your logic of wattage = performance, why do the ARM CPUs seem to outperform or be neck and neck with the Atom when the atom has a higher clock and higher wattage (2~10 vs 0.5~2)? You have been harping on about wattage and clock rate equating to better performance?
You have not convinced me that you know what you are talking about yourself. You seem to be especially confused about the concept of a processor generation. Within a processor generation clock rate is an important factor in performance. Why do you think Intel, AMD and the rest charge extra for higher clock rate devices? Sure there are other things to tweak such as cache size but even then a faster clock still leads to faster performance.
With the AMD and Intel comparison I was making, I was highlighting your statement of "higher clock = better performance". The AMD V140 and Sandy i7 are both current Gen CPUs. The AMD runs at a higher clock rate, yet performs far worse. You either need to explain yourself better or rethink the statements you are making.
So where am I wrong? Take your i7, if you up the clock rate does performance improve? If you up the clock rate does power (wattage) go up.
No, the wattage would not increase above 45W. I have a 2.0GHz i7, the 2.5GHz i7 in the same family/gen is still 45W TDP. When my i7 turbo boosts to 2.9GHz, its still 45W TDP. I think you might be confusing wattage with voltage. In which case yes you would be correct. Voltage governs the clock rate, though I shouldn't need to tell you how over-clocking works since you apparently know everything :roll:
Also, to answer your question of "why do they charge more for higher clock rates" - they do to make money, but is always poor value. Over-clocking has shown that all it takes is a minute increase in voltage to up the clock rate to the level of the top-of-the-line processor of the same family/gen and gain the same performance.
What is strange here is your wandering off track to engage in worthless comparisons. Maybe you don't grasp the concept of a processor generation.
All comparisons I've made are new and recent processors. I think you may be confusing generation with family.
I'm not sure what your issue is here but wattage scales with clock rate on CMOS processes. It always has and most likely always will. At a given process node increasing performance by upping clock rate leads to more power being used. I really don't believe you have a clue here.
I honestly think you are confusing wattage with voltage. A higher clock rate increases the voltage.
The definition of voltage is "Voltage is equal to the work which would have to be done".
That is no surprise. It is also meaningless in the context of this discussion.
I was showing that a processor with a 299MHz clock could outperform a 700MHz processor (that by your logic is impossible) from the same generation despite its lower wattage and vastly slower clock speed, yet the Emotion Engine came out on top because of its on chip features. Not its clock rate and wattage. Funny how that works.
If its directly related to wattage then why the hell has the 2.8 got a 35W TDP? Please explain your logic.
The reason the QM range will need a higher wattage is because its on chip features require a higher power draw - screw the clock speed.
The QM range are quad core chips so despite the lower clock, they have way more transistors. 1.4 billion coming in 2012:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4798/i...8b-transistors
I like where Intel is going with Ivy Bridge:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/dis...on_to_77W.html
I think it's the right way to go. AMD might manage to outperform their chips by sticking to higher power usage but Intel is going to allow better hardware designs like Apple without compromising the performance significantly. Those Ivy Bridge Macbook Pros are going to be very nice machines but I hope they don't skimp on the SSD drives. IMO, the 15" should start at 256GB.
15" MBP 2012
quad Ivy Bridge 20% faster, 25W TDP
512MB-1GB 28nm 15W Radeon 7000-series GPU, 100% faster than 6000-series
256GB SSD, possibly with HDD bay
no optical
4.5lbs
10 hour battery life
You need to firmly establish the context of your sentences. Also sarcasm.
Strange how you should say the clock directly relates to wattage.
Current Gen Ivy bridge Mobile Processors as a prime example:
i7 2630QM - 2.0GHz 45W
i7 2860QM - 2.5GHz 45W
i7 2640M - 2.8GHz 35W
If its directly related to wattage then why the hell has the 2.8 got a 35W TDP? Please explain your logic.
The reason the QM range will need a higher wattage is because its on chip features require a higher power draw - screw the clock speed. Its clearly shown to be irrelevant here in processors of the same generation and family.
Are the 2630 the 2640 and the 2860 not different models? Take any one of those chips and run it at different clock speeds and get back to me.
If that doesn't convince you then explain why Intel uses variable clock rates in its new chips to manage power usage.
It was to establish that clock and wattage mean nothing when two CPUs with different specs but identical clock and wattage can perform vastly different. By your logic they should be neck and neck. Also, why couldn't you pit an x86 and a Sparc together to see which performed better? I think that would be a rather interesting comparison.
Your inability to read for content is amazing, this discussion was never about different CPUs with different specs. It is about what happens when you up the clock rate on any given chip. Point in fact they run hotter.
As to the x86 and Sparc comparison the two chips aren't even designed for the same types of workloads. Well that and it just pulls the discussion off track which seems to be your goal here.
Yes, there are more important factors. But saying someone goes for a light machine because they are a weakling just shows the idiocy on your part. I wanted a really lightweight machine when I attended University because it was on my back the majority of the day in a bag full to the brim with stupid-thick text books. Because I also needed something powerful for programming.
I can see where you might not like that, however I stand by my remarks. It is silly to focus on weight at the expense of all other features. Frankly I suspect that this was a big factor in the Netbook failure.
The HP ProBook my dad has is a BRAND NEW SANDY BRIDGE MACHINE. Its not an old 'prime' computer from 6 years ago, its brand spanking new! You say thinness sacrifices performance, up to a certain point (sub notebooks), yes. Though the MacBook Pro clearly out performs the ProBook and yet is strangely thinner AND lighter.
So its low wattage but it isn't. What? Compared to other CPUs yes, but its still a Low Wattage, Low Voltage CPU.
ATOM as it currently stands is pretty much a worthless offering. It is not low wattage in the sense of the common ARM chips. Further at slightly higher wattages you can get much better performance out of AMDs Zacate/Ontario chips.
I own two iPads (1,2), an iPhone 4 and an iPod touch. So yes I have clearly seen an iOS device to base it upon. But my point still remains - by your logic of wattage = performance, why do the ARM CPUs seem to outperform or be neck and neck with the Atom when the atom has a higher clock and higher wattage (2~10 vs 0.5~2)? You have been harping on about wattage and clock rate equating to better performance?
You have not seen an ATOM based iOS device, unless of course you work for Apple. Thus you have no idea how an ATOM based iOS device would function. In any event you missed that point just like you missed the point on wattage.
With the AMD and Intel comparison I was making, I was highlighting your statement of "higher clock = better performance". The AMD V140 and Sandy i7 are both current Gen CPUs. The AMD runs at a higher clock rate, yet performs far worse. You either need to explain yourself better or rethink the statements you are making.
I'm really wondering how in the hell you will make it through school, you repeatedly twist simple statemeevenings false representations even after I've repeatedly explained where your problems is. there is no value in comparing clock rates between different manufactures hardware, you can't even do it with different chips from the same manufacture. It isn't my statements that are messed up, it is you that have taken the wrong position and the try to pull in totally unrelated information into the argument.
Maybe you are trolling or maybe you just don't grasp the technology, but you have yet to address anything I've said.
No, the wattage would not increase above 45W. I have a 2.0GHz i7, the 2.5GHz i7 in the same family/gen is still 45W TDP. When my i7 turbo boosts to 2.9GHz, its still 45W TDP. I think you might be confusing wattage with voltage. In which case yes you would be correct. Voltage governs the clock rate, though I shouldn't need to tell you how over-clocking works since you apparently know everything :roll:
Again you are referencing material that isn't related to the argument. Ask your self why the wattage stays at 45 watts when turbo boosting. I will help you along here, it is because the chip either turns off or throttle some of the other cores on the chip. When that core turbo boosts to 2.9GHz it is expending a lot more power than at its base speed. It really seems like this concept has gone completely over your head. Increasing clock rate increases power in CMOS circuits, it always has and always will.
Look at this another way, if you take that 2.0 GHz chip of yours and over clock it's base frequency will it run hotter?
Also, to answer your question of "why do they charge more for higher clock rates" - they do to make money, but is always poor value. Over-clocking has shown that all it takes is a minute increase in voltage to up the clock rate to the level of the top-of-the-line processor of the same family/gen and gain the same performance.
OK what do over clockers concentrate on to get those chips to operate reliably over clocked? Usually the first thing an Over clocker installs is a better than stock heat sink. Why? Because the chip runs hotter. Why does it run hotter - well two things impact this. One is the bump in voltage and the other is the increase in clock rate.
All comparisons I've made are new and recent processors. I think you may be confusing generation with family.
I honestly think you are confusing wattage with voltage. A higher clock rate increases the voltage.
The definition of voltage is "Voltage is equal to the work which would have to be done".
No I'm not confusing anything here. If you increase the voltage to a processor core you increase disapated power. By the way the clock rate does not increase voltage on most processors, people do that from their BIOS settings. Wattage does go up with clock rate though, it is a rather fundamental point too.
I was showing that a processor with a 299MHz clock could outperform a 700MHz processor (that by your logic is impossible)
My god are you dense or what? Seriously where have I ever said such a thing? Seriously where do you come up with this stuff?
from the same generation despite its lower wattage and vastly slower clock speed, yet the Emotion Engine came out on top because of its on chip features. Not its clock rate and wattage. Funny how that works.
I'm beginning to think you have a reading comprehension problem because even a troll would not make such convoluted arguments. This discussion has never been about how specialized processor perform in comparison to more run of the mill processors. It is about what happens when you up the clock rate on a given processor. When you do that you increase performance and increase the power disapated. There is no magic here, it is the way CMOS circuits work.
What may be causing you some confusion is that modern processors actively manage power. They do that by turning off cores and adjusting clock rates. This only goes to prove my point though, one can adjust the power disapated by a processor by adjusting its clock rate dynamically. Don't buy this from me then read some of Intels documentation.
I really don't know how to make this any clearer. I suggest you read what I say instead of pulling unrelated information into the discussion. In the end what don't you like about the idea that power disapated varies with clock rate?
The QM range are quad core chips so despite the lower clock, they have way more transistors. 1.4 billion coming in 2012:
That is an amazing number of transistors. I do hope that Intel can manage 28nm better than the rest of the industry.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4798/i...8b-transistors
I like where Intel is going with Ivy Bridge:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/dis...on_to_77W.html
Intel is taking a big step forward with Power management on Ivy Bridge which should result in some very interesting new hardware. Hardware that allows you to adjust performance for sapped or battery lifetime is now a real possibility. That is possible to some extent today but it looks like Intel has a whole new generation of functionality here.
I think it's the right way to go. AMD might manage to outperform their chips by sticking to higher power usage but Intel is going to allow better hardware designs like Apple without compromising the performance significantly. Those Ivy Bridge Macbook Pros are going to be very nice machines but I hope they don't skimp on the SSD drives. IMO, the 15" should start at 256GB.
I don't think it is a matter of AMD sticking to higher power usage, rather they are limited by what process technologies they have available to them. That being said AMD has been very aggressive in managing power on their Llano chip. For some workloads it does better than Sandy Bridge as far as power usage goes.
15" MBP 2012
quad Ivy Bridge 20% faster, 25W TDP
This I have problems with. Who would be willing to buy a 15" MBP and give up the performance another ten to twenty watts of power would provide? Before someone gets bent out of shape at that statement the assumption here is that Ivy Bridge will come in a range of performance capabilities that intel will market as various wattage Ivy Bridge processors.
The thing is this, on an AIR I'd expect lower performance so a 15 to 25 watt processor is no problem. If I'm to buy a MBP the expectation would be that the machine has all the performance the state of the art will allow. That is not a 25 watt processor. At the minimal a MBP should have a 35 watt processor.
Arguments about good enough or similar to today's performance are meaningless. The whole point in the MBP is to get the best performance possible given what is state of the art. The point of the AIR is to maximize portability, there a 15 watt or so CPU will deliver what is needed.
512MB-1GB 28nm 15W Radeon 7000-series GPU, 100% faster than 6000-series
256GB SSD, possibly with HDD bay
no optical
4.5lbs
10 hour battery life
Like you I'm concerned about the SSD. I'd like to see them use an industry standard card format and design the machine to support more than a couple of those cards. I also agree that 256 GB should be considered a minimal size these days and that it would be better to have an even larger "drive" in the base configuration. One of the mistakes I made with my 2008 MBP was getting "only" a 200GB drive in the unit, it is too small and that is with media on an external drive.
As to video / GPU AMD has been doing excellent with their chips so the 7000 series would be most welcomed. However at this point base RAM for the GPU should be 1GB with a 2GB option. Why so much RAM, to reduce pressure on main memory and make for a more flexible OpenCL platform. Well that and maybe this would allow for a rational GPU implementation in the Mini, given that the Mini is always designed to be underpowered in Apple land.
As a side note I'm really hoping that Apple has both a new 15" MBP and a 15" AIR coming. I'd be very tempted to go the AIR route if they can manage the performance I'd like to see. I suspect though that an even slightly thicker MBP would allow for much more in the way of hardware and battery space. In any event these machines are a few months off.
The thing is this, on an AIR I'd expect lower performance so a 15 to 25 watt processor is no problem. If I'm to buy a MBP the expectation would be that the machine has all the performance the state of the art will allow. That is not a 25 watt processor. At the minimal a MBP should have a 35 watt processor.
Arguments about good enough or similar to today's performance are meaningless. The whole point in the MBP is to get the best performance possible given what is state of the art. The point of the AIR is to maximize portability, there a 15 watt or so CPU will deliver what is needed.
If the articles are accurate intel is aiming at the 17 watt mark for their mainstream laptop cpus come 2013. That would support Apple's desire to transition fully to thin enclosures. My hope would be rather than more of the wedge design, they go for a flat/moderately thin and port friendly design. If 500GB SSDs are a relatively cheap upgrade by that point, it could work out fairly well.
Like you I'm concerned about the SSD. I'd like to see them use an industry standard card format and design the machine to support more than a couple of those cards. I also agree that 256 GB should be considered a minimal size these days and that it would be better to have an even larger "drive" in the base configuration. One of the mistakes I made with my 2008 MBP was getting "only" a 200GB drive in the unit, it is too small and that is with media on an external drive.
Bleh those don't take enough ram either. Anything I buy today is getting 16GB minimum seeing as I can address most of that on a regular basis and I hate disk paging. I like larger drives. Even if I'm not storing everything on the boot drive, leaving a bit of capacity helps performance (even in SSDs although not in the same way).
As to video / GPU AMD has been doing excellent with their chips so the 7000 series would be most welcomed. However at this point base RAM for the GPU should be 1GB with a 2GB option. Why so much RAM, to reduce pressure on main memory and make for a more flexible OpenCL platform. Well that and maybe this would allow for a rational GPU implementation in the Mini, given that the Mini is always designed to be underpowered in Apple land.
2GB of vram is still sort of a mid to high end option these days. It's kind of odd that it's an option on the imac at all. I can't remember if AMD has any cards that exceed 2GB. with NVidia the ones that do are the higher end workstation class cards, in the $1k-$5k range peaking around 6GB. 2GB will probably be the norm by next year.
You might see what goes in the mini start to change as tdp drops within intel's line. As I mentioned they're claiming they will get the cpus Apple uses in the macbook pro today down to 17W like those currently in the Air by Haswell. At some point we may be back to a similar comparison to the old macbook / macbook pro combination. This time they'd both just be slimmer. Intel still has terrible integrated graphics sadly, but I don't see a laptop becoming my primary computer (for now) so I guess it doesn't matter too much.
As a side note I'm really hoping that Apple has both a new 15" MBP and a 15" AIR coming. I'd be very tempted to go the AIR route if they can manage the performance I'd like to see. I suspect though that an even slightly thicker MBP would allow for much more in the way of hardware and battery space. In any event these machines are a few months off.
If they could get rid of the 11" and make it a 13 and 15 inch air setup, that might work quite well. I guess it just comes down to manufacturing costs, but the 11 inch doesn't seem like it would be that popular. The 13" is actually functional as a primary computer for many people.
If you are focused on weight as the only factor in a purchase decision you need to get to the gym.
The weight problem is the 8kg carry-on weight limit enforced by most airlines around the world. The gym has absolutely nothing to do with it.
Arguments about good enough or similar to today's performance are meaningless. The whole point in the MBP is to get the best performance possible given what is state of the art.
To some extent but if it's still faster than the current model while saving 10-20W, I think it's good enough. You could use the same criticism up until you get to the 55W i7XM and the laptop melts your pants to your legs. There will always be compromise and the best option brings the best advantages with the fewest flaws.
The highest end CPUs don't usually exceed the far lower TDP ones by much at all - sometimes as little as 10-15%. Here is the highest end 55W i7XM overclocked:
http://www.agile-news.com/news-15741...er-47GHz!.html
and it only scores 6.09 on Cinebench. The MBP 2.2GHz (which dynamically overclocks itself) scores 5.23:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9770So2nZ0Q
and runs at 45W. It's not worth doing IMO. To drop a potential 20% even to gain a couple of hours extra battery and far lower fan noise as well as reducing the weight considerably is a compromise worth making.
To some extent but if it's still faster than the current model while saving 10-20W, I think it's good enough. You could use the same criticism up until you get to the 55W i7XM and the laptop melts your pants to your legs. There will always be compromise and the best option brings the best advantages with the fewest flaws.
The goal should be as much performance as possible in the MBP, while keeping the thermals manageable.
The highest end CPUs don't usually exceed the far lower TDP ones by much at all - sometimes as little as 10-15%. Here is the highest end 55W i7XM overclocked:
Currently the Pros are significantly faster than the AIRs. I would expect Apple to keep this distinction. You say 10 to 15% and frankly I'm not sure where your info comes from but today we are talking the difference between 2 and 4 cores and maybe a GHz of clock rate. Often the higher wattage chips also have larger caches. This can result in massive performance differences between the MBPs and AIRs.
Granted workloads are a factor here but the AIR are not computational power houses today.
http://www.agile-news.com/news-15741...er-47GHz!.html
and it only scores 6.09 on Cinebench. The MBP 2.2GHz (which dynamically overclocks itself) scores 5.23:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9770So2nZ0Q
I'm not a big fan of benchmarks. In the end it is what the machine and software can do for you that counts. This is one of the reasons I'm excited about Ivy Bridge in an AIR as the chip does address many of the weak points in the AIR. Still if you have an IB running at 2GHz in an AIR and an IB in a MBP running at 3.5GHz with two additional cores there will still be a dramatic difference in performance.
Maybe they will be able to do a four core chip in an AIR with IB, it certainly would be nice, however I don't running as aggressively as would be possible in a MBP enclosure
and runs at 45W. It's not worth doing IMO. To drop a potential 20% even to gain a couple of hours extra battery and far lower fan noise as well as reducing the weight considerably is a compromise worth making.
For the AIR certainly! For the MBP NO. Besides the difference can be far greater than the 20% you are claiming. Again it is a matter of usage and software but even simple things like compiling a program can experience significant speed ups simply by adding more cores. Is it worth it - hell yeah! A fast computer can make programming in C almost as fluid as working in Python. Further the heavily multi threaded apps take on a new feel when you have many cores servicing those threads.
Now I've written a lot of gibberish about cores above but that is only part of what distinguishes a MBP from the AIRs. RAM expand ability is a big issue. You also have a GPU with its own RAM. On top of that you have more versatility with respect to storage devices. So while I don't want to see the MBP loose performance that the state of the art allows, I also am concerned about these other features. An ultra thin MBP that gives up to much capability might as well be an AIR.
This is one of the reasons I'm excited about Ivy Bridge in an AIR as the chip does address many of the weak points in the AIR. Still if you have an IB running at 2GHz in an AIR and an IB in a MBP running at 3.5GHz with two additional cores there will still be a dramatic difference in performance.
Ivy Bridge should remove this distinction between the Air and Pro to some extent. Apple should be able to fit chips that are faster than the ones in the current 13" MBP into the Air and the Ivy Bridge equivalents for the 15" and 17" models should allow a redesign to an Air-like design.
The lower ones would still be dual-core vs the quad-core in 15"/17" but there would be a single 13" model that replaces the 13" MBP and the Air should probably be renamed back to just Macbook.
the difference can be far greater than the 20% you are claiming.
If you could overclock an Ivy Bridge chip for the MBP and use say 45W vs 25W, you could gain more of a performance boost, which an Air design would restrict but I think it's the way they should go.
Ivy Bridge should remove this distinction between the Air and Pro to some extent. Apple should be able to fit chips that are faster than the ones in the current 13" MBP into the Air and the Ivy Bridge equivalents for the 15" and 17" models should allow a redesign to an Air-like design.
Intel will have IB chips in wattages all the way up to 77 watts with performance scaling along the way. Obviously we can't put a 77 watt processor in a notebook, however why would you want to take the performance hit a 25 watt chip implies? This is the Mac Book Pro we are talking about here. Note the word Pro in that name.
The lower ones would still be dual-core vs the quad-core in 15"/17" but there would be a single 13" model that replaces the 13" MBP and the Air should probably be renamed back to just Macbook.
I still think you mis the Point, Apple still has a Pro market to serve. This is a market that will not be happy if they know that Apple compromised on performance simply to deliver a thinner MBP. The AIRs are already in place to take care of the simple users.
To look at this another way how would you like to pay the price tag on the MBP knowing that Apple is running a lower teir processor that they could. Such a shift in performance would require that Apple drastically lower the price on the MBP. It would be like being charged V8 prices in a truck with a 4 cylinder engine.
If you could overclock an Ivy Bridge chip for the MBP and use say 45W vs 25W, you could gain more of a performance boost, which an Air design would restrict but I think it's the way they should go.
There is no over clocking to speak of. IB will range all the way up to 77 watts. Granted some of those are destine for the desktop.
Here is the thing if they don't go for performance in the MBP there is little reason to keep it around. IB in AIRs will mean that this platform will pick up even more users. That is if the rumors about IB are accurate the AIRs will be suitable for an ever wider array of users. The MBP will have to offer up features the AIR doesn't have to survive. One of those features would be significantly better CPU performance.
The last thing I want to see is Apple with only one line of Laptops to choose from.
Intel will have IB chips in wattages all the way up to 77 watts with performance scaling along the way. Obviously we can't put a 77 watt processor in a notebook, however why would you want to take the performance hit a 25 watt chip implies? This is the Mac Book Pro we are talking about here. Note the word Pro in that name.
Intel already stated this as their direction. It isn't Apple doing this. They may have influenced the cpu direction, but it's a matter of what Intel will make. Pretty soon 35-45W laptop cpus may no longer exist. It seems like a significant compromise today because they're the norm, but Intel has stated concern regarding ARM and what Apple will use in the future. I don't really see this as a big deal. If the performance gains aren't enough, it's easy to just keep using what you already have. On a macbook pro, considering that this is their top laptop line, I'd be happier to see them define it by making a cooler machine capable of running silent at high loads without the amount of heat it currently kicks off. Common complaints with laptops are heat and weak gpus, so addressing these things could make for a better product than just going thinner. Even thinned out it wouldn't be nearly as light as an air without quite a lot of reworking. The amount of shell material is only a fraction of what keeps the weight so low on the Air, and it takes a significant compromise on display quality.
If they want good product differentiation, why not go for something completely uncompromising on the macbook pro? Give it a higher quality display, even an ips display (they can still go pretty thin these days). Make the machine run silent at higher loads without letting off the kind of heat it does today. Dropping to an air like form factor and ditching the optical (seeing as that is the popular suggestion anyway) would allow some of the weight reductions the macbook air enjoys anyway. The point is that there are more ways you could make use of the alleviated design restrictions. Thinner does more for aesthetics than weight anyway. It's light more because of the lack of internals and smaller size (11 or 13" compared to 15 as the norm).
Just to prove my point.....
13" Air 2.96 lb. 13" Pro 4.5 lb. 15" Pro 5.6 lb. 17" pro 6.6 lb.
If you factor out the weight of the optical drive and SATA form hard drive, the difference in weight would come out under a pound between a 13" air and a 13" pro. There are quite a few other internal differences. The thickness isn't what is driving the weight down. They did it to look cool. Difference in aluminum used probably contributes under 1/3 of a pound to the weight.
http://www.nordichardware.com/news/6...underbolt.html
A 35W Ivy Bridge CPU will still be a lot faster than a 45W Sandy Bridge CPU, with 16 EUs versus 12.
Max TDP for mobile Sandy Bridge is 45W. Max TDP for mobile Ivy Bridge will be 35W.
http://www.nordichardware.com/news/6...underbolt.html
A 35W Ivy Bridge CPU will still be a lot faster than a 45W Sandy Bridge CPU, with 16 EUs versus 12.
I read your link and it states that :
"Intel's base idea is that it will lower energy consumption overall with its mobile processors. From 35-45W to 10-20W. This is made a lot easier with Ivy Bridge's new transistors and manufacturing technology, but at the same time Intel doesn't want to lose the top performance of its mobile chips. To counteract this Ivy Bridge will ship with a variable TDP (Thermal Design Power) where it has used a new generation Turbo technology to challenge the nominal TDP."
I read your link and it states that :
"Intel's base idea is that it will lower energy consumption overall with its mobile processors. From 35-45W to 10-20W. This is made a lot easier with Ivy Bridge's new transistors and manufacturing technology, but at the same time Intel doesn't want to lose the top performance of its mobile chips. To counteract this Ivy Bridge will ship with a variable TDP (Thermal Design Power) where it has used a new generation Turbo technology to challenge the nominal TDP."
... and the very next sentence reads:
"The idea is to let the processors increase their frequencies so that the TDP will increase from say 15 watt to 35 watt."
... and the very next sentence reads:
"The idea is to let the processors increase their frequencies so that the TDP will increase from say 15 watt to 35 watt."
But isn't that just when they turbo boost for sort periods of time?
But isn't that just when they turbo boost for sort periods of time?
No it means if it can handle it, it can live in turbo boost mode as they do now. If you're doing something cpu intensive and the machine is not overheating, it will simply run at the stated 35W. Their goal for the generation after was to cut maximum tdp needed once again.
But isn't that just when they turbo boost for sort periods of time?
This in part depends upon the design of the hardware it is plugged into. If the processor starts to run to hot the boost will be cut back. So the amount of time the processor can run boosted is dependent how effectively the cooling system removes heat.
Max TDP for mobile Sandy Bridge is 45W. Max TDP for mobile Ivy Bridge will be 35W.
http://www.nordichardware.com/news/6...underbolt.html
A 35W Ivy Bridge CPU will still be a lot faster than a 45W Sandy Bridge CPU, with 16 EUs versus 12.
If all the rumored improvements make it into shipping processors they should be very powerful CPUs with the ability to significantly increase clock rate at a given wattage level. However initial leaked numbers seem to be lower than expected or Intel is gaming the market.
This is especially the case with the GPU. The best performance numbers I've seen is a 60% speed up in a very synthetic benchmark. Most other tests are showing more conservative numbers in the 20-30% range. Of course there are many unknowns here, clock rate, drivers and other features fall into the mix. Ideally shipping hardware and drivers will do better.
I'm waiting forward to Ivy Bridge but have tried to maintain conservative expectations of overall performance.