Intel Core 2 Quad on MBP and iMac.

135

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 85
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 14,807moderator
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mjteix View Post


    Custom chips. The E8x35 is not available to the general public, hence not on Intel's regular price list.



    Benchs and cpu numbers for the (new) iMacs



    The numbering does suggest it may be from the desktop class Core 2 Duos though, which are numbered Exxxx and yet the iMac uses laptop 1066MHz Ram.



    The Ram suggests that it's a laptop class processor in which case the cost of it should be much higher than the desktop processors. Although you have to consider how Apple manage to amass their $25 billion cash reserves:



    cash reserves:

    2003 - $4.6b

    2005 - $8.7b

    2008 - $19.4b

    2009 - $25b



    10 million Macs per year 100 million ipods making about $3-5billion per year.



    So 10m * Mprofit + 100m * iprofit = 3b



    The ipod is said to be about 25% of the total so we'll say 10m Macs = 2b profit - this means that they make $200 profit average on each Mac?



    Like I say, their processors can't be as cheap as $350 in a $2200 model if they only make that amount of profit. They would obviously sell more of the lower models, which make less money but I think they have to be laptop-class CPUs and in the $550-850 price range (accounting for the $300 difference between models).
  • Reply 42 of 85
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,354member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mcarling View Post


    I hope it was not your intention to be so offensive. Why don't you debate the argument and stop calling people pathological?



    Quad-core processors at 45nm consume too much power for use in laptops, in my opinion. With 32nm processors coming out in the next quarter, I hope Apple waits. If you disagree, that's fine, but it doesn't make me pathological.



    Personally, I'm not particularly interested in any MacBook Pro. I'll buy the first MacBook Air with 4GB of RAM, which I expect will coincide with a speedbump to the Arrandale processor.





    Arrandale will be much more power efficient than C2D + 9400M or Clarksfield. Ultimately, that's what's important in a laptop. For a given level of power consumption/heat dissipation, how much performance is available? By this metric, Arrandale beats the pants off Clarksfield.



    When we all stop behaving in such manner I'd love to. I find it ridiculous that in discussions that so many Apple users are stuck in this "speculative" mode from Apple's PoV. I love speculating as well but I can separate my discussion and argue about what's in my best needs versus what's in Apple's best needs.



    The 1.66Ghz Clarksfield Quad-core is 35 Watts TDP. That is the same as the current Core2 Duo 3.06 processor available in the 15" and 17" as CPU upgrades.



    Apple's casing is pure aluminum, if their engineers cannot coax another 10 Watts out of that case they should hang it up.



    Arrandale is a "value" processor. It's going to be in laptops under $1000. This year EVERY PC vendor selling laptops will have Clarksfield options in their lineup. So the whole "Apple's going to wait for Arrandale" commentary is quite odd because I'd like to see how Apple intends to deliver "Pro" laptops with processors that are being used in the $699 laptop specials.
  • Reply 43 of 85
    maratusmaratus Posts: 38member
    Clarksfield's TDP has yet to be confirmed.

    Since Apple will announce i7 generation on february 2010 they'll likely use high-end 32nm Arrandales for the whole MBP line. They'll add 32nm Quad cores (Clarksfield successor) on October 2010 with some other minor updates (IMO)



    I really doubt Apple will go with 45W Quads just to be on par with other manufactures. And I'd prefer dual core in MBP due to power consumption and usually higher clock speeds with lower price.

    It seems logical to me.
  • Reply 44 of 85
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,354member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by maratus View Post


    Clarksfield's TDP has yet to be confirmed.

    Since Apple will announce i7 generation on february 2010 they'll likely use high-end 32nm Arrandales for the whole MBP line. They'll add 32nm Quad cores (Clarksfield successor) on October 2010 with some other minor updates (IMO)



    I really doubt Apple will go with 45W Quads just to be on par with other manufactures. And I'd prefer dual core in MBP due to power consumption and usually higher clock speeds with lower price.

    It seems logical to me.



    High end Arrandale is almost an oxymoron. It's integrated nature is suited towards general purpose high volume computing. I still don't get how Apple is supposed to market an upscale premium product based and a "value" processor from Intel.



    The real issue is whether Clarksfield and Arrandale offer Turbo Boost Mode.



    If Clarksfield does but Arrandale doesn't that means that Quad Core 1.66Ghz Clarksfield chip runs at 2.4Ghz for dual core and potentially 2.8Ghz for a single core all within the same 35 Watt TDP envelope.



    I'm guessing that Arrandale will not have this because it's aimed at the value segment and contains an ondie GPU.



    Apple has an aluminum chassis and there are other methods for cooling the system down like improved heat piping or better fan systems.



    The problem with your premise is that it's entirely based upon one foundation and that foundation is maximum TDP. If Apple re-engineers the notebooks and they manage 45 Watt TDP safely then that opens up the potential for



    1.66Ghz Clarksfield (est 35 W TDP)

    1.73 Ghz Clarksfield (est 45 W TDP)



    So the question is "what's the harder task?"



    Convincing consumers to pay a premium for a "value" procesor or engineering the MBP to support 45 W TDP processors ( which is only 10 W TDP over what they support now with the 3.06Ghz C2D procs)?
  • Reply 45 of 85
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    It something to consider with these new class of processors. Just because that chips power usage goes up does not imply that total system power profile goes up. There is a resonable expectation that the total system power will go down. This due to more functional blocks located on the system processor.



    As to chips coming from Intel I can't imagine that Apple is happy right now with intels line up. I just can't imagine them accepting an embedded GPU after all the OpenCL success they are having with Nvidia. We can all hope, along with Apple, that Intel will make a reasonably well performing and bug free GPU but we all know the track record here. I wouldn't doubt if behind the scenes Apple isn't trying to strong arm an agreement between Intel and Nvidia.



    In the end if they can't work something out with Intel there is always AMD which frankly seems to have a better lineup of processors to suit Apples mentality.





    Dave
  • Reply 46 of 85
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,354member
    When Apple added the 13" Macbook Unibody to the "Pro" lineup they also did another interesting thing. They created a IGP 15" MBP and reduced the pricing by 300 dollars.



    This is a wise move by Apple.



    1. It signals that IGP graphics "can" come in a Pro Notebook.



    2. It allows them to target markets that aren't dependent on discrete graphics



    3. It will allow them to toggle between IGP and discrete graphics on future versions.



    Which is nice because"



    Arrandale will likely become the IGP Pro notebook choice for a reduced price.



    Clarksfield will be the higher end version with discrete graphics.



    Nvidia is going to get pushed out of the IGP biz but they should clean up on the discrete GPU biz with 200 series GPU mated to Clarksfield.
  • Reply 47 of 85
    apple going to ANY INTEL BASED on board video is a bad sign ati and nvidia have done good on board video at the same price or less then intel POS GMA video.
  • Reply 48 of 85
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post


    When Apple added the 13" Macbook Unibody to the "Pro" lineup they also did another interesting thing. They created a IGP 15" MBP and reduced the pricing by 300 dollars.



    This is a wise move by Apple.



    1. It signals that IGP graphics "can" come in a Pro Notebook.



    If the market accepts an IGP as a viable solution. You seem to have things backwards as the signals go from the market to the manufacture. Remember things like the cube and AIR, Apple has influence but they can't change the fact that people have standards. Sometimes those standards aren't rational but hey they are the customer.



    All that aside from what I can see right now the 9400M is the best IGP going. Given that I'm not sure it is good enough for me. Unlike the dual core quad core debate at least they are giving the customer a choice.

    Quote:



    2. It allows them to target markets that aren't dependent on discrete graphics



    yes it does. Further more it lowers the power demand resulting in an even longer battery lifetime. Battery lifetimes may be a bigger issue than people give credit to. It is obvious Apple is marketing this feature hard.

    Quote:

    3. It will allow them to toggle between IGP and discrete graphics on future versions.



    Eventually descreet graphics will go away except for the extreme high end. It isn't really even debatable anymore.

    Quote:

    Which is nice because"



    Arrandale will likely become the IGP Pro notebook choice for a reduced price.



    God I hope not!!!!!!! I'd rather see Apple cross over to AMD. One thing you should never do as a manufacture is to reward your suppliers for their own stupidity. Intels little war with Nvidia is frankly disgusting an a notable abuse of power.

    Quote:



    Clarksfield will be the higher end version with discrete graphics.



    We have to be careful about terms here. Clarksfield could have what amounts to integrated graphics, it just that what is in that integrated chip is different from todays integrated system chips. Of course if Intel doesn't license the bus we might not get anything from alternative vendors like Nvidia.

    Quote:



    Nvidia is going to get pushed out of the IGP biz but they should clean up on the discrete GPU biz with 200 series GPU mated to Clarksfield.



    This remains to be seen. Frankly I see intels behaviour here as something that will draw regulatory oversite and maybe even legal action. If not in the US certainly in Europe. It will be interesting to see how this unfolds.



    Even on Clarksfield though I think Nvidia and intel are at odds. The place to put the GPU is on the DMI bus which intel is apparently not licensing. Unfortunately this subject is a bit opaque so I don't have a good idea of the depth of the problem. Nor do we know how influential Apple can be here.



    Apple has various ways to apply influence and one of those is to buy from AMD. Honestly I think they would be a better choice for some of Apple machines. An AMD based Mini would rock and maybe even be cheaper. If nothing else it would send a message to intel to get their act together.







    Dave
  • Reply 49 of 85
    mcarlingmcarling Posts: 1,106member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post


    High end Arrandale is almost an oxymoron. It's integrated nature is suited towards general purpose high volume computing. I still don't get how Apple is supposed to market an upscale premium product based and a "value" processor from Intel.



    I challenge your assertion that Arrandale will be a low-end processor. Increasing integration is not the enemy of high-end computing. Quite the opposite is true. Increasing integration is one of the drivers of increased performance. Putting the GPU and the memory controller on the same chip package with the CPU increases the communication bandwidth and reduces latency. The next step will be including the GPU and the memory controller on the same die with the CPU.



    If your argument were true, then "high-end" computers would be built with discreet transistors rather than ICs.
  • Reply 50 of 85
    maratusmaratus Posts: 38member
    Arrandale won't be an low-end CPU.



    Both Arrandale and Clarksfield will support Turbo Boost.



    Apple have to use IGP in all notebooks for better battery life option. Would they choose G 210M or Arrandale's iGP?



    What about triple graphics solution?

    1. One in Arrandale (lowest power consumption)

    2. Second in chipset (like 9400M)

    3. Third as discrete powerful one.



    What about disabling 2 of 4 Clarksfield cores and some clock speed limitation in power optimised mode?



    And until quad cores go 32nm they won't be as power efficient as Arrandale.
  • Reply 51 of 85
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 14,807moderator
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


    God I hope not!!!!!!! I'd rather see Apple cross over to AMD. One thing you should never do as a manufacture is to reward your suppliers for their own stupidity. Intels little war with Nvidia is frankly disgusting an a notable abuse of power.



    I agree with this. Intel need to quit their petty arguments and start thinking about the consumers. Their behavior over USB3 and not licensing their processors for use with Nvidia chips is highly objectionable and the worst thing to do would be to buy Intel's chips and drop Nvidia's IGPs. I can't see it happening to be honest. I think Apple will have to add an Nvidia GPU along with Arrandale.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by maratus


    Arrandale won't be an low-end CPU.



    Both Arrandale and Clarksfield will support Turbo Boost.



    I think Turbo Boost won't be that impressive. Intel say that the processor may only allow something like a couple of frequency steps when other cores are idle and it depends on temperature and power draw. 266MHz increase is better than none at all but only about 15-20% speed boost.



    But Arrandale won't be lower end as you said. It will have higher clock speeds than the quads. Clarksfield will be 1.6-2GHz but if Arrandale matches today's dual cores, it will be 2.5-3GHz. Still slower overall but more battery life and still 4 threads.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by maratus


    Apple have to use IGP in all notebooks for better battery life option. Would they choose G 210M or Arrandale's iGP?



    What about triple graphics solution?

    1. One in Arrandale (lowest power consumption)

    2. Second in chipset (like 9400M)

    3. Third as discrete powerful one.



    Sometimes higher end GPUs can be better if they can support hardware encoding/decoding as well as OpenCL. It will be beneficial to have something like a G210M if Apple can shunt some processing off the CPU onto the GPU, which may do it more efficiently while allowing the Arrandale IGP to render the interface.



    I think 3 chip solutions would be overkill. On the low end laptops, Arrandale + 210M and higher end, Arrandale + GT 230/240M. In the Mini, same as the lower end laptops and in the iMac, 1.6 quad core Clarksfield with GT240M in the lower models and 2GHz quad + GTS 260M in the higher ones.



    The laptops have been refreshed so in September, an iMac refresh will have to come to keep the sales ticking over. There's nothing to go into the Mini or Mac Pro until 2010.
  • Reply 52 of 85
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mcarling View Post


    I challenge your assertion that Arrandale will be a low-end processor. Increasing integration is not the enemy of high-end computing. Quite the opposite is true. Increasing integration is one of the drivers of increased performance.



    This is certainly true if you are at the right point in the process shrink cycle where you can add the additional logic without compromise. That and you need competitive IP. This is what makes one leary about Intels plans, they simply don't have a track record with respect to graphics processors that is acceptable.



    So yeah you are right in a perfect world it might actually would result in better performance. Unfortunately Intel is less than perfect in the world of graphics processing.

    Quote:

    Putting the GPU and the memory controller on the same chip package with the CPU increases the communication bandwidth and reduces latency. The next step will be including the GPU and the memory controller on the same die with the CPU.



    actually it is highly debatable if it is wise to put that GPU on die with everything else. I can make a very good arguement that the GPU would be the last thing you would want on die. For one thing demands for incresed GPU performance continues to move forward, locking the GPU into a high integration chip means slowing down that growth in performance. Second, it greatly reduces options where the customer needs them the most. It is not like you see a lot of customers saying they need to change their north bridge because it doesn't perform well with the last piece of software installed.



    While an on die GPU might make technical sense in some cases today, I do not believe this move on intels part has anything at all to do with technical merits. Instead it is a calculated move to damage nvidia.

    Quote:



    If your argument were true, then "high-end" computers would be built with discreet transistors rather than ICs.



    I think that is going a bit overboard, though I can't read the original posters mind I think it is a matter of the processes not being ready for GPU integration yet. Especially if it means dual core over quad core. Personally I think what we need to do here is say wait a minute is this really a step forward. It is not in my estimation.





    Dave
  • Reply 53 of 85
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by maratus View Post


    Arrandale won't be an low-end CPU.



    Both Arrandale and Clarksfield will support Turbo Boost.



    In this day and age a dual core CPU is low end! Turbo boost is nothing more than a marketing gimmick.

    Quote:

    Apple have to use IGP in all notebooks for better battery life option. Would they choose G 210M or Arrandale's iGP?



    I would hope that the choose the better performing option. Frankly if it wasn't for Intels history with GPUs we might not be having this discussion. The point is we don't want to see a regression in performance simply to save power. Given the right mix of tech we ought to be able to save power and increase performance over todays systems.

    Quote:



    What about triple graphics solution?

    1. One in Arrandale (lowest power consumption)

    2. Second in chipset (like 9400M)

    3. Third as discrete powerful one.



    talk about wasted power. In any event this highlights my point that now is not really a good time to be integrating a GPU onto the CPU die. In many cases it will end up being a waste. This mainly due to the wide ranging performance needs of the end user.

    Quote:

    What about disabling 2 of 4 Clarksfield cores and some clock speed limitation in power optimised mode?



    And until quad cores go 32nm they won't be as power efficient as Arrandale.



    Ah but they are more power efficient. If you double the cores your power usage dies not double. The processor may use more power but it is also more efficient.







    Dave
  • Reply 54 of 85
    maratusmaratus Posts: 38member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


    In this day and age a dual core CPU is low end! Turbo boost is nothing more than a marketing gimmick.



    I would hope that the choose the better performing option. Frankly if it wasn't for Intels history with GPUs we might not be having this discussion. Given the right mix of tech we ought to be able to save power and increase performance over todays systems.



    talk about wasted power. In any event this highlights my point that now is not really a good time to be integrating a GPU onto the CPU die. In many cases it will end up being a waste. This mainly due to the wide ranging performance needs of the end user.

    Ah but they are more power efficient. If you double the cores your power usage dies not double. The processor may use more power but it is also more efficient.

    Dave



    From my experience given the same technological process and clock speed doubling core number will result in close to 2x power consumption.



    Turbo Boost isn't a gimmick with Quad cores (but probably is with Dual cores) since most demanding applications don't use more than 2 cores effectively.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


    The point is we don't want to see a regression in performance simply to save power.



    What do you think about iGP + 210M for 13" and iGP + 250M for 15" and 17"?

    Arrandale's iGP will be used for better battery life still supporting OpenCL and hardware HD video decoding.



    You'll still able to use better graphics on both machines.



    Decreased graphic performance in battery saving mode is something I can live with if it result in lower power consumption. Even 4500M HD's performance is ok for battery life mode (but it's not power efficient as it doesn't run significantly cooler than 9400M)
  • Reply 55 of 85
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,354member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by maratus View Post


    Arrandale won't be an low-end CPU.



    Both Arrandale and Clarksfield will support Turbo Boost.



    Apple have to use IGP in all notebooks for better battery life option. Would they choose G 210M or Arrandale's iGP?



    What about triple graphics solution?

    1. One in Arrandale (lowest power consumption)

    2. Second in chipset (like 9400M)

    3. Third as discrete powerful one.



    What about disabling 2 of 4 Clarksfield cores and some clock speed limitation in power optimised mode?



    And until quad cores go 32nm they won't be as power efficient as Arrandale.



    Apple has the best battery tech in the laptop biz right now. It's absurd that they would forgo on Quad Core for battery life when they have a distinct advantage.



    I've seen no confirmation of Turbo Boost in Arrandale or Clarksfield for that matter so I'll wait until Intel releases official specs.



    Arrandle is in fact not low end but the volume/mainstream chipset. As I've said before they will be in low cost notebooks far cheaper than the 1200 and up Macbook Pro series. No one has answered my question.



    "how does Apple market a Pro laptop using the same chip that's in a $700 home notebook?"



    According to Wikipedia Arrandale is est at 18/25/35 Watts TDP. The low end Clarksfield is est at 35 Watt TDP. Other than the potentially slower GPU I don't know where you all think Arrandale is going to make a significant impact. Only the lowest end Arrandale is under 20 watts.



    It's a lateral move as far as consumption considering your graphics probably won't match the Nvidia GPU.
  • Reply 56 of 85
    maratusmaratus Posts: 38member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post


    It's a lateral move as far as consumption considering your graphics probably won't match the Nvidia GPU.



    You'll probably have second GPU in 13" as well so why complaining about graphic's performance?



    And TDP is for both CPU and iGP. Given clock speed difference Arrandale will result in better overall efficiency.



    Why do you say Arrandale to be cheap? What's the difference between future and current Quad cores and Dual cores product placement in mobile market?



    Again, no matter how large current batteries are, Apple probably won't go with 45W CPU. At least I hope so.



    And Intel won't restrict their line of high-end mobile CPUs with hot Clarksfields.
  • Reply 57 of 85
    maratusmaratus Posts: 38member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post


    "how does Apple market a Pro laptop using the same chip that's in a $700 home notebook?"



    They'll use models with higher clocks and more cache. Just like now.
  • Reply 58 of 85
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,354member
    Turbo Boost mode makes lower clocked Quad-cores feasible in a notebook.



    It neatly addresses the marketing issue that arises when consumers say



    "my last notebook was a 2.5Ghz ...I'm not paying for a 1.66Ghz downgrade"



    Today is different than a decade ago. You go to the airport to fly out there are AC stations

    for phones or whatever device you need to charge.



    There's AC jacks everywhere (if you can beat the rush). Our environments have changed so that battery life is rarely an issue for people unless they have a long flight without access to AC.



    Let's address another issue. Do we really think Apple spent all the time and energy in developing Grand Central Dispatch only to fail to deliver QC iMacs and Macbook Pro? Sure you'll see some improvement with dual core but really quad cores and above are going to see very nice benefits and GCD makes it pretty easy to build in concurrent support for many applications. I expect that in a year we'll have a lot of developers who will have opted in and it'll be evident how important QC Macs are.
  • Reply 59 of 85
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post


    Turbo Boost mode makes lower clocked Quad-cores feasible in a notebook.



    If it takes something like Turbo Boost to make quad core possible in notebooks then Intel is doing something wrong. I really can't see the usefullness of something like this and a lot of frustration for the user.



    Quote:



    It neatly addresses the marketing issue that arises when consumers say



    "my last notebook was a 2.5Ghz ...I'm not paying for a 1.66Ghz downgrade"



    So don't market GHz! It's been shown again & again that it doesn't correlate from processor to processor implementation.



    This will have to be adressed anyway because of the significant performance per clock difference. GHz is the old approach to sneaky marketing, they will have to find other deceptive practices.

    Quote:



    Today is different than a decade ago. You go to the airport to fly out there are AC stations

    for phones or whatever device you need to charge.



    There's AC jacks everywhere (if you can beat the rush). Our environments have changed so that battery life is rarely an issue for people unless they have a long flight without access to AC.



    I'm not sure what the battery life issue has to do with this discussion. My point is that Apple needs the option of quad cores on it's laptops and iMacs. It is something they could use now but I understand the wait for the next gen. If you want battery life the solution is easy, buy a low end machine.

    Quote:



    Let's address another issue. Do we really think Apple spent all the time and energy in developing Grand Central Dispatch only to fail to deliver QC iMacs and Macbook Pro?



    They are already failing. Any IMac sold today is not going to be able to leverage SL the way it could if it had even this generation quad cores. GCD is a wonderful thing if there are cores to despatch threads to.

    Quote:

    Sure you'll see some improvement with dual core but really quad cores and above are going to see very nice benefits and GCD makes it pretty easy to build in concurrent support for many applications.



    We are in agreement then. SL really needs more than two cores.

    Quote:

    I expect that in a year we'll have a lot of developers who will have opted in and it'll be evident how important QC Macs are.



    Exactly! But developers are only part of the issue, the extra cores and threads should lead to smoother operation when multiple programs are running.



    Will the transition to quad cores be as noticable as the move to dual was? That depends upon just how good SL is but I suspect quads will be seen as worthwhile fairly quickly. If any of the leaks about SL and Apples pro software are true, quads might be seen as mandatory right off the bat.



    Dave
  • Reply 60 of 85
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by maratus View Post


    From my experience given the same technological process and clock speed doubling core number will result in close to 2x power consumption.



    generally I'm of the impression that it is less than 2X. That versus two processor chips. The reasoning is that you eliminate a whole set of bus transcievers. Bus interfacing eats lots of power.



    Now adding two more cores to a dual core processor is a different story but you still have a fixed number of IO pins to drive. This is one of the reasons Intel implemented two DRAM channels on it's low end or mobile chips as opposed to three it has on some of it's other new products.

    Quote:



    Turbo Boost isn't a gimmick with Quad cores (but probably is with Dual cores) since most demanding applications don't use more than 2 cores effectively.



    I wouldn't be surprised if Apple turned the feature off. It flies in the face of all the effort they put into SL to use all of those cores. Besides your arguement isn't even true today, some of the most demanding apps use four cores very effectively. Frankly Turbo boost is a feature for workloads and software of the past.

    Quote:



    What do you think about iGP + 210M for 13" and iGP + 250M for 15" and 17"?

    Arrandale's iGP will be used for better battery life still supporting OpenCL and hardware HD video decoding.



    Well i hope Apple has nothing to do with Arrandale. If they are stuck with it then I suspect that IGP will be the only choice on the 13". On the other machines Intel needs to license the DMI bus in my estimation. This would allow for next generation graphics processors. Frankly this is where I see Intel really trying it's best to exert excessive control over the market. People want better performing machines and to see intel publically squash attempts to move to the next gen is disheartening to say the least.

    Quote:

    You'll still able to use better graphics on both machines.



    I truely doubt that on the 13" machine. As to the others it depends upon what you mean by better. Better as in a standalone GPU or better as in a new generation.

    Quote:

    Decreased graphic performance in battery saving mode is something I can live with if it result in lower power consumption. Even 4500M HD's performance is ok for battery life mode (but it's not power efficient as it doesn't run significantly cooler than 9400M)



    Frankly the only way I could see IGP, on Arrandale, as being useful is if it is OpenCL capable and actually works well in that mode. Well works well and is bug free.



    To put it mildly I don't gave any confidence in Intel actually making a good GPU. The could shock us which might change my mind but right now it is wait and see. Since this is a whole new generation of machines simply matching 9400M performance is NOT GOOD ENOUGH! To be successful Intel really needs to triple performance over the 9400M. Yeah that is a high mark but again this is a whole new generation of machines that hopefully will remain around for awhile.







    Dave
Sign In or Register to comment.