Actually, Intel is already known to give Apple custom chips. Apple has already rejected this processor if it included integrated GPU according to what I'm reading. It's certainly no stretch that they could get a custom chip from Apple as they've done it in the past.
Actually, Intel has never made Apple a "custom chip". The closest thing you're referring to is the situation with the Macbook Air, which was NOT a custom chip, but was a custom chip packaging and thermal requirements (which only requires binning). BIG difference. What Apple is allegedly demanding is a complete redesign of the current I/O subsystem and just isn't going to happen given that even WITH a redesign, it wouldn't help Apple at all. The system will still utilize a DMI / FDI communications bus, which no 3rd party has a license to make products for. The FSB is gone, and with it, so are the 3rd party licenses (for now).
Again, the only 3rd party graphics solution for Arrandale will have to be PCI-Express "bolt-on" units. Even if Apple gets Intel to remove or disable the GPU from the I/O controller, it will still require there be an add-in chip (discrete), adding both cost, reduced battery life, and increased thermals to the design. It's always possible that Apple could opt for a discrete graphics unit across their entire line-up, but it seems far more likely to me that we will continue to see the same product layout as before: 13" and cheaper 15" pro's get integrated, pricer 15" and above get discrete.
Please also keep in mind that a revised arrandale is due to be released probably around summer this year (as well as updated graphics drivers along the way). I'm thinking Apple may hold out until the new round of units come out (possibly getting "early access" to them as has been seen before) for the macbook refresh.
As far as performance is concerned..You should compare those results to the 9400m..they're pretty similar is mediocrity, so I don't exactly see what you're really complaining about. Sure, it would be nice to see the graphics performance increase, but I was personally worried about a serious decrease and am happy to see things in the same ballpark. It could have been far worse. As I said, higher end macbook pro's will still have their discrete graphics units, so this really doesn't apply to them.
Actually, Intel has never made Apple a "custom chip". The closest thing you're referring to is the situation with the Macbook Air, which was NOT a custom chip, but was a custom chip packaging and thermal requirements (which only requires binning).
The 3.06 Core 2 Duo in the iMac (Penryn with a 1066 FSB) was custom for Apple. I wasn't referring to the Air CPU. It will be interesting to see if Apple has enough weight with Intel to request a custom chip as the industry insiders are already indicating they simply aren't interested in Intel's integrated GPU.
Considering this GPU may be comparable to 9400 from a year and a half ago, but I don't see them as equal. It is already 'dated'. The graphics world isn't sitting still. Last years 9400 chipset is just a little less capable given this years graphical demands.
The 3.06 Core 2 Duo in the iMac (Penryn with a 1066 FSB) was custom for Apple. I wasn't referring to the Air CPU. It will be interesting to see if Apple has enough weight with Intel to request a custom chip as the industry insiders are already indicating they simply aren't interested in Intel's integrated GPU.
Considering this GPU may be comparable to 9400 from a year and a half ago, but I don't see them as equal. It is already 'dated'. The graphics world isn't sitting still. Last years 9400 chipset is just a little less capable given this years graphical demands.
The idea that Apple could ask Intel to remove a feature is ludicrous. The chip has been designed and any change, however small, would require development work, new dies and a whole new production run. Even if removing the GPU from Arrandale was easy it would cost Apple more to have Intel remove the GPU than it would cost to put discrete graphics in all their entry level machines.
The 3.06 Core 2 Duo in the iMac (Penryn with a 1066 FSB) was custom for Apple. I wasn't referring to the Air CPU. It will be interesting to see if Apple has enough weight with Intel to request a custom chip as the industry insiders are already indicating they simply aren't interested in Intel's integrated GPU.
Considering this GPU may be comparable to 9400 from a year and a half ago, but I don't see them as equal. It is already 'dated'. The graphics world isn't sitting still. Last years 9400 chipset is just a little less capable given this years graphical demands.
I'll admit I wasn't aware of the Penryn CPU, but I must also add - that wasn't really custom either. The Penryn chip itself was designed to support an FSB as high as 1600MHz, and it was really the chipset holding back the FSB speed more than it was the CPU at the time. Either way, this was accomplished by binning the better CPUs/chipsets for Apple's use - not creating a custom processor design. What you are referring to here with Arrandale simply won't happen as it's a logical redesign of the CPU itself and can't be accomplished by repackaging or binning the best units off the assembly line. No matter what happens, Apple would effectively have to use a discrete graphics unit in order to utilize anything other than the Intel Integrated graphics.
Personally, I am on board with you here though. I would much rather see us moving forward than standing still. While the CPU itself is a beast compared to the C2D it's replacing, having more GPU muscle would have been nice. I'm hopeful that nVidia can corner Intel into licensing them on DMI (or maybe even QPI as well!) so we can see some great nVidia designs outside of the discrete sector once again.
I'll admit I wasn't aware of the Penryn CPU, but I must also add - that wasn't really custom either. The Penryn chip itself was designed to support an FSB as high as 1600MHz, and it was really the chipset holding back the FSB speed more than it was the CPU at the time. Either way, this was accomplished by binning the better CPUs/chipsets for Apple's use - not creating a custom processor design. What you are referring to here with Arrandale simply won't happen as it's a logical redesign of the CPU itself and can't be accomplished by repackaging or binning the best units off the assembly line. No matter what happens, Apple would effectively have to use a discrete graphics unit in order to utilize anything other than the Intel Integrated graphics.
Personally, I am on board with you here though. I would much rather see us moving forward than standing still. While the CPU itself is a beast compared to the C2D it's replacing, having more GPU muscle would have been nice. I'm hopeful that nVidia can corner Intel into licensing them on DMI (or maybe even QPI as well!) so we can see some great nVidia designs outside of the discrete sector once again.
I can't imagine that Intel isn't aware of their less then sterling reputation when it comes to their GPU. It's very possible that they will give Apple first whack at a GPU'less CPU and if it's viable, give some variant of that to the masses.
I'd like to see a reference link if you have one. Intel integrated graphics have always been horrible. I would be shocked if they produced anything comparable to a current discreet video card's performance.
From what I'm reading, Apple has told Intel to ditch the GPU and give them only the CPU chip, which would be a win in my book.
They are pretty similar, so it appears Intel has managed to catch up to an over a year old chip. That's still pretty lousy, but at least it won't be a step back.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJRumpy
I can't imagine that Intel isn't aware of their less then sterling reputation when it comes to their GPU. It's very possible that they will give Apple first whack at a GPU'less CPU and if it's viable, give some variant of that to the masses.
Time will tell
I think the time of GPU-less CPUs in notebooks may be gone forever. The current generation of Arrandales has the CPU and the GPU/memory controller in the same package, which already reduces power consumption and space requirements quite a bit. The next generation will have all of that on the same die. Once we reach that, there's no going back. Nobody is going to opt for a three chip, CPU+northbridge+southbridge solution when a two chip solution exists. But this is a good thing, with a two chip solution, notebooks that previously could not fit discrete GPUs can now have them. The question then is, whether this new type of three chip solution, CPU+discrete GPU+southbridge, will have a second integrated GPU in the CPU package. And I think the answer is, why not? Switchable graphics is a good idea, it saves power when the discrete GPU is not needed, and even after the integrated GPU gets onto the same die as the CPU, the technology is there to dynamically shut down that area of the die when the discrete GPU is being used. So it's quite beneficial for the price of a modest increase in the die-size of the CPU. I think after the next generation of Arrandale and AMD's equivalent, CPUs with on die GPUs and memory controllers will be the dominant form of CPUs for notebooks. Unfortunately this means we are stuck with Intel integrated graphics when choosing Intel CPUs, unless Intel acquired nvidia or something.
Comparing only 2.53 variants is relevant but inconclusive. Comparisons of the fastest models of each chip is going to show a more useful result. More useful still will be results showing real world results in applications as opposed to theoretical results stressing capabilities of the chips which most software does not yet support. The realistic gains may be more modest than the original indications suggest.
+++
I'm a bit surprised. Performance is better (clock for clock), sometimes markedly so but not always, and battery life isn't.
Given that Arrandale tops out at 2.6 ghz and the current mobile penryns top out at 3.06, its not quite the slam dunk I expected.
I'll bet the top end MBP will still be faster than its predecessor but not by all that much.
Quick thoughts from my iPhone haven't gone through benchmarks in detail. Looks interesting but evolutionary rather than revolutionary, and voilÃ* you get last years 9400m level graphics now so OpenCL for the masses stagnates for a year. Thanks Intel, thank you monopoly.
I think no way Apple is going to get a non GPU Arrandale, there's too much to change. Tough one for Apple but they're going to have to bite the bullet on this one and take it up the @55 from Intel ... Better Macbook Pros in 2010... Yeah, just a little though for similar price points.
I'm a bit surprised. Performance is better (clock for clock), sometimes markedly so but not always, and battery life isn't.
Given that Arrandale tops out at 2.6 ghz and the current mobile penryns top out at 3.06, its not quite the slam dunk I expected.
I'll bet the top end MBP will still be faster than its predecessor but not by all that much.
Again still on the phone so after dinner I'll spend a good hour on the benches... But given the thermal envelope being more or less the same why is battery life not the same? I mean aside from it being a different architecture and turbo on load, etc, as a whole laptop moving the igp on package maybe did not bring as much power savings as we were led to believe.
Edit: It looks like it's because we're looking at 35W instead of 25W, albeit the 35W does include graphics. So I'm confused. Still reading Anandtech's review.
Edit2: Okay so I'm starting to turn around on this, as Anandtech says: "From the balanced notebook perspective, Arrandale is awesome. Battery life doesn't improve, but performance goes up tremendously. The end result is better performance for hopefully the same power consumption. If you're stuck with an aging laptop it's worth the wait. If you can wait even longer we expect to see a second rev of Arrandale silicon towards the middle of the year with better power characteristics..."
Edit3: It looks like there's still a ways to go with how Arrandale turns out. There's some definite potential for 10% to 30% improvements in performance for similar levels of battery usage, but this all depends also on Turbo Boost and the built in IGP clocking up and down. A possibility is at the end of this month shipping MacBook Pros will be announced with Core i5 and Core i7 Arrandales. Or, there may be a stealth Penryn upgrade while the hype is all on the Tablet...
Nah, my gut tells me Apple is out to kick off sales in this usually-the-slowest quarter with Core i5 and Core i7 MacBook Pros (the naming sounds nice, don't it)... Because they'll need Macbook Pros, iMac, iPhone 3GS and iPod to all kick along well while production ramps on the Tablet where Apple will typically ludicrously underestimate demand so Tablets will be a rare thing (think 2-4 weeks ship time) for at least until April.
By the way I wouldn't mind blowing $350 on a regular netbook but they are all FRICKIN HIDEOUS. Barely one or two models *might* even look passable. And this is the latest out of CES this week...!
This is how Apple is going to play it. Macbook Pro 13" and low-end 15" will remain 9400M with Core 2 Duo bump. They will transition by middle of the year to the 2nd or 3rd gen Arrandales when the silicon is a bit more refined.
Now, mid-end to higher 15" and 17" will go Core i5 and i7. These will have Nvidia or (probably) ATI's 40nm 5-series discrete for "high-power" GPU mode, otherwise power-savings mode will use the Intel IGP. Will there be an update to make the transition between the integrated and discrete GPU more seamless? Let's hope so.
See the upsell? And how it works out perfectly for Apple in terms of dealing with the Intel Integrated graphics?
Yeah, this sounds good, I can feel it... Well, hope this prediction comes out true.
-because the worst parts of it was that they're overpriced and that Intel de-integrated the memory controller off the die in the i5 Clarksdales after integrating it in the i7s. http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=3704&p=2
And that article also said that the new Best Intel integrated was now just even with other IGPs, which is to say, still kinda crappy.
I'm not too upset about losing the 9400m as the base graphics unit. Intel seems to have really stepped things up this round. Sure, it's most likely not an improvement over the 9400m, and we probably would have been much better off if we could have seen nVidia's next gen version of it, but as has been said it's certainly not a step backwards.
The benchmarks show Modern Warfare 2 at 21FPS on lowest quality. I played Modern Warfare 2 on maximum quality on the 9400M at 800 x 600 and it was 25-30FPS the whole time. Here's a video of it on a 9400M Macbook Air:
25FPS at maximum quality. The Intel benchmark is 15FPS (unplayable) on good quality.
Plus, it's not just raw performance but feature support. Intel graphics consistently don't support features in motion graphics and 3D software such as hardware-accelerated particle rendering.
As for power consumption, the full load of 72W for that performance isn't that good. ATI's 5650, which is 50% faster than the 9600M GT is rumored to use just 15-25W and the NVidia 250M GTS (50-60% faster) draws 28W.
Basically for the same overall power draw, you will get at least 5x more performance using NVidia's or ATI's latest low-powered solutions with 350GFlops compute performance. Apple would have to be out of their minds to go down the Intel graphics route again.
The current MacBook Pros all have integrated graphics. The 13" and low-end 15" have only integrated graphics, and the remaining 15" and 17" models have an additional discrete chip. Those with both integrated and discrete allow you to choose between them, with the integrated chip offering better battery life.
Moving to Arrandale would simply mean using Intel integrated graphics instead of Nvidia integrated graphics. In either case, you'd need a discrete card for any serious GPU related stuff.
That could be likened to the difference bewtween a garden tractor and a D9 dozer. The nvidia chip set is like 5 times faster, does OpenCL and accelerates video decode. The Intel chip is crap.
Comments
Actually, Intel is already known to give Apple custom chips. Apple has already rejected this processor if it included integrated GPU according to what I'm reading. It's certainly no stretch that they could get a custom chip from Apple as they've done it in the past.
Actually, Intel has never made Apple a "custom chip". The closest thing you're referring to is the situation with the Macbook Air, which was NOT a custom chip, but was a custom chip packaging and thermal requirements (which only requires binning). BIG difference. What Apple is allegedly demanding is a complete redesign of the current I/O subsystem and just isn't going to happen given that even WITH a redesign, it wouldn't help Apple at all. The system will still utilize a DMI / FDI communications bus, which no 3rd party has a license to make products for. The FSB is gone, and with it, so are the 3rd party licenses (for now).
Again, the only 3rd party graphics solution for Arrandale will have to be PCI-Express "bolt-on" units. Even if Apple gets Intel to remove or disable the GPU from the I/O controller, it will still require there be an add-in chip (discrete), adding both cost, reduced battery life, and increased thermals to the design. It's always possible that Apple could opt for a discrete graphics unit across their entire line-up, but it seems far more likely to me that we will continue to see the same product layout as before: 13" and cheaper 15" pro's get integrated, pricer 15" and above get discrete.
Please also keep in mind that a revised arrandale is due to be released probably around summer this year (as well as updated graphics drivers along the way). I'm thinking Apple may hold out until the new round of units come out (possibly getting "early access" to them as has been seen before) for the macbook refresh.
As far as performance is concerned..You should compare those results to the 9400m..they're pretty similar is mediocrity, so I don't exactly see what you're really complaining about. Sure, it would be nice to see the graphics performance increase, but I was personally worried about a serious decrease and am happy to see things in the same ballpark. It could have been far worse. As I said, higher end macbook pro's will still have their discrete graphics units, so this really doesn't apply to them.
Actually, Intel has never made Apple a "custom chip". The closest thing you're referring to is the situation with the Macbook Air, which was NOT a custom chip, but was a custom chip packaging and thermal requirements (which only requires binning).
The 3.06 Core 2 Duo in the iMac (Penryn with a 1066 FSB) was custom for Apple. I wasn't referring to the Air CPU. It will be interesting to see if Apple has enough weight with Intel to request a custom chip as the industry insiders are already indicating they simply aren't interested in Intel's integrated GPU.
Considering this GPU may be comparable to 9400 from a year and a half ago, but I don't see them as equal. It is already 'dated'. The graphics world isn't sitting still. Last years 9400 chipset is just a little less capable given this years graphical demands.
The 3.06 Core 2 Duo in the iMac (Penryn with a 1066 FSB) was custom for Apple. I wasn't referring to the Air CPU. It will be interesting to see if Apple has enough weight with Intel to request a custom chip as the industry insiders are already indicating they simply aren't interested in Intel's integrated GPU.
Considering this GPU may be comparable to 9400 from a year and a half ago, but I don't see them as equal. It is already 'dated'. The graphics world isn't sitting still. Last years 9400 chipset is just a little less capable given this years graphical demands.
The idea that Apple could ask Intel to remove a feature is ludicrous. The chip has been designed and any change, however small, would require development work, new dies and a whole new production run. Even if removing the GPU from Arrandale was easy it would cost Apple more to have Intel remove the GPU than it would cost to put discrete graphics in all their entry level machines.
The 3.06 Core 2 Duo in the iMac (Penryn with a 1066 FSB) was custom for Apple. I wasn't referring to the Air CPU. It will be interesting to see if Apple has enough weight with Intel to request a custom chip as the industry insiders are already indicating they simply aren't interested in Intel's integrated GPU.
Considering this GPU may be comparable to 9400 from a year and a half ago, but I don't see them as equal. It is already 'dated'. The graphics world isn't sitting still. Last years 9400 chipset is just a little less capable given this years graphical demands.
I'll admit I wasn't aware of the Penryn CPU, but I must also add - that wasn't really custom either. The Penryn chip itself was designed to support an FSB as high as 1600MHz, and it was really the chipset holding back the FSB speed more than it was the CPU at the time. Either way, this was accomplished by binning the better CPUs/chipsets for Apple's use - not creating a custom processor design. What you are referring to here with Arrandale simply won't happen as it's a logical redesign of the CPU itself and can't be accomplished by repackaging or binning the best units off the assembly line. No matter what happens, Apple would effectively have to use a discrete graphics unit in order to utilize anything other than the Intel Integrated graphics.
Personally, I am on board with you here though. I would much rather see us moving forward than standing still. While the CPU itself is a beast compared to the C2D it's replacing, having more GPU muscle would have been nice. I'm hopeful that nVidia can corner Intel into licensing them on DMI (or maybe even QPI as well!) so we can see some great nVidia designs outside of the discrete sector once again.
I'll admit I wasn't aware of the Penryn CPU, but I must also add - that wasn't really custom either. The Penryn chip itself was designed to support an FSB as high as 1600MHz, and it was really the chipset holding back the FSB speed more than it was the CPU at the time. Either way, this was accomplished by binning the better CPUs/chipsets for Apple's use - not creating a custom processor design. What you are referring to here with Arrandale simply won't happen as it's a logical redesign of the CPU itself and can't be accomplished by repackaging or binning the best units off the assembly line. No matter what happens, Apple would effectively have to use a discrete graphics unit in order to utilize anything other than the Intel Integrated graphics.
Personally, I am on board with you here though. I would much rather see us moving forward than standing still. While the CPU itself is a beast compared to the C2D it's replacing, having more GPU muscle would have been nice. I'm hopeful that nVidia can corner Intel into licensing them on DMI (or maybe even QPI as well!) so we can see some great nVidia designs outside of the discrete sector once again.
I can't imagine that Intel isn't aware of their less then sterling reputation when it comes to their GPU. It's very possible that they will give Apple first whack at a GPU'less CPU and if it's viable, give some variant of that to the masses.
Time will tell
http://www.macrumors.com/2009/12/07/...ernative-chip/
Any thoughts?
Hey, anybody remember this report about Apple "dissing" the Arrandale?
http://www.macrumors.com/2009/12/07/...ernative-chip/
Any thoughts?
Never mind. I guess everybody does remember
I'd like to see a reference link if you have one. Intel integrated graphics have always been horrible. I would be shocked if they produced anything comparable to a current discreet video card's performance.
From what I'm reading, Apple has told Intel to ditch the GPU and give them only the CPU chip, which would be a win in my book.
Here's a gaming performance benchmark with Arrandale's integrated GPU: http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid...e=expert&pid=9
And for comparison here are the numbers that the 9400M gets: http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-...G.11949.0.html
They are pretty similar, so it appears Intel has managed to catch up to an over a year old chip. That's still pretty lousy, but at least it won't be a step back.
I can't imagine that Intel isn't aware of their less then sterling reputation when it comes to their GPU. It's very possible that they will give Apple first whack at a GPU'less CPU and if it's viable, give some variant of that to the masses.
Time will tell
I think the time of GPU-less CPUs in notebooks may be gone forever. The current generation of Arrandales has the CPU and the GPU/memory controller in the same package, which already reduces power consumption and space requirements quite a bit. The next generation will have all of that on the same die. Once we reach that, there's no going back. Nobody is going to opt for a three chip, CPU+northbridge+southbridge solution when a two chip solution exists. But this is a good thing, with a two chip solution, notebooks that previously could not fit discrete GPUs can now have them. The question then is, whether this new type of three chip solution, CPU+discrete GPU+southbridge, will have a second integrated GPU in the CPU package. And I think the answer is, why not? Switchable graphics is a good idea, it saves power when the discrete GPU is not needed, and even after the integrated GPU gets onto the same die as the CPU, the technology is there to dynamically shut down that area of the die when the discrete GPU is being used. So it's quite beneficial for the price of a modest increase in the die-size of the CPU. I think after the next generation of Arrandale and AMD's equivalent, CPUs with on die GPUs and memory controllers will be the dominant form of CPUs for notebooks. Unfortunately this means we are stuck with Intel integrated graphics when choosing Intel CPUs, unless Intel acquired nvidia or something.
Comparing only 2.53 variants is relevant but inconclusive. Comparisons of the fastest models of each chip is going to show a more useful result. More useful still will be results showing real world results in applications as opposed to theoretical results stressing capabilities of the chips which most software does not yet support. The realistic gains may be more modest than the original indications suggest.
+++
I'm a bit surprised. Performance is better (clock for clock), sometimes markedly so but not always, and battery life isn't.
Given that Arrandale tops out at 2.6 ghz and the current mobile penryns top out at 3.06, its not quite the slam dunk I expected.
I'll bet the top end MBP will still be faster than its predecessor but not by all that much.
+++
I'm a bit surprised. Performance is better (clock for clock), sometimes markedly so but not always, and battery life isn't.
Given that Arrandale tops out at 2.6 ghz and the current mobile penryns top out at 3.06, its not quite the slam dunk I expected.
I'll bet the top end MBP will still be faster than its predecessor but not by all that much.
Again still on the phone so after dinner I'll spend a good hour on the benches... But given the thermal envelope being more or less the same why is battery life not the same? I mean aside from it being a different architecture and turbo on load, etc, as a whole laptop moving the igp on package maybe did not bring as much power savings as we were led to believe.
Edit: It looks like it's because we're looking at 35W instead of 25W, albeit the 35W does include graphics. So I'm confused. Still reading Anandtech's review.
Edit2: Okay so I'm starting to turn around on this, as Anandtech says: "From the balanced notebook perspective, Arrandale is awesome. Battery life doesn't improve, but performance goes up tremendously. The end result is better performance for hopefully the same power consumption. If you're stuck with an aging laptop it's worth the wait. If you can wait even longer we expect to see a second rev of Arrandale silicon towards the middle of the year with better power characteristics..."
Edit3: It looks like there's still a ways to go with how Arrandale turns out. There's some definite potential for 10% to 30% improvements in performance for similar levels of battery usage, but this all depends also on Turbo Boost and the built in IGP clocking up and down. A possibility is at the end of this month shipping MacBook Pros will be announced with Core i5 and Core i7 Arrandales. Or, there may be a stealth Penryn upgrade while the hype is all on the Tablet...
Nah, my gut tells me Apple is out to kick off sales in this usually-the-slowest quarter with Core i5 and Core i7 MacBook Pros (the naming sounds nice, don't it)... Because they'll need Macbook Pros, iMac, iPhone 3GS and iPod to all kick along well while production ramps on the Tablet where Apple will typically ludicrously underestimate demand so Tablets will be a rare thing (think 2-4 weeks ship time) for at least until April.
By the way I wouldn't mind blowing $350 on a regular netbook but they are all FRICKIN HIDEOUS. Barely one or two models *might* even look passable. And this is the latest out of CES this week...!
(Anandtech)
This is how Apple is going to play it. Macbook Pro 13" and low-end 15" will remain 9400M with Core 2 Duo bump. They will transition by middle of the year to the 2nd or 3rd gen Arrandales when the silicon is a bit more refined.
Now, mid-end to higher 15" and 17" will go Core i5 and i7. These will have Nvidia or (probably) ATI's 40nm 5-series discrete for "high-power" GPU mode, otherwise power-savings mode will use the Intel IGP. Will there be an update to make the transition between the integrated and discrete GPU more seamless? Let's hope so.
See the upsell? And how it works out perfectly for Apple in terms of dealing with the Intel Integrated graphics?
Yeah, this sounds good, I can feel it... Well, hope this prediction comes out true.
looks good. 1680x1050 in that 15" please! my cash is waiting
The next revision of Macbook Pro 15" really should have this feature.
-because the worst parts of it was that they're overpriced and that Intel de-integrated the memory controller off the die in the i5 Clarksdales after integrating it in the i7s. http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=3704&p=2
And that article also said that the new Best Intel integrated was now just even with other IGPs, which is to say, still kinda crappy.
I'm not too upset about losing the 9400m as the base graphics unit. Intel seems to have really stepped things up this round. Sure, it's most likely not an improvement over the 9400m, and we probably would have been much better off if we could have seen nVidia's next gen version of it, but as has been said it's certainly not a step backwards.
The benchmarks show Modern Warfare 2 at 21FPS on lowest quality. I played Modern Warfare 2 on maximum quality on the 9400M at 800 x 600 and it was 25-30FPS the whole time. Here's a video of it on a 9400M Macbook Air:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmy3WhMIfCk
Making MW2 unplayable is a step back IMO. Same with World of Warcraft. Here is WoW running on a 9400M Macbook:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4VS23fGUzT8
25FPS at maximum quality. The Intel benchmark is 15FPS (unplayable) on good quality.
Plus, it's not just raw performance but feature support. Intel graphics consistently don't support features in motion graphics and 3D software such as hardware-accelerated particle rendering.
As for power consumption, the full load of 72W for that performance isn't that good. ATI's 5650, which is 50% faster than the 9600M GT is rumored to use just 15-25W and the NVidia 250M GTS (50-60% faster) draws 28W.
Basically for the same overall power draw, you will get at least 5x more performance using NVidia's or ATI's latest low-powered solutions with 350GFlops compute performance. Apple would have to be out of their minds to go down the Intel graphics route again.
The current MacBook Pros all have integrated graphics. The 13" and low-end 15" have only integrated graphics, and the remaining 15" and 17" models have an additional discrete chip. Those with both integrated and discrete allow you to choose between them, with the integrated chip offering better battery life.
Moving to Arrandale would simply mean using Intel integrated graphics instead of Nvidia integrated graphics. In either case, you'd need a discrete card for any serious GPU related stuff.
That could be likened to the difference bewtween a garden tractor and a D9 dozer. The nvidia chip set is like 5 times faster, does OpenCL and accelerates video decode. The Intel chip is crap.
Dave