Intel's latest Processors and Apple
Hi,
I am a little confused by Intel's latest chipsets and what they imply for Apple's future notebook line-up. My understanding is that Intel has now die-shrunk the Nehalem architecture to a 32 nm board and placed an integrated graphics processor on the motherboard, which means that a discreet or separate graphics chip is no longer strictly necessary. Unfortunately, the built-in Intel graphics processors are not very good, so Apple still needs to add its own graphics sub-systems to ensure video output is up to scratch. For this reason, Apple did not move to a Core i5 or i7 chip for lower-end MacBook Pros.
Okay, so now Intel is about to release the next iteration of Nehalem / Sandy Bridge with further enhancements. What does this mean for future MacBook Pros and when should we expect the next refresh?
Is Intel trying to lock-out AMD and ATI? Are Intel's own graphics processors any good or will they improve any time soon?
I'd be grateful if a chip expert could explain in layman's terms what is going on. Thank you.
I am a little confused by Intel's latest chipsets and what they imply for Apple's future notebook line-up. My understanding is that Intel has now die-shrunk the Nehalem architecture to a 32 nm board and placed an integrated graphics processor on the motherboard, which means that a discreet or separate graphics chip is no longer strictly necessary. Unfortunately, the built-in Intel graphics processors are not very good, so Apple still needs to add its own graphics sub-systems to ensure video output is up to scratch. For this reason, Apple did not move to a Core i5 or i7 chip for lower-end MacBook Pros.
Okay, so now Intel is about to release the next iteration of Nehalem / Sandy Bridge with further enhancements. What does this mean for future MacBook Pros and when should we expect the next refresh?
Is Intel trying to lock-out AMD and ATI? Are Intel's own graphics processors any good or will they improve any time soon?
I'd be grateful if a chip expert could explain in layman's terms what is going on. Thank you.
Comments
For this reason, Apple did not move to a Core i5 or i7 chip for lower-end MacBook Pros.
Incorrect. They didn't move to Arrandale because you can't FIT a dedicated GPU inside the 13" MacBook Pro along with the integrated one in the Arrandale chipset. That's really the only reason. They made the right call, though. It works out better to have Core 2 and a dedicated chip instead of having Core i5 and the Intel integrated crap.
Is Intel trying to lock-out AMD and ATI?
Same company. You mean AMD and nVidia. The answer is still no.
Are Intel's own graphics processors any good or will they improve any time soon?
No and very no.
Incorrect. They didn't move to Arrandale because you can't FIT a dedicated GPU inside the 13" MacBook Pro along with the integrated one in the Arrandale chipset. That's really the only reason. They made the right call, though. It works out better to have Core 2 and a dedicated chip instead of having Core i5 and the Intel integrated crap.
Same company. You mean AMD and nVidia. The answer is still no.
No and very no.
Thanks very much for this. Excuse my ignorance.
So if intel's new architecture cannot fit in a 13" MacBook Pro, I guess we shouldn't expect Apple to upgrade this model anytime soon? What are Apple's future upgrade choices, anyway?
Thanks very much for this. Excuse my ignorance.
So if intel's new architecture cannot fit in a 13" MacBook Pro, I guess we shouldn't expect Apple to upgrade this model anytime soon? What are Apple's future upgrade choices, anyway?
We're already using Westmere chips. That's the shrink you're talking about. Arrandale is mainstream laptop Westmere.
Sandy Bridge is at least a year off. We'll have speed bumps of Westmere late this fall, likely.
Intel's newest architecture would fit in a 13" Macbook Pro just fine. Apple's engineers are getting lazy.
Yes, the architecture would fit, but Intel has been playing licensing games with their chipsets meaning that for the moment NVIDIA can't produce chipsets (with integrate graphics) that work with the i-series processors.
So Apple looked at their options:
On one hand pay more money for a i3 processor than a Core2Duo. Get a slight bump in processor speed, but take a major hit on both power consumption and GPU speed (NVIDIA's chipset is really that much better than Intel's).
Apple chose the route that was cooler, cheaper, and for most things, faster.
So the only thing that Apple did not get was the name i3 on the box... Where exactly is this Apple's engineers being lazy?
We're already using Westmere chips. That's the shrink you're talking about. Arrandale is mainstream laptop Westmere.
Sandy Bridge is at least a year off. We'll have speed bumps of Westmere late this fall, likely.
Thanks TS,
I thought Sandy Bridge was much closer to release, based on the most recent review of intel's processor roadmap. I guess you shouldn't always believe what you see.
Can you tell us more about the Westmere speed bump?
Can you tell us more about the Westmere speed bump?
No one really knows much about it, I don't think. It'll just be a clock speed increase. They won't change RAM or GPU at all.
Oh, I see where you're getting the Sandy Bridge release... That's performance mobile. Apple doesn't use 45w chips at all, so we have to wait for the 35w ones to be released.
So the only thing that Apple did not get was the name i3 on the box... Where exactly is this Apple's engineers being lazy?
For one thing, they don't have to use an Nvidia chipset. Apple could return to using a discrete GPU in its low-end machines, but... Apple is getting cheap and lazy on us.
Hi,
I am a little confused by Intel's latest chipsets and what they imply for Apple's future notebook line-up. My understanding is that Intel has now die-shrunk the Nehalem architecture to a 32 nm board and placed an integrated graphics processor on the motherboard,
That should be on the processor die if you are talking about Sandy Bridge and in the multi chip module for the earlier chips.
which means that a discreet or separate graphics chip is no longer strictly necessary. Unfortunately, the built-in Intel graphics processors are not very good, so Apple still needs to add its own graphics sub-systems to ensure video output is up to scratch. For this reason, Apple did not move to a Core i5 or i7 chip for lower-end MacBook Pros.
Exactly.
Okay, so now Intel is about to release the next iteration of Nehalem / Sandy Bridge with further enhancements. What does this mean for future MacBook Pros and when should we expect the next refresh?
The next refresh will come when Apple is good and ready.
As for Mac Book Pros expect to see further refinements of the dual GPU system at the high end. Maybe we will see AMD tech at the low end.
Is Intel trying to lock-out AMD and ATI? Are Intel's own graphics processors any good or will they improve any time soon?
Intels GPUs suck really hard. So hard I could see Apple leaving Intel for AMD chips.
I'd be grateful if a chip expert could explain in layman's terms what is going on. Thank you.
Intelis jerking the market around.
Since I think Apple is being cheap and lazy on the engineering front, I think it'll be the former. The latter would take more work. Anyway, Sandy Bridge will have an IGP good enough for whatever graphics Mac users need.
The next refresh of the Macbook and 13" MBP will mark either Apple's return to Intel Integrated Graphics at the low end, or Apple's adoption of AMD processors and Radeon integrated graphics on those machines.
Any reason you think this?
Any reason you think this?
Common sense says $1000+ computers shouldn't have obsolete processors. Core 2 Duo is a joke at that price and will be much more so when next-generation processors appear at the beginning of next year. So Apple has four options:
Option 1: Continue to use Core 2 Duo with Nvidia integrated graphics
Option 2: Use Intel Core 2011 processors with discrete graphics
Option 3: Use Intel Core 2011 processors with integrated graphics
Option 4: Use AMD processors and integrated graphics (probably Llano since Zacate is going to be too slow for these machines)
Honesty compels me to say that I have no idea what Apple will do, but that performance is secondary to profit, which suggests option 1. However, a few things point me towards Apple taking option 3. Those things are:
1: Nvidia seems to be pissing everyone off these days, including Apple. That, and the fact that Core 2 Duo in a Macbook Pro is some kind of bad joke, makes me discount option one.
2: Apple is currently using Core 2010 processors with discrete graphics... but only in its 15 and 17 inch notebooks. Not using them in the 13" models represents either cheapness (profit over performance) or lazy engineering (which is another form of cheapness). If Apple was going to use discrete graphics, it could have already. Therefore I discount option 2.
3: Intel's Core 2011 processors are actually going to have good integrated graphics. Really. At least, Intel has caught up with circa-2010 AMD and Nvidia IGPs. That will still be second place to AMD in 2011, but it's a huge improvement over their current IGP. This makes option 3 the most likely, I think. It's the cheapest solution for Apple, and good enough to be marketed as "good enough."
4: AMD's Llano "Fusion" mobile processors will have 2-4 cores derived from their Phenom II architecture attached to an IGP rumored to be almost as fast as a Radeon 5600. That's a clear improvement over what Apple currently uses. Compared to option 3, it trades off a slower processor for faster graphics, becoming a question of where Apple's priorities lie. On the other hand, Apple has shown no indication of stepping off the Intel train. So this is a geeky dream, but a slim chance in reality.
tl;dr: Intel's next-gen processors are going to be too good to not use.
The next refresh of the Macbook and 13" MBP will mark either Apple's return to Intel Integrated Graphics at the low end, or Apple's adoption of AMD processors and Radeon integrated graphics on those machines.
Since I think Apple is being cheap and lazy on the engineering front, I think it'll be the former. The latter would take more work. Anyway, Sandy Bridge will have an IGP good enough for whatever graphics Mac users need.
Everything I've seen indicates that even on Sandy Bridge it would be a step backwards to employ Intel Integrated Graphics. Plus the issue of OpenCL support still isn't clear with Intel hardware. So you have at least a couple of reasons to stay away from Intel chips with Intel GPU's.
Besides what is all the noise about being cheap and lazy. The last Mac Book Pro round was very innovative. You don't see anybody else using both the integrated and the discrete GPU the way Apple does.
Common sense says $1000+ computers shouldn't have obsolete processors. Core 2 Duo is a joke at that price and will be much more so when next-generation processors appear at the beginning of next year. So Apple has four options:
Option 1: Continue to use Core 2 Duo with Nvidia integrated graphics
Option 2: Use Intel Core 2011 processors with discrete graphics
Option 3: Use Intel Core 2011 processors with integrated graphics
Option 4: Use AMD processors and integrated graphics (probably Llano since Zacate is going to be too slow for these machines)
Honesty compels me to say that I have no idea what Apple will do, but that performance is secondary to profit, which suggests option 1. However, a few things point me towards Apple taking option 3. Those things are:
1: Nvidia seems to be pissing everyone off these days, including Apple. That, and the fact that Core 2 Duo in a Macbook Pro is some kind of bad joke, makes me discount option one.
It is true that NVIdia is pissing people off, that is no secret. However Core 2 is not a joke in the low end Mac Book Pro, it was the only decent option at the time for Apple.
2: Apple is currently using Core 2010 processors with discrete graphics... but only in its 15 and 17 inch notebooks. Not using them in the 13" models represents either cheapness (profit over performance) or lazy engineering (which is another form of cheapness). If Apple was going to use discrete graphics, it could have already. Therefore I discount option 2.
Total BS. All engineering is the management of various trade offs to reach a price and performance point. By definition a lower price piece of hardware makes a different set of trade offs than items at the top of the line. The machines with the Core 2 processors stressed the importance of good graphics performance over absolute CPU performance.
Beyond that the available options at the time did not have significantly faster CPU units. About the only thing noticeable to the user would be better floating point performance and maybe better SIMD behavior. Notably performance that doesn't mean much in a lower end laptop.
3: Intel's Core 2011 processors are actually going to have good integrated graphics. Really. At least, Intel has caught up with circa-2010 AMD and Nvidia IGPs. That will still be second place to AMD in 2011, but it's a huge improvement over their current IGP. This makes option 3 the most likely, I think. It's the cheapest solution for Apple, and good enough to be marketed as "good enough."
No not really. They will only meet the performance level of year and a half old NVIDIA integrated chips. Notably that is only for certain usage. The required info to completely judge the Intel integrated graphic doesn't exist yet. No one really knows if OpenCL will be properly supported nor how well the video hardware decode will work. Right now it appears that Intel integrated graphics isn't good enough and would result in a step backwards instead of forward.
4: AMD's Llano "Fusion" mobile processors will have 2-4 cores derived from their Phenom II architecture attached to an IGP rumored to be almost as fast as a Radeon 5600. That's a clear improvement over what Apple currently uses. Compared to option 3, it trades off a slower processor for faster graphics, becoming a question of where Apple's priorities lie. On the other hand, Apple has shown no indication of stepping off the Intel train. So this is a geeky dream, but a slim chance in reality.
Gee that sounds like those Core 2 Mac Book Pros you have been complaining about.
As it should be because for many the performance of the GPU is what gives the user the feeling of a speedy and powerful machine these days.
tl;dr: Intel's next-gen processors are going to be too good to not use.
Funny but the evidence I've seen questions your conclusion.
Common sense says $1000+ computers shouldn't have obsolete processors.
Sure it does.
...the fact that Core 2 Duo in a Macbook Pro is some kind of bad joke...
Core 2 and dedicated GPU is better than Core i3 and Intel integrated. No one sane could argue with that.
...lazy engineering...
Show me on the logic board where you would put this magical second GPU.
...AMD...
There's zero evidence of this. Buy your vaunted AMD computer and make it a Hackintosh.
Funny but the evidence I've seen questions your conclusion.
And you're just rationalizing cheapness and laziness on Apple's part.
Core 2 and dedicated GPU is better than Core i3 and Intel integrated. No one sane could argue with that.
.
I think there is merit in that argument but you do realize that the 13" MBP, MB, and mac mini use integrated graphics, right?
I think there is merit in that argument but you do realize that the 13" MBP, MB, and mac mini use integrated graphics, right?
How in the WORLD did I get that confused?
Okay, I mean that had they gone with a Core i3 processor, they would have had to drop the nVidia chip altogether and just use Intel's integrated GPU because of space constraints.
How in the WORLD did I get that confused?
Okay, I mean that had they gone with a Core i3 processor, they would have had to drop the nVidia chip altogether and just use Intel's integrated GPU because of space constraints.
Maybe. Maybe not. If Steve Jobs decreed to his engineers, "put a real graphics chip in the Macbook," do you think they would tell him, "there's no room"? Of course not. They'd make room for a discrete GPU.
But doing that would take engineering time, when Apple already has too few hardware engineers working on too many projects. It would cost money, both in that engineering time and in the cost of the parts (margin reduction). So it won't happen, not because of space constraints, but because of money and time constraints (which is what I really mean when I say cheap and lazy).
Apple has used Intel integrated graphics before, even though they were clearly inferior at the time. GMA 950? GMA 3100? Those were even three-chip solutions: CPU, northbridge, southbridge. The engineers found space on the PCB for those, so where were your space constraints in the original Macbook and Mac mini?
Arrandale and the upcoming Sandy Bridge only have two chips- the CPU and a "PCH" which is really just the old southbridge renamed. A GPU wouldn't take up any more space than the old northbridge. Space isn't the reason Apple won't do this. At least, it isn't the underlying reason.
How in the WORLD did I get that confused?
Okay, I mean that had they gone with a Core i3 processor, they would have had to drop the nVidia chip altogether and just use Intel's integrated GPU because of space constraints.
You were wrong but actually I think you're right.