Sandy Bridge has an integrated MPEG2, VC1 and H.264/AVC decoder that Intel claims will use only half the processor power for HD playback as existing processors. It also has a AVC encoder/transcoder that, in a demonstration, was able to transcode a three minute 1080P 30Mbps video into a 640 x 360 iPhone video in 14 seconds, at a rate of 400 fps. This gets into the performance range of high-end, GPU-accelerated encoders. Sandy Bridge will also have an enhanced Turbo Boost feature that will allow the clock speed of individual cores to be boosted beyond the normal thermal design power (the maximum safe power dissipation of the chip) for brief periods of time.
Okay. so I said something about the Mac in the title, right? According to Anandtech, Core i3, i5 and i7 processors with Sandy Bridge architectures will ship in Q1 2011. Every MacBook Pro, iMac and Mac Pro ships today with at least a Core i3. Next, let's add Light Peak, Intel's new 10Gbps optical competitor to USB 3.0. There's no support for Light Peak in the first Intel chipset announced for Sandy Bridge, but that doesn't mean that it can't be added.
Add it all together, and it sounds like the Apple notebook and iMac product lines will be fully refreshed some time next year with a combination of Sandy Bridge and Light Peak. There goes the I/O limitations of Apple's notebooks and desktops. (Apple won't have to reengineer the Mac Pro right away--they can simply offer a PCI Light Peak card.)
Let's throw one more thing into the mix. There's been a lot of rumor and speculation surrounding the next release of Apple's Final Cut Studio, with a battle between bloggers--some saying that a new version will be released no later that NAB in April 2011, and others saying that it won't happen until 2012. The "2011" school says that the new version of Final Cut Studio will have Adobe Mercury Engine-like performance, but the "2012" school says that's not possible without major architectural changes. If Apple is writing the next version of Final Cut Studio to take full advantage of the features in Sandy Bridge, it most definitely is possible in the 2011 timeframe.
So here's my semi-informed speculation: In Q1 (perhaps late Q1), we'll see the first updated MacBook Pros with Sandy Bridge and Light Peak announced. New iMacs will follow. Then, in the April timeframe, just before NAB, Apple will announce the new Final Cut Studio that takes full advantage of the new computers ("great time to upgrade!"). Deliveries of everything will occur by the end of Q2.
4 comments:
Interesting post. Periodically for the past 4 months, I've been on the verge of pulling the trigger on a 13-inch Macbook or Macbook Pro. But, Apple must inveterately love to serve out quandaries to their discerning aficionados. You see I really want the 13-inch size, but my decision felt frivolous with Arrandale in the offing (by this I mean the next upgrade, several months later). Lately, I've been vacillating over the white Macbook practically everyday, but with the emergence of 32nm technology, why am I springing for redundant processor architecture? If I had the money and didn't find the portability of the 13-inch appealing, the 15-inch would be the logical choice. It is after all, the kindred spirit to my, not aging, but aged 6-year old, 15-inch G4 Powerbook, running Panther, although I don't know how much my Panther is running these days. I machine is serviceable but slow, hardware and software deficient. I love it to pieces, however, at least when recalling all we've been through. The profoundly improved 15-inch was also released at the exact time I had begun thinking about upgrading, and my was that I had spilled water on my computer and needed the keyboard replaced. Perhaps the timing meant I was destined to get that model, it's never too late.
Anyway, enough about me, I wish to ask you something
You said that Intel's integrated graphics should perform 100% better, yet you granted that Intel's chips will not keep "NVIDIA or AMD up at night." Forgive me if I'm wrong, but does that not bode well for the fate of MacBook GPUs? Apple will presumably ship their MacBook a la Intel hegemony, but am I foolish to have premonitions of vehement disappointment at the graphical performance of future MacBooks, which will then be addressed by Apple in the subsequent upgrade?
Maybe just paranoid, also is there any early 2011 month in particular you see Apple making the initial conversion to Sandy Bridge? Thanks
Thanks for your comment! The only thing that's reasonably certain is that Intel will ship the first Sandy Bridge CPUs in Q1 2011. My suspicion (and that's all it is) is that Apple will announce its first Sandy Bridge products in Q1.
Keep in mind that it's far more likely that the MacBook Pros will get Sandy Bridge-architecture processors before the MacBook, which currently uses a Core 2 Duo.
Thanks, my understanding is the Sandy Bridge's principal purpose is to deliver 32nm technology to the masses. No longer will a Core processor need to be saddled with an expensive NVIDIA or AMD GPU to provide adequate graphics. As far as I'm concerned, the discriminating gamer or multimedia-inclined techie will get less out of Intel's forthcoming evolution. I should caution that I'm not immune from being wrong, however?
Boy, the concerns of when I should upgrade my 6-year old, sub-700 Geekbench scoring system are ever dogged. Had only Apple christened their 13-inch models with Arrandale back in April. I love the portability and price of the 13-inch MacBook but yearn for the power of the i5/i7. Since I've waited so long, do you think it'd be best to stick it out until January or February with a sluggish machine, or just buy the cheapest C2D Macbook and eventually max out the memory (8GB)?
Okay. Let's work through the decisions:
1) If you're looking for excellent graphics performance, you probably want a machine with a separate GPU. That largely makes the Arrandale/Sandy Bridge question moot, since the biggest changes to Sandy Bridge are in the integrated GPU and hardware media compression/decompression, both of which you can do with a GPU. (If compression and decompression are important, I'd go with NVIDIA in order to use the existing CUDA applications.)
The MacBook uses Intel's integrated graphics, while the MacBook Pros use separate GPUs.
2) Do you need a system now, or can you wait until January or February? If there's no pressing reason to buy today, you may as well wait and see what happens.
Conclusion: If you can wait until January or February, you're probably better off to do so. If you have to go with a system now (and it has to be a Mac, and it has to be portable,) go with a MacBook Pro, not a MacBook.
By the way, maxing out a MacBook with RAM will help with some performance issues, especially for media creation applications, but it won't make any substantial graphics performance difference.
Post a Comment