11 ms·
Why Apple saddled the MacBook Air with "gimped" CPUs
- jamesteow 16y agoSince Apple typically caters their decisions to the majority of their buyers (as opposed to those power users who look specifically for the most up-to-date tech specs) this decision makes a lot of sense. Having more battery time is rather large plus.
- beej71 16y agoSo right. Out of all this stuff listed in the article, the only thing that matters to the _average_ Mac consumer is the battery life.
- kscaldef 16y agoHeat management also matters for at least two reasons. Directly, people don't want to be burned by their laptops. Indirectly, overheating tends to lead to component failures, and people care about reliability.
- zdw 16y agoTL;DR Summary: Intel's newer CPU's are physically larger and thus harder to fit into the form factor, use somewhat more power, and their integrated GPU's don't support OpenCL and are lacking in performance.
- protomyth 16y agoSo the headline could have been "Apple chooses form factor, power usage, and OpenCL performance over newer generation CPU in MacBook Air". The words "saddled" and "gimped" probably get more page views.
- cobralibre 16y agoExcept that your leaden, verbose headline would have been terrible from an editor's perspective. Their headline is far more succinct and uses language that speaks to the Ars Technica audience, which tends to both specs-obsessed and a little puerile. Besides, the use of scare quotes ought to suggest to any reader that the headline is tongue-in-cheek.
- WozRocks 16y agoThe article underplayed the importance of thermal design envelope to the situation, and your summary completely left it out. I think that many people- especially consumers who know enough to reach the wrong conlcusions- don't understand the impact and importance of dealing with heat from CPUs and GPUS. IF you look closely at the inside-the-case view of the Air, you'll notice that the motherboard is at one level, in a plane with the keyboard, and then above it (toward the camera) is space that exists over the CPU board but not over the batteries (because this is where the case gets thicker). On the left, this extra space is taken up with an SSD card that is attached on top of the motherboard... on the right, it is taken up with a heat-pipe that hits the CPU and GPU and goes to the fan. See how much space the fan takes with the heat pipe? The heat pipe alone doubles the thickness of the machine (assuming some battery space could be given up to fit the SSD in elsewhere.) But you can't go without it and you can't put it in plane with the motherboard. Laptops are all about power, heat and heat management.
- simonsarris 16y agoApple has an amusingly-worded bit about their CPU on their features page: > MacBook Air weighs less than three pounds, but it’s a heavyweight where it counts. Intel Core 2 Duo processors get the work done fast. So you can be every bit as productive on MacBook Air — but in more places. Live-blog the event of the year straight from the convention floor. Perfect your sales-winning presentation from the airport terminal. Cite references down to a T from the library stacks. MacBook Air lets you do everything you need to do whenever and wherever it needs to be done. Everything you need to do, such as writing, writing, and writing. Those examples seem like they would be more appropriate if Apple had chosen an Atom processor. They don't exactly instill me with 'heavyweight where it counts' confidence.
- eli 16y agoBut reading, browsing, and writing is probably what most people spend their time doing on a computer. "Transcode video formats while sitting in a cafe" doesn't exactly have the same ring.
- brudgers 16y ago11.6" Air + Mac App store = iPad with a keyboard (approximately) That's why core2 is fine.
- rodh257 16y agowould be interesting if they could make the screen swivel around and be used like an ipad (like Dell and some others are doing). Would be hard to get the hinges on such a thin device though.
- maercsrats 16y agoHere is a conspiracy theory I've got, and I think this article and Apple releasing the app store for mac backs it up: Apple is going to drop Intel chips in the next 3 years. My time may be off but I really think this is what's going on. All of this fighting between Intel and Nvidia is really only hurting customers; namely Apple. So what can Apple do? Create an app store that makes devs standardize on an API and shift the underlying arch. An arch that 67% of their product sales are using. Don't get me wrong, this is going to be a difficult transition, I think apps like Steam are really going to get screwed, but this is Apple's end game. They control not only all the software but also all the hardware.
- unexpected 16y agoI was thinking about this yesterday as well. I know Apple bought their own processors for the iPhone. I'm not sure they'd run their desktops off an apple A4 chip - but I mean - look at AMD. Market cap is $5 billion. Apple has $50 billion in cash. Apple could buy them and REALLY control the computer, end-to-end.
- barclay 16y agoGiven that apple is in a much different place now then it was during the PowerPC days, maybe this isn't such a terrible idea. (And PPC wasn't apple so much as moto/ibm). They're proving it works right now with the A4... so maybe you're right. That sad, I'd hate to have them go down the sun route, and just get left behind if/once intel gets off their ass.
- bsk 16y agoThis is not as easy as it sounds. AMD will loose it's x86 license if acquired without Intel permission. Designing an efficient parser for a different instruction set can take years.
- wtallis 16y agoI'm pretty sure that the patent situation between AMD and Intel is one of mutually assured destruction, given that AMD created the 64-bit extensions to x86. Intel could complain a lot and file some lawsuits, but if they seriously tried to block the acquisition of AMD, they would be putting their whole patent portfolio at risk and opening themselves up to billions of dollars of punitive fines from antitrust regulators.
- aidenn0 16y agoIf Intel doesn't either make the Atom line higher performance or the Core line more portable friendly then I could see Apple switching to ARM. The high-end ARM chips aren't quite there yet in terms of performance though, so I figure Intel has at least one more rev to the Core line before that's a danger.
- jrockway 16y agoWhy? There are already Core i3/i5 ULV laptops around that get 12 hours of battery life. It's only Apple that cares about that extra 1% less size; the rest of the industry is just fine with Intel's new gen.
- MrFoof 16y agoIf I recall correctly, Arrandale does not yet have support for OpenCL. It's in the works, but it's not there yet. In terms of raw performance, Arrandale is competitive with the 320M (maybe a wee bit slower). Overall, Arrandale will be attractive to Apple with OpenCL support, since they no longer need two chips -- just the CPU package which has everything it needs (graphics, memory controller, etc). That allows space for better thermal solutions, more memory or SSD storage, a larger battery, or other functionality. Hence the decision to stay with the current nVidia 320M and Intel Core 2 Duo -- once Arrandale supports OpenCL, we'll see Apple transition. Not only for the MacBook Air, but also likely in the MacBook, low-end MacBook Pro SKUs, and the Mac Mini.
- wmf 16y agothey no longer need two chips Today they have C2D + 320M; in the future they'll have Sandy Bridge + southbridge. It'll still be two chips. I also wouldn't bet on Apple ever using Arrandale in the low end, since it's going to be obsoleted soon anyway.
- jdietrich 16y agoThe Air is in a completely different league to netbooks, for a number of reasons. Even the slower CPUs in the 11-incher are 30-60% faster than comparable Atom parts, but consume 30% less power. CPU performance of the 11-inch model is comparable to the 2006 Macbooks and the 13-incher to the 2007/2008 Macbooks. The big performance story is the GPU and SSD. For the majority of Air buyers, their new machine will feel quicker than any computer they've every used, by simple merit of the SSD. Cold boot times of 15 seconds are being reported and programs will load with similar haste. The GPU is a big deal, both for graphics performance and OpenCL. OS X has always leaned heavily on the GPU. With the introduction of Snow Leopard, the vast floating point performance of the GPU is available to the whole system. If you've been following the Folding@Home project, you'll know how big a deal that is. Of course third-party developers are proving fairly slow to make use of it, I will bet lumps of my own flesh that iLife 11 will be heavily optimised for OpenCL. We've already mostly dispatched with the megahertz myth, but we're going to have to confront the idea that CPU speed is a relatively minor part of real-world computer performance. The old Air felt miserably slow, mainly due to hard drive throughput. The new one will feel very fast indeed, in spite of a relatively modest CPU.
- TeHCrAzY 16y agoI think you misread the article. The power difference stated is between the 11' and 13' processors. Atom processors use around 2.5w, which is 4 times less than the 11' processor in the air. http://www.intel.com/products/processor/atom/specifications.htm http://www.intel.com/products/processor/atom/specifications....
- jdietrich 16y agoThe low power Atom parts aren't remotely comparable in terms of performance performance, so I didn't compare them - the 2GHz Atom Z550 at 2.5 watts TDP has a Passmark score of just 386, compared to 964 for the 1.4GHz Core 2 Duo.
- TeHCrAzY 16y agoThanks, I wasn't aware there was such a large performance difference.
- yason 16y agoIt's been almost a decade since I had a CPU on my personal computer that seemed so slow somehow that I would have been considering an upgrade specifically to a faster CPU...
- spudlyo 16y agoHave you ever tried to stream a full-screen movie on Netflix using an MBA? It can't keep up, it's very annoying. I thought there was full-screen GPU acceleration for Silverlight, but it wasn't helped in my experience.
- jonhendry 16y agoSame here. It was a 2001 white iBook. 500 MHz G3. With modern machines, I think the main cue isn't slow perceived performance, but the sound of my laptop's fans ramping up, indicating that it's working hard. That said, my boss' MBA is awfully leisurely at times. That may be due to the OS throttling or halting the CPU in order to keep the temperature down.
- semipermeable 16y agoNote the coincident announcement about the Mac App Store... I bet the software you can get there will run snappily enough.
- mjfern 16y agoThat Apple is deploying older generation CPUs in its latest generation MacBook Air is a further sign that the x86 architecture is in the early stages of being disrupted. Drawing on work by Clayton Christensen, the classic signs of disruption are as follows: 1. The current technology is overshooting the needs of the mass market. Due to a development trajectory that has followed in lockstep with Moore’s Law, and the emergence of cloud computing, the latest generation of x86 processors now exceed the performance needs of the majority of customers. Because many customers are content with older generation microprocessors, they are holding on to their computers for longer periods of time, or if purchasing new computers, are seeking out machines that contain lower performing and less expensive microprocessors. 2. A new technology emerges that excels on different dimensions of performance. While the x86 architecture excels on processing power – the number of instructions handled within a given period of time – the ARM architecture excels at energy efficiency. According to Data Respons (datarespons.com, 2010), an “ARM-based system typically uses as little as 2 watts, whereas a fully optimized Intel Atom solution uses 5 or 6 watts." The ARM architecture also has an advantage in form factor, enabling OEMs to design and produce smaller devices. 3. Because this new technology excels on a different dimension of performance, it initially attracts a new market segment. While x86 is the mainstay technology in PCs, the ARM processor has gained significant market share in the embedded systems and mobile devices markets. ARM-based processors are used in more than 95% of mobile phones (InformationWeek, 2010). The ARM architecture is now the main choice for deployments of Google’s Android and is the basis of Apple’s A4 system on a chip, which is used in the latest generation iPod Touch and Apple TV, as well as the iPhone 4 and iPad. 4. Once the new technology gains a foothold in a new market segment, further technology improvements enable it to move up-market, displacing the incumbent technology. With its foothold in the embedded systems and mobile markets, ARM technology continues to improve. The latest generation ARM chip (the Cortex-A15) retains the energy efficiency of its predecessors, but has a clock speed of up to 2.5 GHz, making it competitive with Intel’s chips from the standpoint of processing power. As evidence of ARM’s move up-market, the startup Smooth-Stone recently raised $48m in venture funding to produce energy efficient, high performance chips based on ARM to be used in servers and data centers. I suspect we will begin seeing the ARM architecture in next generation latops, netbooks, and smartphones (e.g., A4 in a MacBook Air). 5. The new, disruptive technology looks financially unattractive to established companies, in part because they have a higher cost structure. In 2009, Intel’s costs of sales and operating expenses were a combined $29.6 billion. In contrast, ARM Holdings, the company that develops and supports the ARM architecture, had total expenses (cost of sales and operating) of $259 million. Unlike Intel, ARM does not produce and manufacture chips; instead it licenses its technology to OEMs and other parties and the chips are often manufactured using a contract foundry (e.g., TSMC). Given ARM’s low cost structure, and the competition in the foundry market, “ARM offers a considerably cheaper total solution than the x86 architecture can at present…” (datarespons.com, 2010). Intel is loathe to follow ARM’s licensing model because it would reduce Intel’s revenues and profitability substantially. In short, the ARM architecture appears to be in the early stages of disrupting x86, not just in the mobile and embedded systems market, but in the personal computer and server markets, the strongholds of Intel and AMD. This is evidenced in part by investors’ expectations for ARM’s, Intel’s and AMD’s future financial performance in the microprocessor markets: today ARM Holdings has a price to earnings ratio of 77.93, while Intel and AMD have price to earnings ratios of 10.63 and 4.26, respectively. For Intel and AMD to avoid being disrupted, they must offer customers a microprocessor with comparable (or better) processing power and energy efficiency relative to the latest generation ARM chips, and offer this product to customers at the same (or lower) price relative to the ARM license plus the costs of manufacturing using a contract foundry. The Intel Atom is a strong move in this direction, but the Atom is facing resistance in the mobile market and emerging thin device markets (e.g., tablets) due to concerns about its energy efficiency, price point, and form factor. The x86 architecture is supported by a massive ecosystem of suppliers (e.g., Applied Materials), customers (e.g., Dell), and complements (Microsoft Windows). If Intel and AMD are not able to fend of ARM, and the ARM architecture does displace x86, it would cause turbulence for a large number of companies. I just posted this as an article to HN: "The End of x86?" I'd appreciate an upvote. Thank you!
- code_duck 16y agoI have a desktop with a 1.8 Ghz Core Duo. I have absolutely no problems with performance. Of course, I'm only running browsers, email, Gimp, etc... but what are people going to use a 11" MacBook Air for? Probably not games and professional Photoshop work. The processors in these machines are more than adequate and were probably chosen to balance speed with heat, weight and battery life.