Nvidia 320m vs Sandy Bridge

So I've been considering the MBP 13 and I know the new ones are coming out soon. Does anyone know if the new ones come out with Sandy Bridge graphics if it will compare to the preformance of a 320m?

 

don't know for sure...

from what I've heard, Sandy Bridge graphics is roughly twice as fast as the previous fastest Intel Graphics, so I have my doubts it'll keep up with a 320m unless its in a quad core i7... the mobile chips? well you'll have a lot faster processor, but I think its going to be hard pressed to perform as good as a 320m... but the faster CPU can make up for some things while gaming.

 

according to anandtech both are roughly equal, sometimes one wins and sometimes the other, and for some there is a tie.

the question is, when are those refreshed laptops are going to come, are we sure that theyll get equipped with SB?

 

Intel HD 3000(SB) vs. 320m, it looks like the 320m wins, but just barely:

320m: NVIDIA GeForce 320M - Notebookcheck.net Tech

HD 3000: Intel HD Graphics 3000 - Notebookcheck.net Tech

But, both a decently powerful, and the Intel HD gets better battery life. Also remember that the notebookcheck.net review was done with a quad core i7, more than likely the Macbook won't get an i7 quad.

 

the problem is... from what I've heard is that Sandy Bridge comes in 2 flavors... lower end chips with the Intel HD 2000, and higher ends have the 3000... are any of the mobile versions going to have 3000 and which ones?

Look closely when your buying a Sandy Bridge processor if you want to use the graphics and make sure its a 3000 if you need the better performance.

 

My concern with this is that the newer MBPs are gonna come with the lower end sandy bridges. Especially because I'm looking to get a MBP 13. I'm trying to figure out if I should get the current generation for the 320m.


-edit-

heres some links for benchmarks for people that are interested

Intel HD 2000 and 3000

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4083/...core-i7-2600k-i5-2500k-core-i3-2100-tested/11

MBP 320m

http://www.anandtech.com/show/3889/apple-macbook-pro-13-as-windows7-laptop/5

 

You'll still be able to buy a 320m Macbookm, after SB comes out in Apple products.

 

Thats not the issue, I'm currently without a laptop because I sold my POS NP5135 (Sager has horrible customer service by the way) and I would like to have a laptop for school. If the upgrade is going to include the sandy bridge, theres no point for me in waiting for the refresh.

-edit-

Here's a comparison of the i7 ad the Intel HD 3000 vs the 320m

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4084/intels-sandy-bridge-upheaval-in-the-mobile-landscape/5

 

the much faster CPU seems to overcome some shortcomings of the GPU... as long as its an HD 3000, it would probably be better to wait.. if its a 2000... well it depends what you need more, GPU or CPU.

If GPU is super important to you, you may want to get a 15 that has the extra GPU. There is always a chance that they'll put the Intel and a real GPU in the next 13 as well, but I wouldn't count on it if they leave in the optical drive.

 

interesting.. the 3000 in the SB seem pretty good, but it's quite doubtful IMO that we'll see those on the mobile platforms. unless already announced

 

I just really hope apple doesn't use Core 2 Duo chips again... yikes I can't believe they use them in the MBA let along the last MBP 13 refresh.

 

why?

for most people a Core 2 Duo with a 320m is a MUCH better machine than a Core i5 with Intel HD graphics.

 

not if the intel graphics is better on battery (which it very likley is).

by that logic a Pentium 4 + AMD 6850 is better than a core i5 2500 + IGP. for 'most people'. there has to be a point when you stop selling old tec.

I'll take less performance on the GPU for more battery life and better cpu performance any day. and 95% of MBA customers would take better battery life any day.

oh, and for the total of 3 months I've had my MBP I've used the intel GPU exclusively... why? better batterylife.

 

C2D, 320m, and a smaller battery in the Macbook Pro 13" lasts longer than Core i5 with Intel HD in a 15"er... so assuming intel graphics is better battery isn't that great.

Comparing it to a P4 is way off as well, since a C2D is MUCH faster...

I never said a faster GPU is better than a faster CPU, or more important... its about balance. A super fast CPU and a slow GPU... or a decent speed for both?

Just because Core i5/7 is newer doesn't mean its better in all circumstances. At the current time, what most people do on their computer, they will notice no difference between a C2D and an i5... in fact there just isn't as much of a performance difference as many people think there is. I can understand people always wanting the newest and coolest thing to get, wether it does anything for them or not... but the C2D is NOT even close to being a slow or bad CPU yet.

 

actually when it comes to CPU's... they generally don't get slower... just sayin'.

well last I checked a MBP 15 had a 15inch screen. so your not comparing apple to apples (well I guess you kinda are but that's besides the point ). larger screens draw more power. also you don't need to use the same CPU that is in the 15 in the 13...

now if apple used the LV i3/i5 while not preforming better than the 320M it would easily out pace the current gen's in battery life.

 

except the Core 2 Duos can match up to i3s in benchmarks, and beat LV versions...

Apple doesn't want to make a ton of computers, so they have to go for balance in the models they make... not making 1 area super good with others horrible... that might work good for someone who only cares about the areas its good in, but not to a wider audience.

a 15" screen doesn't pull that much more power... to have a larger battery and still get a couple hours less.

 

All announced mobile versions of Sandy Bridge (even the LV/ULV ones) come with 12 EUs (what you call Intel HD 3000). However, note that the LV/ULV ones run at slightly lower frequencies.

The Arrandale Core i3/5/7 CPUs were indeed not better than Core 2 for battery life, but Sandy Bridge is. I have a hard time seeing Apple sticking with Core 2, although I suppose it's possible until Intel stops making them altogether (which should be pretty soon -- they have to retool some fabs for 22nm Ivy Bridge while 32nm Sandy Bridge production is ongoing).

 

Core 2 Duos are getting long in the teeth, but Sandy Bridge is the time to move over to the Nehalam based architecture.

But in case anybody didn't realize... processor speeds have hit a dead stop in the last 5 years. We get 10-20% improvements (clock for clock) on refreshes. Which is why the Core 2 Duos aren't really much slower than the Current Core i3s.

In an environment (mobile) limited by clockspeeds, it's not a huge deal. I mean, if you're getting goosebumps over small speedbumps in your new laptop, perhaps you should see what systems like 5ghz 6 core desktops can do. It makes you stop caring about mobile graphics and CPU speeds once it reaches a sufficient level, considering a cheaper desktop is probably literally THREE times as fast, not even considering graphics which can be up to four times or more faster than the top of the line mobiles.

They're enough to make you cry about how slow laptops are in comparison lol.

 

I know current i3's aren't amazing compared to the core 2 but SB is a solid chip as previously mention by another poster. that's why I don't want to see Core 2 again. I was using the old ones as an example.

 

I just ordered the parts from Newegg for my new SB desktop. If Apple had introduced an SB iMac this month, then I would have gone with that. I'm not going to wait forever on Apple for desktops. My current Penryn MBP is fine for me. I will consider a new MBP when Ivy Bridge comes out. The power savings should be substantial and I think that they will have high-clocked quad-core processors available with it.

 

yup I'm waiting on a SB iMac 27 (well maybe if money permits...).

 

I know this will upset the techies here... most of us just go to an Apple Store and try it out (they have demo units of all the models here). If it feels fast enough, like its ergonomics and overall look... we just buy it.

Seriously, this is my first Mac. But that seems to be how they market here. You can try out everything they sell. I tested an iPad for about 10 minutes and was able to try out Page for 20 minutes or so. It is a nice way of figuring out if you want to buy something.

For other products, you really just have to rely on the reviews.

 

^^^ it is true.

if I was buy for power I would not have bought a MBP.

 

that is because you can clearly see that the AMD phenom II line with its amazing clock speeds can lose to the much lower clocked c2d and i core line of intel, or when the P4 lost badly to the Athlon line from AMD.

Clocks dont matter that much, the architecture is the most important part of the chip. Saying that the c2d in the mbp (those are high end chips without being the extreme editions) can compete with the low end i3, and beat the LV (which are made for lower power consumption and not power) is of no matter.

The slight bump in clocks can not make for the difference in power that those chips present us, nor the amazing battery life that they pack. And we have to remember that those models are the quads, not the dual cores that apple uses in its entire line of notebooks. So we can expect a much better battery life from those chips, and much more noticeable difference in power for the ones that still use the c2d processors.

The thing is that apple needs to upgrade the gpu that comes with their notebooks, going back to the solely using the igp is a bad move, and if the lenovo thinkpad e420s and the Sony Vaio SA are there, I beginning to think that apple engineers are not doing their work properly.

 

does Sandy Bridge support OpenCL?

 

its been currently worked on AFAIK, they are planning to release the drivers sometime around march

the openCL support is crucial for the switch to happen in Macs

 

I am sorry to bring back another subject (or even get off topic) but I would prefer a mb 13 with p9500, p9600 or even p9700 and custom Nvidia 420m (or even 540m) with (96:48:24). Much better than any SB...
I don't think SB will bring any big change and graphic acceleration is something that rises every day...

 

considering that the SB igp packs almost the same power as the 320m, and the 420m is a little bit faster... I dont see the need. And now that the intel and nvidia chipset battle is over, we are going to see integrated gpus from the green team for the new SB chips. The problem now is if the performance is justified by the price.

those chipsets would cost a lot more and wouldnt pack that much of a punch comparing them against the SB chips, it will get worse next year, when ivy bridge comes out.

 

I don't see why the 420m would be a little bit faster (since its a little bit faster than the 330M) NVIDIA GeForce GT 420M - Notebookcheck.net Tech. And I dont think that intel wouldn't be interesting in selling some old c2d (such as SP9400) in better prices...
That's of course as I think a way to keep prices down.
Correct me if I m wrong...

 

it is a little bit faster, entry level gpus are all but going to die pretty soon.

where the c2d chips enter this equation?

The chipsets that I meant where for the SB and the arrandale cpus. The c2d where the last chipsets that intel let nvidia do, and after the settlement it was extended for those lines of cpus.

 

I am sorry but I don't think this is gonna happen soon. (at least graphic companies wont let it happen...)

Anyway, I think you are right, but since Nvidia and ATI are long enough in the ''game" of graphics that they won't let Intel take their territory.

That's good news for us however cause graphics will be better even in low-end laptops...

P.S. I doubt that apple will change the C2D cpu in macbook white in the current update.

 

AMD is going to dedicate in the fusion APU, and the mid range as it has been.

Nvidia is going to be crap as always, they have been lagging behind AMD in the mobile market since the 3000 series, and with the 4000, and the success of the 5000, they have lost market share. The only part where Nvidia is great in the mobile market is in the high end parts the GTX 400m are good, with the exception of the GTX 480m.

And with the moore laws on the side of intel, their igp becoming each year something less embarrassing, we are going to see the death of the entry level.

 

If the improvements we saw in SB mobile quads versus Arrandale carry forward to the dual core SB mobile cpus, then you really will want to dump C2D.

SB should be 30-40% faster clock for clock versus C2D.

And the 3000 IGP is just as fast as 320m.

Less space requirement (space on mobo, cooling).

Apple could produce an amazing product with SB.

 

Not true I'm afraid, especially at the clock speeds it will be running at in the LV/ULV chips.

 

does it matter since that nvidia and intel settled and there are new chipsets already developed for the SB chips?

but anyways, the performance is really close to the 320m

 

So you think Apple will stick a discrete GPU in the SB MBA? I hope you are right but I very much doubt it.

 

Nvidia might come out with a new Chipset with a built in GPU (like the 320m) that is much better and will work with Sandy Bridge CPUs... now that they have license agreements with eachother again.

 

I have a new Sandy Bridge desktop (built from Newegg parts) but it doesn't have ports for integrated graphics. The performance boards (P67) don't use the SB graphics. I think that SB graphics will be good enough for the low-end market but I expect Apple to provide discrete graphics for their Pro line. I could envision a complete Air line with SB graphics in 15 inch and 17 inch models separate from the Pro line.

 

They have to offer discrete gpus for all of their line, not only the pro 15 and 17.

Hell if sony did it, why cant apple do it? They used to have the best engineers.

 

Sony did it with their $2000+ super-top-end-of-the-line prestige Vaio Z model. Apple's approach to their 13" MBP so far has been: second cheapest Mac laptop (now 3rd~ after new 11/13 MBAs).

Personally, I'd really like if they made a 13" MBP for the price of a 17" MBP, but that's just me. I like premier ultraportables. But the majority of ppl want to have their small laptops cheap, so Apple aren't doing it (they've even gone affordable with their current-gen MBA line).

 

I don't think nVidia are able to do this under the new licensing agreement.

 

where did you hear that exactly?

Intel Settles With NVIDIA: More Money, Fewer Problems, No x86 - AnandTech :: Your Source for Hardware Analysis and News

 

actually the vaio SA is the choice here, it would cost 1250 at the release, much similar to apple prices anyway.

The cost of the vaio z is based on the expensive raid 0 SSDs with high capacity. Aside the higher quality screen going all the way up to 1920*1080.

We could also argue for the lenovo thinkpad edge e420s and the e220s, with the first being equipped with a middle range gpu, and the latter being extremely mobile (off course no direct competition to the design of the MBA)

we could go with the acer 3820tg also, but with the lack of a ODD the things get a little on the not so good side, but it has one of best coolings out there for such a small laptop.

There is also the Asus U31, which uses a gpu with the same performance of the MB 13, but it also lacks the ODD.

The problem here is, those 2 companies (asus and acer) are not known for their great design/slimness combined with power. The approach of the needed ODD bay is the killer of a more powerful machine. Not that apple is related to power in the mobile range for quite sometime.

they have settled, nvidia can make chipsets for the X86 platform, end of story.

 

well not until Ivy bridge at minimum. Nvidia IS saying they are focusing on and ARM based chipset known currently as Project Denver. Yes they can make chipsets all they want ... for up to the C2D processors as iCore and SB use DMI/QPI


from multiple sources including Nvidia and the link above.

 

yes you are right.

Intel Settles With NVIDIA: More Money, Fewer Problems, No x86 - AnandTech :: Your Source for Hardware Analysis and News

Since Ivy bridge will use QPI/DMI (without that assumption we would need an almost complete new chipset for ivy, and intel is upgrading little by little their chipsets since the major change to QPI/DMI)

I do hope for ARM, but lets face it, the chips needs to get much more power than it currently have to compete with x86, and thats the only safe bet of Nvidia, that korean is lunatic/visionary.

this is a bit OP.

the idea behind this move as I can see is that the computational power would be undertaked by cuda, CPGPU. The normal user wouldnt need all the power that it currently provided by the cpu, so incremental improvement in the ARM core and the implementation of better SOCs would lead to more portable devices with capable power.

 

Well it does appear that Intel can actually choose to integrate nvidia GPU tech in the processors... if they so choose. knowing them though it would take them 5 years to figure it out and get a product out with 5 year old nvidia tech without being much better.

 

AMD spent $8B for ATI. Intel spent $1.5B for nVidia IP. Intel is making boatloads more money than AMD. The vast majority of code is integer code. Disassemble your favorite programs and look through the assembler instructions for floating point code and you won't find much there for most programs. Then look at how it's generated by the compiler. It is quite hard to convert FP code in a form that can be processed efficiently by a GPU or even with SIMD coding.

 

thats why the lunatic/visionary. History will choose one, Im betting in the lunatic version.

In the desktop figures the only card that was good on 400 series and the gtx 460. The 500 series all cards appear to hold good power, not so much in terms of value. The move to quicksync from intel part leads to the obsolesce of CUDA for a lot of programs, so you inevitably has to focus on the supercomputing market, there the FP code wont matter that much, since the coding there is of good quality anyway, and you can and need to adapt.

Now for on the mobile landscape there were 2 good cards from nvidia in the past 2 years, the gtx 460 and the gtx 485. So yes they lack competition and power in the middle range, they are fighting a losing battle there with AMD.

 

Not quite the end of the story, was it.

 

better be wrong once than several times