Nvidia is again at the center of a graphics tempest in the media, this time surrounding performance issues of Apple's new 17-inch MacBook Pro. Two little pesky questions haven't been answered yet, however. Are Nvidia graphics chips really the problem? And are the issues really that widespread?
Postings in an Apple discussion forum cite a smorgasbord of problems: Some cite the Nvidia GeForce 9600M, while others point to issues with fan speed. Another post points to faulty wiring and another to the main processor (i.e., Intel). But this is just one forum. Does this really indicate widespread problems?
Does the Apple MacBook Pro 17-inch unibody have chip issues?
(Credit: Apple)I haven't heard back from Apple. Nvidia had no comment Monday.
So, I spoke with a few people who have informed insights into potential problems. Not all would speak on the record, however. Jon Peddie of Tiburon, Calif.-based Jon Peddie Research, which tracks the graphics chip market and does testing on graphics chips, said he hasn't tested the new MacBook Pro yet. Generally speaking, however, a GPU problem of this sort would dictate a BIOS change to adjust the fan speed (one of the possible solutions proposed already). Or, if it's more serious, the graphics board would need to be replaced. (BIOS stands for basic input-output system; GPU stands for graphics processing unit; CPU stands for central processing unit.)
"If either of those conditions were true, Apple would be issuing an alert," he said. The alternative is for Apple to deal with the alleged problem on a piecemeal basis, one customer at a time, Peddie said.
The latter scenario--the status now--of course leads to a lot of speculation and attempted diagnoses among users.
I also contacted another analyst, Linley Gwennap, principal analyst at the The Linley Group. He made some obvious points but important in the context that it's not necessarily the GPU. Basically he said that if any chip exceeds the "thermal design budget," the system becomes unstable.
Other people I contacted (who wished to remain anonymous) said the issue appears to be more of a fan issue than a GPU issue. But the jury is still out. And, let's be clear, Nvidia has been faulted for past MacBook glitches. The most recent being in October. Will Nvidia be perpetually plagued by fallout from past problems? The 1994 Pentium FDIV bug was an Intel albatross for years.
I see another ancillary issue--not necessarily directly related to the MacBook Pro issue discussed above--that needs to be addressed. Here's the proposition: you want better graphics but you also want a sleek laptop like the Apple MacBook Pro. Well, if you're pushing the outside of the graphics-performance envelope, something's got to give. It's like saying: I want a car that goes from zero to 60 in under four seconds but with low emissions.
The truth is high-performance discrete GPUs and Intel CPUs--even the ones with the "m" (for "mobile") suffix--will sometimes wreak havoc when they're stressed inside enclosures only 1-inch high (i.e., many laptops). But I'm stating the obvious (I think). Anyone who has maxed out a relatively high-performance GPU or CPU in a laptop knows the real meaning of the euphemism "uncomfortably hot"--a phrase often used in discussion forums.
Overheating results in a lot of unpleasant (and sometimes seemingly unrelated) surprises, including BSOD (Blue Screen Of Death), automatic (arbitrary) shutdown, and, as in the case of the MacBook Pro, graphics artifacts.
Some people will always point their finger at Nvidia (or ATI) but I submit that some of those people experiencing problems would be the first to raise a stink if Nvidia didn't offer a high-performance laptop graphics chip to run Crysis at the frame rates and resolutions they demand. Yes, a product should work as advertised but there are limits to what a GPU (or CPU) can do inside the thermally challenged, cramped quarters of a laptop.
Not that Nvidia is absolved of any and all crimes. Far from it. As I stated above, Nvidia has had its share of problems that were its own fault. But even Intel's integrated graphics (theoretically the most power efficient) has heat gotchas of its own. Heat has been an issue in the first version of the Intel-graphics-based MacBook Air (when playing video)--which I can vouch for since I own a first-generation MBA. And I have another laptop (from a top-five PC maker) with integrated graphics that immediately heats up (and sometimes overheats) when running video.
But back to discrete GPUs. If you want desktop-level graphics in your sleek laptop, then you're going to have to take the heat and, consequently, in some cases--if you push the graphics card--instability and graphics anomalies. That doesn't make it right. It's just a fact of life.
The latest MacBook Air masks a lot of new electronics under an old skin.
To me, the new MacBook Air (MBA) is truly a second-generation product despite its unchanged appearance. But before I explain why, let me clarify where I am coming from.
I have been using an MBA for the last eight months. Why the over-priced Air? I am a minimalist when it comes to computers (though not necessarily when it comes to spending money on computers). The more spartan the laptop is, the better. In a well-executed design this translates to more portability, which, for me, takes priority over performance and ports.
And this is especially true for the Air. The economy of design dictates lower performance and fewer connectors than mainstream laptops.
Updated MacBook Air has new processor, chipset, graphics, and solid state drive
(Credit: Apple)Having said that, the new Air seems to have made significant gains in performance. (Again, this is a preview, so only benchmarks will bear this out.) The Air uses Intel's newest Penryn-architecture low-power mobile processors, not the older Merom processors--which were, let's be honest, already dated even way back in January when Apple launched the Air.
Penryn-class processors come with 6MB (versus the Merom's 4MB in the previous Air) of cache memory and faster front-side bus speeds (1066MHz versus 667MHz). Of course, other MacBooks use Penryn chips too but it is significant that these powerful mobile processors are now being squeezed into the Air's form factor.
The widely reported use of Nvidia's GeForce 9400M graphics is another big plus. This is a step up from Intel's integrated graphics, which for too long has really been the only choice for subnotebooks and ultraportables. Better game playing and the ability to drive Apple's new 24-inch LED Cinema Display as well as the 30-inch Cinema HD Display are other benefits. (More on the GeForce 9400M here.)
And let's not forget memory. The Air uses DDR3 memory versus the DDR2-specified chips of the previous Air. DDR3 delivers better bandwidth and lower power consumption than DDR2.
Storage. Generally speaking, solid-state drives are faster than hard disk drives, especially when reading data. The Air and the ThinkPad X300 legitimized SSDs. The new Air takes this to the next level with a larger 128GB solid-state drive (versus the previous model's 64GB SSD). The newer 128GB (and larger-capacity) solid-state drives are based on multilevel cell technology. MLC allows larger capacities at lower cost. But MLC-based drives typically don't deliver the performance of single-level cell (SLC) drives. Dell, for example, offers its Latitude E4200 ultraportable with both high-performance SLC drives and lower-performance MLC SSDs.
Last but not least is price. OK, so $2,499 is not a steal (for the 1.86GHz model with a 128GB SSD). But look at it this way, you get a lot more for the same price as the previous Air. You get a faster processor, better graphics, speedier memory, and a larger solid state drive. Though I wouldn't call this a great deal by any means, Apple could have priced it higher. (Apple has been known to push the envelope on pricing.)
Longstanding Issues
Let me also address some longstanding issues I've had with the Air. I currently use one of the original models--launched back in January--that comes with a 1.8GHz processor and 64GB solid state drive. The Air's aluminum body is wonderful, but it hasn't maintained the tolerances that it had at first. Specifically, the seams just below the keyboard sometimes creak (for lack of a better word) and, at times, noticeably expand and contract. Let me be clear: this is not a big issue and is noticeable only occasionally. Most users probably wouldn't notice this.
Heat. I hesitate to cite heat as an issue because every laptop I have ever owned has had heat issues--some much worse than the Air's. It's a little like complaining about your car's engine block getting warm. But because the aluminum body itself acts as a heat sink of sorts, excessive heat can become an issue when the Air is pushed to its limits. That is, a lot of open applications and a heavy workload.
Screen response time. This could be subjective to some extent but the LCD's response times seem to be slower than, for example, the response times I get from my other laptop: the 3.3-pound HP 2510p. In other words, whenever I go back to working on the 2510p after working on the Air for a while, I feel that the screen response times are better on the 2510p.
But overall the Air is an amazing piece of engineering and a delight to use.
(For another MacBook review, go here.)
- prev
- 1
- next
