SL9600 2.13GHz vs SL9400 1.86GHz

I doubt anyone would be able to distinguish between them, apart from a few slightly higher bench numbers.

Theoretically, SL9600 is 14.5% faster. Will you notice the difference? Not unless you do something CPU intensive

So, if you could choice it's better to point to 4 GB than the cpu ?!

mesca said:

So, if you could choice it's better to point to 4 GB than the cpu ?!

Click to expand...

Yes. In most tasks, the CPU speed isn't very important but more RAM will increase the overall performance.

What I wonder is did any of the throttling go away with this update? Remember the 2.13 GHz is running at the same speed as the 1.86 GHz most of the time.

I am curious to see some real world results and benchmarks. RAM would definitely be more important than the CPU in some situations. However, the average user probably doesn't need 4 GB RAM anyways. OS X 10.6 runs really well with 2 GB RAM and normal use.

I think 4 GB RAM is necessary for those wanting to run an OS via a VM. Unless someone like working with 20 open apps at a time, the 2 GB RAM should actually be plenty for just OS X and a normal set of app usage. I would say my MBA runs great with about five apps open and OS X running. The problem, was, that I couldn't install Windows 7 and run in a VM at the same time with 2 GB RAM.

Even for people that want to run Windows via BootCamp, 2 GB RAM is good. The reason to upgrade to 4 GB RAM would be the future or future proofing the MBA. I would think that demand for RAM will go up as it's normal for 4 GB RAM to be standard in computers nowadays.

Scottsdale said:

What I wonder is did any of the throttling go away with this update? Remember the 2.13 GHz is running at the same speed as the 1.86 GHz most of the time.

Click to expand...

Both support Intel SpeedStep.

Scottsdale said:

I think 4 GB RAM is necessary for those wanting to run an OS via a VM. Unless someone like working with 20 open apps at a time, the 2 GB RAM should actually be plenty for just OS X and a normal set of app usage. I would say my MBA runs great with about five apps open and OS X running. The problem, was, that I couldn't install Windows 7 and run in a VM at the same time with 2 GB RAM.

Click to expand...

I am running a windows 7 ultimate parallels vm on the 1.86GHz with 2GB RAM and 128GB SSD and it runs fine. No lag, no spinning beachballs...nothing. It runs really fast.

Must be something to do with the virtual memory on the SSD.

Scottsdale said:

However, the average user probably doesn't need 4 GB RAM anyways. OS X 10.6 runs really well with 2 GB RAM and normal use.

Click to expand...

2GB is sufficient but I can notice the difference when going from an iMac with 4GB to a MacBook with 2GB, even if I wasn't doing anything heavy. Of course the SSD in MBA will help but even SSD isn't as fast as RAM. IMO 100 bucks for 4GB is definitely worth it. More RAM will never hurt and makes your purchase more "future-proof"

Hellhammer said:

2GB is sufficient but I can notice the difference when going from an iMac with 4GB to a MacBook with 2GB, even if I wasn't doing anything heavy. Of course the SSD in MBA will help but even SSD isn't as fast as RAM. IMO 100 bucks for 4GB is definitely worth it. More RAM will never hurt and makes your purchase more "future-proof"

Click to expand...

I agree, I have gone with 4GB, not because I need it but because I am not sure what the future holds. OS X Lion could be a huge ram hog for all we know.

niceguyeddie said:

I am running a windows 7 ultimate parallels vm on the 1.86GHz with 2GB RAM and 128GB SSD and it runs fine. No lag, no spinning beachballs...nothing. It runs really fast.

Must be something to do with the virtual memory on the SSD.

Click to expand...

Well, here's the problem with what you're doing. OS X requires 1 GB RAM, Windows 7 requires 1 GB RAM, so 2 GB sounds okay right? BUT, the problem is 256 MB RAM is shared with the GPU. Therefore, it's not even meeting minimum recommended RAM.

I have tried it before on the MBA v 2,1 with 2.13 GHz and 128 GB SSD, and it was not acceptable by any means for me. The less you're doing with it, the better it will work, but to truly make a proficient VM while running OS X, you need 4 GB RAM (or at least 2.25 GHz RAM).

I would recommend anyone doing what you're doing definitely absolutely upgrade the RAM. Yes, it sucks that Apple isn't making 4 GB RAM another stock version so they would be in the stores and people could buy them faster, however, waiting a few days and paying $100 is well worth it in the long run... this is just my opinion, but others here who tried it in the past have seen similar results.

Hellhammer said:

2GB is sufficient but I can notice the difference when going from an iMac with 4GB to a MacBook with 2GB, even if I wasn't doing anything heavy. Of course the SSD in MBA will help but even SSD isn't as fast as RAM. IMO 100 bucks for 4GB is definitely worth it. More RAM will never hurt and makes your purchase more "future-proof"

Click to expand...

I definitely agree. For anyone wanting to use their MBA with Lion and beyond, or with a VM now, 4 GB is the way to go. People that don't get 4 GB RAM will be disappointed if they keep it for years. $100 is a bargain for the upgrade not vs. what RAM costs elsewhere but for the drastic improvements into the OS and capabilities for the users.

Adidas Addict said:

I agree, I have gone with 4GB, not because I need it but because I am not sure what the future holds. OS X Lion could be a huge ram hog for all we know.

Click to expand...

Smart move. You're right on the mark.

Here are the benchmarks for the CPUs in the new Airs. I was surprised to see how close the 1.6Hz compared to the 1.86ghz

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_list.php

[QUOTE I have tried it before on the MBA v 2,1 with 2.13 GHz and 128 GB SSD, and it was not acceptable by any means for me. The less you're doing with it, the better it will work, but to truly make a proficient VM while running OS X, you need 4 GB RAM (or at least 2.25 GHz RAM).[/QUOTE]

I am thinking of buying MBA 2.13 GHz and installing parallel. Do you think it will be sufficient or do I need at least 2.25 Ghz?
Thanks

Hellhammer said:

Theoretically, SL9600 is 14.5% faster. Will you notice the difference? Not unless you do something CPU intensive

Click to expand...

Answer, no he won't. Due to the higher clock the SL9600 will throttle itself when it reaches the thermal maximum, which under a faster clock, won't be that hard.

I recall reading an article here on MR where it stated that the 2.13GHz MBA was slower at times than a 1.86GHz MBA due to the same issue I stated.

jav6454 said:

Answer, no he won't. Due to the higher clock the SL9600 will throttle itself when it reaches the thermal maximum, which under a faster clock, won't be that hard.

I recall reading an article here on MR where it stated that the 2.13GHz MBA was slower at times than a 1.86GHz MBA due to the same issue I stated.

Click to expand...

That is true, they both support Intel SpeedStep. 2.13GHz is still theoretically faster because it can at least in theory have frequency of +1.86GHz.