PDA

View Full Version : is the core 2 duo the bottleneck for MBA?




justdamnit
Mar 7, 2011, 05:54 PM
i am in a dilemma of getting a max out MBA 13"or base MBP 15" i really love the slim MBA and i have to carry it around to school but the CPU disappionted me a bit, can't believe apple still use the core 2 duo today instead of the i3, i5. my main purpose of the notebook is for word, web browsing, and perhaps a little gaming. which one should i get? any help would be appiciate, thx



toondw
Mar 7, 2011, 06:08 PM
i am in a dilemma of getting a max out MBA 13"or base MBP 15" i really love the slim MBA and i have to carry it around to school but the CPU disappionted me a bit, can't believe apple still use the core 2 duo today instead of the i3, i5. my main purpose of the notebook is for word, web browsing, and perhaps a little gaming. which one should i get? any help would be appiciate, thx

for what your doing the AIR will be great, to be honest it's strange to compare the 2 but i know what you mean......i just got the maxed out 15" pro and am exchanging it for the maxed out 13" air, i went a bit silly with the pro.....i just dont need all that power!

justdamnit
Mar 7, 2011, 06:13 PM
for what your doing the AIR will be great, to be honest it's strange to compare the 2 but i know what you mean......i just got the maxed out 15" pro and am exchanging it for the maxed out 13" air, i went a bit silly with the pro.....i just dont need all that power!

if the MPA have the i3 or i5 cpu, i would go for it without a doubt:cool:

Buck987
Mar 7, 2011, 06:13 PM
i am in a dilemma of getting a max out MBA 13"or base MBP 15" i really love the slim MBA and i have to carry it around to school but the CPU disappionted me a bit, can't believe apple still use the core 2 duo today instead of the i3, i5. my main purpose of the notebook is for word, web browsing, and perhaps a little gaming. which one should i get? any help would be appiciate, thx

stop worrying about the specs and realize it will do everything you want easily.

Cicatrix
Mar 7, 2011, 09:17 PM
stop worrying about the specs and realize it will do everything you want easily.

I want to connect a firewire, or estata external hard drive for audio recording.;)

I would say get the 2011 15" now, sell it when the new MBA's come out with i series processors, and get the refreshed MBA. I just sort of see it as a better investment right now getting the 15". You will be able to sell the 15" for a lot more than the MBA I would think when the new MBA's are sporting i series processors, and you still have a core 2 duo. At least with the 15" you have the Quad Core. They will still be top of the line when the MBA refresh happens more than likely.

wisty
Mar 7, 2011, 09:26 PM
i am in a dilemma of getting a max out MBA 13"or base MBP 15" i really love the slim MBA and i have to carry it around to school but the CPU disappionted me a bit, can't believe apple still use the core 2 duo today instead of the i3, i5. my main purpose of the notebook is for word, web browsing, and perhaps a little gaming. which one should i get? any help would be appiciate, thx

Yeah, the C2D is the bottleneck; but only if you can max it out. You won't with Word and Web browsing.

I'm looking at the 13" MBP, but I may actually need the power at times. And I'm a big guy, who won't feel the weight of the 13". And my wife doesn't want me to spend the extra money :rolleyes:

Apple OC
Mar 7, 2011, 09:31 PM
either computer will get the job done :cool:

Scottsdale
Mar 7, 2011, 10:13 PM
The CPU is not the bottleneck in today's computers and the MBA proves it.

Apple used the MBA to show people there is an alternative to Intel's marketing which would have people believe that the only way to speed up a computer is to get a new one with a faster Intel CPU.

Apple attacked the true bottleneck which is the drive and drive controller. The SSD standard in the MBA makes it feel faster than MBPs to normal users in computing.

Apple also focused on software and attacked on all fronts the limitations of today's computers. The Nvidia 320m blows away the Intel IGP especially in the voltage of Core i-processors. Apple has absolutely made the MBA to take advantage of the better ways to make faster Macs.

I hope Apple continues to attack on all fronts as it did with the MBA. I don't look forward to Sandy Bridge in the MBA because it represents all that is wrong with computers today and how consumers feed on Intel's marketing even though the company's tactics are about as disgusting as possible. It was a sad day when Apple stuck its 13" MBP users with Intel's IGP, and I wish more people understood or cared about that.

The Nvidia announcement that it had given up making chipsets was a terrible day for all low-end Macs that benefited so greatly from what they had to offer over Intel. I still have hope that Apple can find a way beyond Intel's disgusting tactics and use an AMD GPU or even skip Intel all together for a complete AMD solution.

douglasf13
Mar 7, 2011, 10:29 PM
The 7200 rpm drive in my MBP seems to be more of a bottleneck than the CD2 in my MBA.

aristobrat
Mar 7, 2011, 10:53 PM
my main purpose of the notebook is for word, web browsing, and perhaps a little gaming. which one should i get? any help would be appiciate, thx
Like others have memtioned, with what you're doing, the HDD is going to be the biggest bottleneck, not the processor.

If you're going to get the 15", build one with a SSD instead of the HDD.

Cicatrix
Mar 8, 2011, 07:09 AM
The CPU is not the bottleneck in today's computers and the MBA proves it.

Apple used the MBA to show people there is an alternative to Intel's marketing which would have people believe that the only way to speed up a computer is to get a new one with a faster Intel CPU.

Apple attacked the true bottleneck which is the drive and drive controller. The SSD standard in the MBA makes it feel faster than MBPs to normal users in computing.

Apple also focused on software and attacked on all fronts the limitations of today's computers. The Nvidia 320m blows away the Intel IGP especially in the voltage of Core i-processors. Apple has absolutely made the MBA to take advantage of the better ways to make faster Macs.

I hope Apple continues to attack on all fronts as it did with the MBA. I don't look forward to Sandy Bridge in the MBA because it represents all that is wrong with computers today and how consumers feed on Intel's marketing even though the company's tactics are about as disgusting as possible. It was a sad day when Apple stuck its 13" MBP users with Intel's IGP, and I wish more people understood or cared about that.

The Nvidia announcement that it had given up making chipsets was a terrible day for all low-end Macs that benefited so greatly from what they had to offer over Intel. I still have hope that Apple can find a way beyond Intel's disgusting tactics and use an AMD GPU or even skip Intel all together for a complete AMD solution.

I totally agree with you on this. Great post. I do wish they would have given the MBA a little more connectivity for peripherals. I mean, here you have a great computer in the MBA but there are folks who simply can't use it for what they want to do because of limited connectivity. That is why I can't wait for the new MBA to come out. It should be sporting Thunderbolt. My current pc with a core 2 duo has no problems with what I throw at it. I would be totally fine with another core 2 duo in the MBA.

Pitta
Mar 8, 2011, 08:47 AM
I'm sorry to (lightly) hijack the thread but I'm on the verge to press the buy button on a MBAir 11" and I see many owners here.
It prefectly fits my needs but I'm unsure about one thing.
My wife (the computer will be her one, I'll use it only to sync my iPhone) will use iPhoto (creating photobooks) and browse the web mainly, so no problem here.
OCCASIONALLY we use Handbrake to convert some movies in AppleTV 2 format and stream them to the TV, or the AirVideo app which do live transcoding (for iPhone and iPad, soon to AppleTV via Airplay).
Now we use an early alumiunium MacBook to do that (about 1 hour to convert a movie using Handbrake ATV2 preset, no problem with AirVideo app, C2D 2,2 Ghz), but we want to get rid of that.
Will we be able to do that?...I mean...how much longer will we have to wait to convert 1 movie?
I know it's impossible to say precisely, but I want to get a vague idea of the CPU differences and if this could ruin the CPU in the long run (heat? too stress on the cpu for the air?).

Many thanks.

impulse462
Mar 8, 2011, 08:49 AM
The CPU is not the bottleneck in today's computers and the MBA proves it.

Apple used the MBA to show people there is an alternative to Intel's marketing which would have people believe that the only way to speed up a computer is to get a new one with a faster Intel CPU.

Apple attacked the true bottleneck which is the drive and drive controller. The SSD standard in the MBA makes it feel faster than MBPs to normal users in computing.

Apple also focused on software and attacked on all fronts the limitations of today's computers. The Nvidia 320m blows away the Intel IGP especially in the voltage of Core i-processors. Apple has absolutely made the MBA to take advantage of the better ways to make faster Macs.

I hope Apple continues to attack on all fronts as it did with the MBA. I don't look forward to Sandy Bridge in the MBA because it represents all that is wrong with computers today and how consumers feed on Intel's marketing even though the company's tactics are about as disgusting as possible. It was a sad day when Apple stuck its 13" MBP users with Intel's IGP, and I wish more people understood or cared about that.

The Nvidia announcement that it had given up making chipsets was a terrible day for all low-end Macs that benefited so greatly from what they had to offer over Intel. I still have hope that Apple can find a way beyond Intel's disgusting tactics and use an AMD GPU or even skip Intel all together for a complete AMD solution.

I *pretty much* agree as well. I do think the 13" will eventually get a discrete GPU when the ODD is eventually removed. What people don't understand is that the Intel HD 3000 can only barely keep up with the 320M with a CPU thats literally 2x more powerful than the C2D. In GPU-based applications, the performance will suffer since they will be using the GPU more.

Does anyone know the exact reason for nvidia exiting the chipset-making business? I really blame the whole thing on Intel, who forbade anyone to make integrated GPU's for the Core i series but themselves, when until the HD3000 came out, all of their GPU solutions have been pure ********.

stockscalper
Mar 8, 2011, 09:00 AM
The Core Duo is not the bottleneck. The old Airs had a bottleneck, but Apple did an overhaul on the architecture and removed it. As for your wanting an i3, you should realize it is just the old Celeron that Intel has relabeled. The Core Duo is a much better chip, especially when paired with the NVidia graphics card.

alexandero
Mar 8, 2011, 09:23 AM
Now we use an early alumiunium MacBook to do that (about 1 hour to convert a movie using Handbrake ATV2 preset, no problem with AirVideo app, C2D 2,2 Ghz), but we want to get rid of that.
Will we be able to do that?...I mean...how much longer will we have to wait to convert 1 movie?

I believe the current MBA won't be significantly faster than your 2,2 C2D, as its CPU is basically the ultra low voltage version of the C2D chip that was released in 2007.

If you do convert videos frequently and if possible, I suggest waiting for the next MBA version with Sandy Bridge, as you'll then be able to convert movies in 10-20 minutes.

leowyatt
Mar 8, 2011, 09:29 AM
I have an ultimate Air and finally got round to processing some photos last night and it was a breeze. It out performs my work laptop which has a faster C2D chip in everything I've tried.

For what you need it for, get the Air. Once you've used one you'll never want to go back to a heavier machine again. I'm consistently blow away by how light this machine is, even 3 months later. It's handled everything I've thrown at it and not skipped a beat. Admittedly I do all my gaming on consoles so that might skew my opinion slightly.

aristobrat
Mar 8, 2011, 10:38 AM
I want to get a vague idea of the CPU differences and if this could ruin the CPU in the long run (heat? too stress on the cpu for the air?).
You will not hurt/ruin the Air's CPU by running processor-intensive tasks (like converting video).

douglasf13
Mar 8, 2011, 11:04 AM
If you need to convert video fast, see here: http://www.elgato.com/elgato/na/mainmenu/products/Turbo264HD/product2.en.html

Pitta
Mar 8, 2011, 01:57 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; it-it) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)

Many thanks for the replies.
I do not want to convert movies faster, I was just curious about how much longer (if any) that occasional task would take...the whole night? The same 1 hour? Maybe double the time?
I never saw a similar benchmark so I asked.
I'm in love with the air and probably buy it anyway, but if possible I would like to have a vague idea of how tasking this type of transcoding could be on the Air processor.
Again, thanks.

alexandero
Mar 9, 2011, 02:47 AM
I do not want to convert movies faster, I was just curious about how much longer (if any) that occasional task would take...the whole night? The same 1 hour? Maybe double the time?

I believe converting movies is still done by the CPU (only), and as the current C2D in the MBA basically is the same chip we've seen in MacBookPros four years ago, just shrinked in size and using less energy, you should achieve the same speeds as with your old C2D.

frozen
Mar 11, 2011, 02:23 PM
The CPU is not the bottleneck in today's computers and the MBA proves it.

Apple used the MBA to show people there is an alternative to Intel's marketing which would have people believe that the only way to speed up a computer is to get a new one with a faster Intel CPU.

Apple attacked the true bottleneck which is the drive and drive controller. The SSD standard in the MBA makes it feel faster than MBPs to normal users in computing.

Apple also focused on software and attacked on all fronts the limitations of today's computers. The Nvidia 320m blows away the Intel IGP especially in the voltage of Core i-processors. Apple has absolutely made the MBA to take advantage of the better ways to make faster Macs.

I hope Apple continues to attack on all fronts as it did with the MBA. I don't look forward to Sandy Bridge in the MBA because it represents all that is wrong with computers today and how consumers feed on Intel's marketing even though the company's tactics are about as disgusting as possible. It was a sad day when Apple stuck its 13" MBP users with Intel's IGP, and I wish more people understood or cared about that.

The Nvidia announcement that it had given up making chipsets was a terrible day for all low-end Macs that benefited so greatly from what they had to offer over Intel. I still have hope that Apple can find a way beyond Intel's disgusting tactics and use an AMD GPU or even skip Intel all together for a complete AMD solution.


My main worry is about the lifespan of the SSD. Are SSDs really getting slower over time? And as far as I have understood it, it is almost impossible to replace the MBA SSD? A slow processor combined with a unreplaceable SSD makes the lifespan of a MBA considerable shorter than a MBP or even MB. And also very difficult to sell after some years when wanting to upgrade? Or am I completely wrong?

Mac767
Mar 11, 2011, 03:20 PM
I was in the same dilema... this video helped me decide...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qp720fEnuRs

I know the MBA is outstanding in form and lightness, but the MBP is not that thick.. and the speed, backlit keyboard and thunderstorm helps!

Help Please
Mar 11, 2011, 03:25 PM
I was in the same dilema... this video helped me decide...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qp720fEnuRs

I know the MBA is outstanding in form and lightness, but the MBP is not that thick.. and the speed, backlit keyboard and thunderstorm helps!

Yup. You just called it a "thunderstorm" port. :o

WiseDuck
Mar 11, 2011, 03:27 PM
I'd say it's the bottleneck. I have the base model and it does struggle a bit in Pixelmator. But it's usable and it did work well for some simple clip editing in iMovie etc. Overall it's a snappy little thing and I think it's awesome!

I do hope they put a ULV Sandy Bridge CPU in the next Air. I'll sell this one to the family and buy a new one asap if they do!

Mac767
Mar 11, 2011, 03:27 PM
Yup. You just called it a "thunderstorm" port. :o

my bad, I was watching the news... lol

artivideo.nl
Mar 11, 2011, 03:51 PM
Not an honest way to compare CPU's since the MBA only has 2GB RAM as opposed to 4GB Ram for the MBP !!!!


I was in the same dilema... this video helped me decide...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qp720fEnuRs

I know the MBA is outstanding in form and lightness, but the MBP is not that thick.. and the speed, backlit keyboard and thunderstorm helps!

iRun26.2
Mar 11, 2011, 04:54 PM
Yup. You just called it a "thunderstorm" port. :o

But the MBA is still one 'hail' of a computer! :)

topmounter
Mar 11, 2011, 10:21 PM
Having come from a 15" MBP... the 13" MBA is a revelation. I don't think I could go back to the piggy MBP now.

paleriderc2d
Mar 11, 2011, 11:09 PM
If the MBA had a backlit keyboard, I would have grabbed it immediately. I find myself in low lighting a lot when sitting at my computer. Having a Panasonic Toughbook with a backlit keyboard for work made me extremely spoiled.

The optical drive on my MBP sits unused 99% of the time. I use it to install software but Apple App Store is a signal that Apple is heading toward direct download for software purchases.

Santabean2000
Mar 11, 2011, 11:41 PM
My main worry is about the lifespan of the SSD. Are SSDs really getting slower over time? And as far as I have understood it, it is almost impossible to replace the MBA SSD? A slow processor combined with a unreplaceable SSD makes the lifespan of a MBA considerable shorter than a MBP or even MB. And also very difficult to sell after some years when wanting to upgrade? Or am I completely wrong?

Lion will support TRIM

fyrefly
Mar 12, 2011, 04:52 PM
Apple also focused on software and attacked on all fronts the limitations of today's computers. The Nvidia 320m blows away the Intel IGP especially in the voltage of Core i-processors. Apple has absolutely made the MBA to take advantage of the better ways to make faster Macs...

<snip!>

It was a sad day when Apple stuck its 13" MBP users with Intel's IGP, and I wish more people understood or cared about that.

Would todays MacBooks be better if Nvidia could still make an IGP for the Core-i Chipsets? Probably.

But the HD 3000 Graphics are only 5-10% less powerful (at least in the current 13"/15" MBPs) than the 320M.

Anandtech did testing and the HD 3000 chip beat the 320m in gaming tests (in both Windows and OSX)

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/macbookproearly2010_041410212607/35701.png

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/macbookproearly2010_041410212607/35697.png

I do agree with you that Intel's lawsuit against Nvidia to drive them out of hte chipset business was total BS, but the HD 3000 is the best Intel IGP they've ever put out. In fact, Nvidia is now licensing Intel some of their technology/patents, so the Intel IGPs are only gonna get better, as they bake more and more Nvidia DNA into them.

I'm on the verge to press the buy button on a MBAir 11" and ... I'm unsure about one thing.
OCCASIONALLY we use Handbrake to convert some movies in AppleTV 2 format and stream them to the TV, or the AirVideo app which do live transcoding (for iPhone and iPad, soon to AppleTV via Airplay).
Now we use an early alumiunium MacBook to do that (about 1 hour to convert a movie using Handbrake ATV2 preset, no problem with AirVideo app, C2D 2,2 Ghz), but we want to get rid of that.
Will we be able to do that?...I mean...how much longer will we have to wait to convert 1 movie?

The current 11" MBA is not gonna convert the handbrake stuff as fast as the 2.26Ghz 13" MPB (I'm assuming that's what you already have - as there was no 2.2Ghz Aluminum MacBook. Just 2.0 and 2.4Ghz).

Barefeats.com did tests (http://barefeats.com/mbpp29.html) with a 2.4Ghz 13" MBP and a 1.4Ghz 11" MBA in Handbrake:

http://barefeats.com/images09/mbp29_han.gif

As you can see the 11" MBA was 40% slower than the MBA.

I have an ultimate Air and finally got round to processing some photos last night and it was a breeze. It out performs my work laptop which has a faster C2D chip in everything I've tried.

For what you need it for, get the Air. Once you've used one you'll never want to go back to a heavier machine again. I'm consistently blow away by how light this machine is, even 3 months later. It's handled everything I've thrown at it and not skipped a beat. Admittedly I do all my gaming on consoles so that might skew my opinion slightly.

Size and weight have always been the MBA's strengths. That's why I've owned one since Apple released the first one in early '08.

I'm surprised that the photo processing was faster on the MBA, but the Ultimate 2.13Ghz SU9600 isn't that much slower than whatever MBP processor you have. Problem is that at least one poster here is talking about the 11" MBA (and presumably the 1.4Ghz one). Not exactly a speed demon. Plus, the MBA you were using had the advantage of SSD for the disk-access based parts of the photo processing (which I assume explains how the MBA was "faster" at it).

Not an honest way to compare CPU's since the MBA only has 2GB RAM as opposed to 4GB Ram for the MBP !!!!

I dunno about that. You can get 4GB RAM Airs. I have one. And the guy in the video does say they have the same congifuration...?

Regardless, it's the most "apples-to-apples" (pardon the pun ;) ) comparison I've seen. An SSD equipped i5 MBP will kill a C2D equipped MBA. Of course it will.

fibrizo
Mar 13, 2011, 03:04 PM
Would todays MacBooks be better if Nvidia could still make an IGP for the Core-i Chipsets? Probably.

But the HD 3000 Graphics are only 5-10% less powerful (at least in the current 13"/15" MBPs) than the 320M.

Anandtech did testing and the HD 3000 chip beat the 320m in gaming tests (in both Windows and OSX)


Did you read the entire article? CPU bound stuff is going to rock on the sandy bridge stuff, but still the HD 3000 is significantly worse when the problem is GPU bound vs CPU bound...

Here's the rest of the benchmarks from the very same article. About 20% worse in settings > that absolute lowest possible. Obviously the CPU is going to kick the pants off the C2D so the cpu bound comparison isn't very good, but by apple not including a discrete option like the 15 inchers really turned me off from upgrading from the 2010 mbp... ended up getting an ipad 2 instead of upgrading.

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/macbookproearly2010_041410212607/35867.png

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/macbookproearly2010_041410212607/35868.png

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/macbookproearly2010_041410212607/35869.png

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/macbookproearly2010_041410212607/35870.png

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/macbookproearly2010_041410212607/35871.png

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/macbookproearly2010_041410212607/35879.png

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/macbookproearly2010_041410212607/35880.png

Here's Anand's quote on the subject.

"Given the huge leap in CPU performance, I'd have been okay if the graphics stayed on par with the previous MBP 13, but I was a little disappointed to see it that much slower. This is a weird one, since the same GPU gave us significantly better performance in the SNB test system. The only explanation we have has to do with turbo. The max turbo supported by the HD 3000 in the Core i5 2415M is 1.2GHz, down from 1.3GHz in the 2820QM. Now max clock speed isn't enough to explain this performance difference, but perhaps under Windows the 2415M's GPU doesn't turbo up quite as aggressively as the 2820QM's.

Anand consistently saw 10-15% faster results during the first run of a benchmark than the next four or five runs of the same test. This is probably due to thermal limitations—heat soak and overheating are pretty time-honored MBP traditions. However, my system shouldn't have been affected by thermal stress over time—I let it sit for some time between each benchmark run to let it cool, just to eliminate residual heat as a factor.

Based on CPU-Z, Apple isn't underclocking the GPU—it's running at the same 1.2GHz that's on the Intel spec sheets. The difference in performance is a little odd. The MacBook Pro, especially in 13-inch form, does have the potential to be thermally limited due to the size of the enclosure, but I'm not sure why a supposedly low-power graphics solution would be so thermally limited, even when testing to avoid the effects of heat build up as much as possible."



Now with that in mind, I certainly wouldn't mind the sandybridge update on the mba 11 and 13, from my current C2D version, since I don't game much, but given the heat problems of this model I'm a little concerned.

alan111
Mar 14, 2011, 09:24 PM
i just posted in another thread. Alot of people underestimate the c2d, but yes, I would say that its the bottleneck of the air.

Scottsdale
Mar 14, 2011, 10:54 PM
Would todays MacBooks be better if Nvidia could still make an IGP for the Core-i Chipsets? Probably.

But the HD 3000 Graphics are only 5-10% less powerful (at least in the current 13"/15" MBPs) than the 320M.

Anandtech did testing and the HD 3000 chip beat the 320m in gaming tests (in both Windows and OSX)

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/macbookproearly2010_041410212607/35701.png

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/macbookproearly2010_041410212607/35697.png

I do agree with you that Intel's lawsuit against Nvidia to drive them out of hte chipset business was total BS, but the HD 3000 is the best Intel IGP they've ever put out. In fact, Nvidia is now licensing Intel some of their technology/patents, so the Intel IGPs are only gonna get better, as they bake more and more Nvidia DNA into them.



The current 11" MBA is not gonna convert the handbrake stuff as fast as the 2.26Ghz 13" MPB (I'm assuming that's what you already have - as there was no 2.2Ghz Aluminum MacBook. Just 2.0 and 2.4Ghz).

Barefeats.com did tests (http://barefeats.com/mbpp29.html) with a 2.4Ghz 13" MBP and a 1.4Ghz 11" MBA in Handbrake:

http://barefeats.com/images09/mbp29_han.gif

As you can see the 11" MBA was 40% slower than the MBA.



Size and weight have always been the MBA's strengths. That's why I've owned one since Apple released the first one in early '08.

I'm surprised that the photo processing was faster on the MBA, but the Ultimate 2.13Ghz SU9600 isn't that much slower than whatever MBP processor you have. Problem is that at least one poster here is talking about the 11" MBA (and presumably the 1.4Ghz one). Not exactly a speed demon. Plus, the MBA you were using had the advantage of SSD for the disk-access based parts of the photo processing (which I assume explains how the MBA was "faster" at it).



I dunno about that. You can get 4GB RAM Airs. I have one. And the guy in the video does say they have the same congifuration...?

Regardless, it's the most "apples-to-apples" (pardon the pun ;) ) comparison I've seen. An SSD equipped i5 MBP will kill a C2D equipped MBA. Of course it will.

I can find a "chart" or "proof" of anything I want on the Internet, but that doesn't make it TRUE. Be realistic, and conservatively you should say the worst numbers of the HD3000 instead of the best. Realistically time will prove exactly what I am saying, and I don't need a chart to prove it.

In addition, we have seen Intel's IGP with low voltage CPUs in the MBA before, and it was NOT pretty. It was Apple's worst Mac at the time since the Intel transition. Drivers improved over time, but in the day it was worthless and undeveloped in OS X just as it is today. It needs time, but even then it's considerably behind the 320m.

Seriously, I am using real world experience from my own experience and reading experiences of others. I have zero faith that the current Intel IGP can compete with the 320m. There are many reasons why, but I don't need to show charts as I know it's true. If you want to believe Intel is even competitive vs Nvidia when it comes to graphics that's your loss.

I really think the SB IGP couldn't provide the resolution of the current 13" MBA in a low voltage CPU and perform even 55% of the Nvidia 320m... and for this reason I don't believe Apple will use it. The MBA is a beast that is incredibly capable, and Apple isn't going to ruin the users' experience to appease to Intel or the fewer than 5% of the consumers who require an Intel Core i-series in the MBA to buy it.

brentsg
Mar 14, 2011, 11:12 PM
Apple isn't going to ruin the users' experience to appease to Intel or the fewer than 5% of the consumers who require an Intel Core i-series in the MBA to buy it.

Hahahahaha...

I know the MBA is great for some functions. I'm close to buying one as well, but there's no way that I can given the C2D. More power to the "95%" that can.

The fact that you think 95% of users are content with C2D speaks volumes to your credibility. I realize that there are a lot of people who only see a computer from the exterior and know nothing beyond... but I honestly don't believe there is enough ignorance to make it 95%.

fyrefly
Mar 15, 2011, 01:15 AM
Did you read the entire article? CPU bound stuff is going to rock on the sandy bridge stuff, but still the HD 3000 is significantly worse when the problem is GPU bound vs CPU bound...

Here's the rest of the benchmarks from the very same article. About 20% worse in settings > that absolute lowest possible. Obviously the CPU is going to kick the pants off the C2D so the cpu bound comparison isn't very good, but by apple not including a discrete option like the 15 inchers really turned me off from upgrading from the 2010 mbp... ended up getting an ipad 2 instead of upgrading.

<snip!>

Did you read the entire of the article? Those 20% less benchmarks you posted were for Windows 7 Gaming. This is a MAC.

Even later in the article, Ananad comes to this conclusion:

With the 13-inch MacBook Pro, under OS X at least, there simply aren't any downsides. You get much better CPU performance over the previous generation. In fact, the new 13 can outperform last year's 15 thanks to Sandy Bridge. The new 13 is quite possibly the best balance of portability and performance. It's the single largest upgrade you'll find in the lineup. If you own a previous generation 13-inch MBP, the upgrade is 100% worth it. Graphics performance is solid under OS X however questionable under Windows. For some reason we actually saw a step back in GPU performance vs. last year's 13-inch MBP when running games in Windows 7.

Now with that in mind, I certainly wouldn't mind the sandybridge update on the mba 11 and 13, from my current C2D version, since I don't game much, but given the heat problems of this model I'm a little concerned.

The heat problems are only 'cause the 13" went from the P8800 at 25W+320M to the i5/i7 chips at 35Watts. 10W more power draw is gonna create more heat, and need more cooling.

I can find a "chart" or "proof" of anything I want on the Internet, but that doesn't make it TRUE. Be realistic, and conservatively you should say the worst numbers of the HD3000 instead of the best. Realistically time will prove exactly what I am saying, and I don't need a chart to prove it.

Whew. All I can say to that is:

http://www.pollsb.com/photos/o/391120-homer_facts_meaningless_use_facts_prove_anything_that_rsquo_s_even_remotely_true.jpg http://www.tshirt-heaven.co.uk/images/designs/quotes/simpsons/facts/i-facts.gif

In addition, we have seen Intel's IGP with low voltage CPUs in the MBA before, and it was NOT pretty. It was Apple's worst Mac at the time since the Intel transition.

The X3100 in the first MacBook Air wasn't awesome, I know. I owned one too. But the HD 3000 graphics are what, 4-5 generations ahead of the X3100?

Besides, as I've said before, neither you nor I know what the LV versions of the HD 3000 are gonna be like. And I'm not saying they're be better than the 320m. They will probably be worse. How much worse is yet to be seen.

I really think the SB IGP couldn't provide the resolution of the current 13" MBA in a low voltage CPU and perform even 55% of the Nvidia 320m... and for this reason I don't believe Apple will use it. The MBA is a beast that is incredibly capable, and Apple isn't going to ruin the users' experience to appease to Intel or the fewer than 5% of the consumers who require an Intel Core i-series in the MBA to buy it.

First of all... 1440x900 can't be pushed by the HD 3000? Seriously? At one point in the Macbook Pro's history, 1920x1200 was being pushed by the 9400m on 17" MBPs. (Sure they had the option to turn on the 9600 instead, but the 9400m was having a grand old time pushing 1920x1200 all the day long.

And given that the fully clocked HD 3000 handily beat the 9400m, which was 1/2 as fast as the 320m (don't worry, I won't bore you with the facts, erm, charts to prove it ;) ), I suspect the lower clocked HD 3000 will rest somewhere between the 9400m and the 320m. Still well and able to push 1440x900.

Unless you mean as a 60fps gaming resolution, but the 320m can't even hit above 30-40, so hopefully that's not what you mean.

Either way, neither of us knows till we see some benchmarks on the lower-clocked HD 3000's.

Also... here's a thought. Even if Apple releases i7LV MacBook Airs sometime in the summer, there's nothing that stops you from continuing to use your 320m machine if it performs graphical tasks better for you. You don't have to stop using your 320m Air if an i7LV+HD 3000 graphics comes out.

Scottsdale
Mar 16, 2011, 06:01 AM
Hahahahaha...

I know the MBA is great for some functions. I'm close to buying one as well, but there's no way that I can given the C2D. More power to the "95%" that can.

The fact that you think 95% of users are content with C2D speaks volumes to your credibility. I realize that there are a lot of people who only see a computer from the exterior and know nothing beyond... but I honestly don't believe there is enough ignorance to make it 95%.

And your tone speaks volumes of your character and doesn't do much for your karma either.