Early Benchmarks Reveal New MacBook Air Rivaling High-End 2010 MacBook Pro [Archive]

MacRumors

Jul 20, 2011, 03:29 PM

http://images.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/07/20/early-benchmarks-reveal-new-macbook-air-rivaling-high-end-2010-macbook-pro/)

Electricpig reports (http://electricpig.co.uk/2011/07/20/2011-macbook-air-benchmarks-are-amazing-outperforms-all-2010-macbook-pros/) that early benchmarking data (http://www.laptopmag.com/review/laptop/apple-macbook-air-13-2011.aspx?mode=benchmarks&cids=2392%2C2843%2C2393%2Cpa) obtained by Laptopmag.com from Apple's new MacBook Air models released today demonstrate significant performance improvements over the previous generation and even other Apple notebooks. Testing was performed using the Geekbench (http://www.primatelabs.ca/geekbench/) benchmarking tools.

http://images.macrumors.com/article-new/2011/07/macbook_air_2011_geekbench.jpg

According to the report, not only do the new MacBook Air models at least double the scores of the previous generation in testing with Geekbench, but the new machines also compare extremely favorably to even high-end MacBook Pro models from last year.The new 13-inch MacBook Air earned a Geekbench score of 5860, a bump in performance of over 100 percent compared to last year's model. The 11-inch MacBook Air was even more impressive, skyrocketing from 2024 to 5040 for 149 percent increase.

To put these benchmarks into perspective, the 2010 17-inch 2.67 GHz Core i7 MacBook Pro scored 5423. For £849 the 11-inch MacBook Air offers a benchmark on par with last year's £2099 17-inch MacBook Pro.Geekbench testing focuses on processor and memory performance, providing comparisons of raw power between machines but only telling part of the story. Consequently, it remains to be seen how the new MacBook Air models will stack up in real-world situations, but early indications suggest that Apple's ultraportable lineup has indeed received a major increase in performance.

Article Link: Early Benchmarks Reveal New MacBook Air Rivaling High-End 2010 MacBook Pro (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/07/20/early-benchmarks-reveal-new-macbook-air-rivaling-high-end-2010-macbook-pro/)

ECUpirate44

Jul 20, 2011, 03:32 PM

If only there was a 15" Air :rolleyes:

res1233

Jul 20, 2011, 03:32 PM

I'm going to make a wild guess here and say that the MBP tested doesn't have an SSD? It doesn't seem to say on the site.

shanmugam

Jul 20, 2011, 03:33 PM

and their Turbo Boost technology.

but no thanks for their IGP HD3000 :D

Gemütlichkeit

Jul 20, 2011, 03:34 PM

Very nice! Can't wait for the big purchase.

shanmugam

Jul 20, 2011, 03:34 PM

If only there was a 15" Air :rolleyes:

wait until the refresh of the MBP.

it will take few features from MBA (SSDs, no super drive) and bring it to MBP

then MBP (35 watt TDP CPU) smack MBA (17 watt TDP CPU) in the face

BornAgainMac

Jul 20, 2011, 03:35 PM

That didn't take long.

fattire357

Jul 20, 2011, 03:35 PM

I wonder if other benchmarks can reproduce this or if it is an artificial result. It seems hard to believe this year's 1.7 GHz processor can outperform last year's 2.7 GHz processor

mrfoof82

Jul 20, 2011, 03:36 PM

CoreyMac

Jul 20, 2011, 03:36 PM

I'm going to make a wild guess here and say that the MBP tested doesn't have an SSD? It doesn't seem to say on the site.

You're probably correct, but its still impressive to see that comparison even given that fact. The 2010 MBP is fast with a typical hard drive.....to get that kinda juice out of an ultraportable is pretty awesome.

toddybody

Jul 20, 2011, 03:36 PM

Hahahaha. Give the MBP a decent SSD, then we'll see what's faster.

Anyways, I'm mostly curious as to the IGP's performance.

CoreyMac

Jul 20, 2011, 03:36 PM

Not entirely surprising.

Everyone should keep in mind that Ivy Bridge is next year. This is when we should see a quad-core MacBook Air (and Mac Mini), and 8-core iMacs. Additionally, there will also be the move to 22nm fabrication processes in addition to 3D transistors, which should be comparable to a fabrication shrink itself.

If you think this year was a big boost, wait until you see what Intel has in store for next year.

The jump from SB to IB won't be as big as C2D to SB. You'll be very disappointed.

b11051973

Jul 20, 2011, 03:39 PM

I really only use my 11" MBA for web browsing. I have a desktop PC as my workhorse.

Still, seeing these improvements makes me very jealous.

thatisme

Jul 20, 2011, 03:39 PM

Hahahaha. Give the MBP a decent SSD, then we'll see what's faster.

with that logic, give the MBA the faster i7 processor as well to make it all "equal" :roll eyes:

Seriously, though. I am pleased to see high scores. Now if we can get secondary testing to validate these numbers...

adrian.oconnor

Jul 20, 2011, 03:39 PM

My late-2010 MBA 13 is all of a sudden feeling quite sluggish. And the keyboard is decidedly unlit. Oh, what to do...

;)

Nielsenius

Jul 20, 2011, 03:42 PM

Say it ain't so!

AppleScruff1

Jul 20, 2011, 03:42 PM

Nice!!! And you guys were worried that the new ones wouldn't be any good.

zephonic

Jul 20, 2011, 03:42 PM

Fingers crossed that real-world performance approaches the 2010 MBP as well. It would a real problem solver for me.

wordoflife

Jul 20, 2011, 03:43 PM

Geekbench scores don't really mean anything, but I'm impressed.

bigp9998

Jul 20, 2011, 03:45 PM

If only there was a 15" Air :rolleyes:

Keep in mind that the resolution of the 13" MBA is equal to that of the 15" MBP.

PeterSharp

Jul 20, 2011, 03:45 PM

RastaLulz

Jul 20, 2011, 03:46 PM

If only there was a 15" Air :rolleyes:

I agree; if there was a 15" MacBook Air, they'd have me sold.

ArnieX

Jul 20, 2011, 03:46 PM

I’m really happy that I have bought old one 13“ coz missing NVIDIA Graphic card is NO BUY factor for me. I do hate anything called Intel HDXXXX maybe good for portability but I don’t care… step back for me. Anyway - objective power is different than this test just because it is only the highest power of CPU not CPU+GPU as 1part so I thing first gen is better and backlit keyboard isn’t something I would really appreciate :) but anyway I’m happy that I don’t have to be disappointed that I have bought old one instead of new one :)

kyle1320

Jul 20, 2011, 03:46 PM

The 13" 1.7GHz i5 air is about the same score as my 2011 13" 2.3GHz i5 pro :/

toddybody

Jul 20, 2011, 03:49 PM

wait until the refresh of the MBP.

it will take few features from MBA (SSDs, no super drive) and bring it to MBP

then MBP (35 watt TDP CPU) smack MBA (17 watt TDP CPU) in the face

I'm most excited for the MBP (IB) refresh. Standard Quad Core (3D Transistors look fantastic), new gen of AMD mGPUs, no ODD and .75 inch body, standard SSD...and most of all, the much needed resolution bump. 1280x800 on the 13" MBP is a total joke. I can't believe Apple got away with that one.

gorcman

Jul 20, 2011, 03:49 PM

Do these benchmarks take into consideration the GPU?

holmesf

Jul 20, 2011, 03:51 PM

I'm going to make a wild guess here and say that the MBP tested doesn't have an SSD? It doesn't seem to say on the site.

Hahahaha. Give the MBP a decent SSD, then we'll see what's faster.

Anyways, I'm mostly curious as to the IGP's performance.

Geekbench doesn't measure hard drive performance, so in fact the Macbook Air would only come out even further ahead if that were taken in account. It's strictly CPU and memory performance being measured here.

Do these benchmarks take into consideration the GPU?

Nope.

nagromme

Jul 20, 2011, 03:51 PM

I really only use my 11" MBA for web browsing. I have a desktop PC as my workhorse.

Still, seeing these improvements makes me very jealous.

I use my older Air as my workhorse! While my big desktop collects dust.

That old Air isn’t as fast, but it’s plenty fast enough, and having all my stuff ready to grab with one hand and take to another room or a friend’s house is just too convenient. I don’t MEAN to ignore the big guy, but it’s what has happened! (It makes a nice TV/DVR though.)

With the new Air I’ll be VERY happy! Probably the 11” with Core i7. But maybe the 13” for $50 less (but less speed and more bulky).

And I often throw my iPad in the bag, which gives me a second display to use (DisplayPad app) while still keeping me highly portable. Thus the 13” is less tempting, even for Photoshop/Flash/tons-o-palettes.

lilo777

Jul 20, 2011, 03:52 PM

This just shows total lack of useful benchmarks for Macs. This is clearly not a very "geeky" test.

ECUpirate44

Jul 20, 2011, 03:54 PM

Keep in mind that the resolution of the 13" MBA is equal to that of the 15" MBP.

I know, I just could never use a 13" screen let alone 11"

ebow

Jul 20, 2011, 03:54 PM

trims

Jul 20, 2011, 03:57 PM

I'd like to see the 13 inch 2011 MBA against the 13 inch 2011 MBP--those are the models I'm considering right now. Since the 2011 MBP blew the 2010 MBP out of the water in several benchmarks, I assume it will best the 2011 MBA.

http://www.primatelabs.ca/geekbench/mac-benchmarks/

Geek away! . . . .

Digital Skunk

Jul 20, 2011, 03:57 PM

That didn't take long.

True, the real treat is going to be what they'll put into the next MBP and Mac Pro revisions. Technology pushes forward!

It's nice to see the Air getting some horse power now. The form factor is truly a mobile warrior's dream.

I don't think we'll see the MBP loose it's optical drive being that it's a machine that more than just the average person uses. Authoring DVDs on the go is a must if even for 13" MBP users.

Although, I wouldn't be surprised to see that happen with the 13" and 15" machines seeing that many pros still opt for the 17" to do some highend work.

Maybe I am crazy, but Ive just realised that I want new 11inch MBA and Thunderbolt Display. Am I crazy? I need feedback. I want it mostly for Aperture and Photoshop. Cinema display has firewire so I can connect my external drives. Seems perfect. Doesnt it?

It does, but I wouldn't dare catch myself running Aperture on a machine with a screen that tiny, a hard drive that small, and an integrated GPU. It's nice if you are using Aperture to replace iPhoto and to do some minor things here and there, but you still may be better with a 13" MBP 2011 model of course.

But, these specs are showing that the Air is becoming a real option for even some moderate power users.

nagromme

Jul 20, 2011, 03:58 PM

Maybe I am crazy, but Ive just realised that I want new 11inch MBA and Thunderbolt Display. Am I crazy? I need feedback. I want it mostly for Aperture and Photoshop. Cinema display has firewire so I can connect my external drives. Seems perfect. Doesnt it?

Sounds tempting, right? An external display/docking station for desktop-style use, 2nd-gen Core speed, SSD speed, plus the most portable laptop ever—all in one?

But you’re flat-out crazy if you’d consider an Air for serious work: I’ve done that (Photoshop, Flash, OpenOffice) for 3 years on my Air, and it means that ALL MY WORK is right there, ready to grab with one hand and run out the door! No synching needed, nothing to think about. I just have all my projects with me SO much more of the time than I used to with my 15” bulkmonster. And yet I can do everything I need right on the Air.

That means I’m never away from work :( My clients can get me to do stuff all the time!

Do yourself a favor: if you do pro work, get the bulkiest laptop you can, or a giant tower, and tell your clients you’ll "deal with it" when you get back to the office :)

Don’t get addicted to the Air like me. Save yourself.

SteveSparks

Jul 20, 2011, 04:00 PM

Anyone have the numbers for the regualr versions of the MBA, the numbers I see are for the BTO systems.

11" - 64 - i5 = ?
11" - 128 - i5 = ?
13" - 128 - i5 = ?
13" - 256 - i5 = ?

Thanks in Advance, sorry if I missed these earlier.

shouldbeworking

Jul 20, 2011, 04:03 PM

Not entirely surprising, considering how aggressive the Turbo Boost is.

Everyone should keep in mind that Ivy Bridge is next year. This is when we should see a quad-core MacBook Air (and Mac Mini), and 8-core iMacs. Additionally, there will also be the move to 22nm fabrication processes in addition to 3D transistors, which should be comparable to a fabrication shrink itself.

If you think this year was a big boost, wait until you see what Intel has in store for next year.

The new MBA dont have turbo boost or hyperthreading. Read the specifications on the Apple Website.

Bonch

Jul 20, 2011, 04:03 PM

Hogwash

wiz329

Jul 20, 2011, 04:05 PM

Mmmmmm. Once again, let's test a computer with an SSD vs. a computer without an SSD.

CONCLUSION: an SSD is faster than a conventional hard drive! Wowzers!

-LikesMac-

Jul 20, 2011, 04:06 PM

striker33

Jul 20, 2011, 04:09 PM

Hahahaha. Give the MBP a decent SSD, then we'll see what's faster.

Anyways, I'm mostly curious as to the IGP's performance.

Which would add even more cost onto the already substantial £2099 cost from last year.

It's £849 and it rivals a machine costing more than twice the price, what more do you want?

feflower

Jul 20, 2011, 04:16 PM

These comparisons between machines shouldn't really mean much.
What I need is how well MBA performs MY needs.

ebow

Jul 20, 2011, 04:16 PM

hcho3

Jul 20, 2011, 04:17 PM

CPU and GPU are the most important parts for me... and GPU just took a huge step backward. Screw the geekbench. Booooo...

Run some games and see how bad intel HD3000 is.

thestone

Jul 20, 2011, 04:18 PM

so would it be a reasonable assumption that the high-end 11" spec'd with the i7 should have an identical score? or am i forgetting another difference between them?

EvilEvil

Jul 20, 2011, 04:19 PM

Do these benchmarks take into consideration the GPU?

I would like to know as well especially with games on OS X and Windows 7 installed on Bootcamp.

wikus

Jul 20, 2011, 04:21 PM

I would like to know as well especially with games on OS X and Windows 7 installed on Bootcamp.

No, geekbench only tests the CPU and RAM.

*LTD*

Jul 20, 2011, 04:21 PM

That's quite an entry-level Macbook.

Glideslope

Jul 20, 2011, 04:21 PM

If only there was a 15" Air :rolleyes:

Yup. Take one in a minute. But then, who would buy a 15" MBP? :rolleyes:

Abyssgh0st

Jul 20, 2011, 04:22 PM

So close to pulling the trigger on an i7 11"...

wikus

Jul 20, 2011, 04:23 PM

I'm most excited for the MBP (IB) refresh. Standard Quad Core (3D Transistors look fantastic), new gen of AMD mGPUs, no ODD and .75 inch body, standard SSD...and most of all, the much needed resolution bump. 1280x800 on the 13" MBP is a total joke. I can't believe Apple got away with that one.

I can't believe Apple's been getting away with glossy screens on a 'Pro' labeled computer.

foiden

Jul 20, 2011, 04:23 PM

The MBA 13 has screen res that is = to MBP 15? :eek::eek::eek::eek:

This shows that the MBP needs a spec bump.

MBP 13 should get the MBA 13 res screen
MBP 15 should have its "hi-res" 1680x1050 screen standard,
MBP 17...left alone I guess

The MBPs can get a SLIGHT graphics boost...

Anyone think Apple can release External GPU dock, which would be good for MBA and the MBP 13.

Actually, the 2010 MBA model I already have 13" had the screen resolution of the MBP 15". This is the 2nd generation of Air that has it. And yes, the 15" could use a bump due to this, I think Apple may be ready to bump all the resolutions up, though I think they should first make 512MB addressable graphics memory a standard across the line, first. Even for the non-discrete graphics options.

Still, I think it's a shocker what was announced with this, is that the Macbook Mini gets a full discrete video card for the 2.5GHZ option. It could be possible that Apple is actually selling a Mac with a full discrete ATI video card for less than $1000, for once.

Torrijos

Jul 20, 2011, 04:24 PM

They're comparing the air to last year MBP... 2011 MBP are way more powerful, still like many I can't wait to see what Ivy Bridge will bring.

Ridley

Jul 20, 2011, 04:27 PM

Wow I can't believe how dumb these people are though .. from the electripig link on this article "The subtle change in clock speed from 1.4 to 1.6 GHz in the 2011 11-inch MacBook Air might sound small on paper, but in terms of benchmarks, it’s nothing short of monumental. "

wow, just wow. It wasn't a subtle change in clock it was a full 2 (arguably 3) generations newer architecture!! The old Pentium 4's had clock rates up to 3.8 Ghz... do they expect them to smoke any computer available today?

Sorry i'm like really bitter having known this for a while and hearing everyone say that the sandy bridge chip, which is multiple generations newer than C2D, would be a marginal upgrade and that Sandy Bridge to Ivy Bridge (same generation) would be a staggering leap. For a tech website to write someone equally obtuse is mind blowing.

They're comparing the air to last year MBP... 2011 MBP are way more powerful, still like many I can't wait to see what Ivy Bridge will bring.

Probably 5%-15% faster clock for clock like all of Intel's upgrades for the past 5 years. Look at Intel's tick tock cycles for releasing chips and you'll see why everyone was excited about C2D to Sandy Bridge http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Tick_Tock

ECUpirate44

Jul 20, 2011, 04:28 PM

Yup. Take one in a minute. But then, who would buy a 15" MBP? :rolleyes:

People who still want optical drives, lots of storage, strong GPU and Quad-Core processors. The current MBP is overkill for the vast majority of people who buy it. The MBA would continue to be the computer for the average user and the Pro would be exclusively for Pro users and would eventually be killed off like the MB once it became cheap enough for the MBA to have 500 GB of flash storage and a stronger GPU.

shanmugam

Jul 20, 2011, 04:28 PM

by providing 2GB RAM in the 11" $999 model

hehehe :D

SilianRail

Jul 20, 2011, 04:29 PM

If they can do benchmarks, they can do teardowns. Is the SSD confirmed soldered on?

carmenodie

Jul 20, 2011, 04:30 PM

Put t this way, if the new MBA 13.3 inch can handle quakelive gameplay, I'm sold!
I have the 13 inch 2008 macbook Al unibody and it is a monster. But I would gladly give it to my girlfriend(she bought it) and purchase the new high and MBA in a heart beat.

shanmugam

Jul 20, 2011, 04:31 PM

Yup. Take one in a minute. But then, who would buy a 15" MBP? :rolleyes:

MBPs are desktop replacement machines.

They need to still fill in the low end market.

$899 MacBook would not hurt but they discontinued MacBook instead of growing that line.

Still one cannot buy a affordable 15" laptop from Apple. hmmm.

BeauPaul

Jul 20, 2011, 04:31 PM

I can't believe Apple's been getting away with glossy screens on a 'Pro' labeled computer.

I actually prefer glossy and every big azz monitor I have ever used since mac started making computers were glossy

Neodym

Jul 20, 2011, 04:33 PM

What puts this even more into perspective (at least for me) is the fact, that this score equals the one of the first MacPro (2006)!

So it took only 5 years to squeeze the power of a fully blown workstation into such a tiny notebook. Am i the only one who finds this outright amazing?!

fpnc

Jul 20, 2011, 04:33 PM

The new MBA dont have turbo boost or hyperthreading. Read the specifications on the Apple Website.
Hogwash
Well, it looks like shouldbeworking may be correct. There is a thread on Apple's support forums where this question was raised and someone reported that they called Apple and the support genius confirmed that the new MacBook Airs don't support either turbo boost or hyperthreading. Seems a bit odd and obviously it isn't 100% confirmed as yet.

In any case, the new Airs definitely have a faster CPU than the previous models.

boobz

Jul 20, 2011, 04:35 PM

the new mba 13 doesn't come with a 1.6 core i5.

it only comes with a 1.7 i5 or 1.8 i7.

I don't know much about geekbench but from their webpage, it sounds like this benchmark considers the CPU and memory more than anything else.

If that's true, the impact the SSD would have on these benchmarks shouldn't matter much. I mention this because I think many people look at these results without understanding the methodology behind it.

Certainly if we measure hard disk performance across apple off-the-shelf products, the macbook air would be through the roof.

So if there's a bench mark that does consider cpu, ram and hd, would the MBA fair even better???

fpnc

Jul 20, 2011, 04:35 PM

If they can do benchmarks, they can do teardowns. Is the SSD confirmed soldered on?
Apple says it is soldered on, they even show a picture of the flash chips soldered to the motherboard. They are calling it a feature since is saves space for the battery and other components.

Digital Skunk

Jul 20, 2011, 04:36 PM

I can't believe Apple's been getting away with glossy screens on a 'Pro' labeled computer.

True, not to mention that they've got some of the lamest custom configs in PC history.

Once you choose that base model, all you can really customize is the processor, and screen. The rest you can always upgrade later.

MBPs are desktop replacement machines.

They need to still fill in the low end market.

$899 MacBook would not hurt but they discontinued MacBook instead of growing that line.

Still one cannot buy a affordable 15" laptop from Apple. hmmm.

I wouldn't say MBPs are desktop replacements given that the rest of the computer industry is looking at Dell's M6600 as such. The MBPs are just really well built middle of the line models.

You're right about the price issue though.

shanmugam

Jul 20, 2011, 04:37 PM

The new MBA dont have turbo boost or hyperthreading. Read the specifications on the Apple Website.

are you sure? I think they did not mention in the website.

without turbo boost it would be very slow.

hyperthreading is a different case.

jamesryanbell

Jul 20, 2011, 04:38 PM

If only there was a 15" Air :rolleyes:

Completely defeats the purpose. Thin only "counts" if it's a small footprint. ;)

The WHOLE THING has to be small.

jamesryanbell

Jul 20, 2011, 04:39 PM

Nice!!! And you guys were worried that the new ones wouldn't be any good.

Crap Graphics, but hey who's counting...

Scottsdale

Jul 20, 2011, 04:39 PM

I want to know how the graphics perform. It's nowhere to be seen at apple.com, as Apple is using the CPU to show performance and has apparently eliminated all mention of the graphics system in terms of results vs. prior generation.

I want to see some graphics benchmarks and read some reviews from people using all different types of apps. How does the Intel IGP fare vs. the 13" MBP? How does it fare vs. the Nvidia 320m in the last generation MBA? How does it fare vs. the Nvidia 9400m in the prior generation air to that? How about vs. the Samsung Series 9? Give me some real world information, about how the graphics do with a variety of apps and games...

Sure, we knew the CPU would be fast, but how is the graphics system???

That is amazing how well the CPU fares even in ULV CPUs. The 11" MBA seems like a much more capable system than before as it competes identically with the 13" MBA now. Before they had different CPUs in that 11 had ULV and 13 has LV CPUs. And the clock speed was 50% faster in the 13" MBA as well.

iSee

Jul 20, 2011, 04:40 PM

Wow, this is impressive if it holds up...

BTW, I'm pretty sure Geekbench only tests the processor and the memory subsystem -- so SSD and GPU don't have an impact.

Considering the Airs all have SSDs they should significantly outperform MBPs without SSD in real world tests -- (again, if these numbers hold up, I'd like to see confirmation).

jamesryanbell

Jul 20, 2011, 04:40 PM

You gotta plan on upgrading EVERYTHING every 12 months. Always new, always best. ;)

LOL

Ozy

Jul 20, 2011, 04:40 PM

Now the real test is thermal issues. Even last years MBA's would throttle back the CPU if you used it for very long. The MBP has the fans and heat dissipation abilities to let you run it at 100% CPU constantly (assuming its not on a cloth surface snuffing the fans out).

I have an original MBA and it is completely unusable. I really want to get the new ones, but until I find out about thermal stability, I have to wait.

SirHaakon

Jul 20, 2011, 04:42 PM

Keep in mind that the resolution of the 13" MBA is equal to that of the 15" MBP.
That's a flaw of the 15" MBP, not a strength of the 13" MBA.

Scottsdale

Jul 20, 2011, 04:42 PM

Completely defeats the purpose. Thin only "counts" if it's a small footprint. ;)

The WHOLE THING has to be small.

They could just about fit a 15" LCD in the 13" MBA footprint as it is. The bezel is nothing but wasted space... apparently so it feels thinner at the edges???

wikus

Jul 20, 2011, 04:43 PM

Completely defeats the purpose. Thin only "counts" if it's a small footprint. ;)

The WHOLE THING has to be small.

That doesnt necessarily mean it SHOULDNT be done. Any kind of physical improvement to make it smaller, lighter, stronger, thinner is always welcome. But NOT at the expense of the 15" screen.

Would be pretty awesome to keep the 15" screen size macbook pro without much of a bezel and slimming it down to macbook air size. First thing that has to go though is the optical drive. But I would still like to have two SSD drives in my laptop (or at least one HDD and a smaller SSD, one for boot the other for storage).

boobz

Jul 20, 2011, 04:43 PM

Completely defeats the purpose. Thin only "counts" if it's a small footprint. ;)

The WHOLE THING has to be small.

I don't know... I just bought the new MBA 13 i7. Had a 15 inch been available, I would have gotten that.

You have a point, but there are many of us who like a big screen. (I bought the new 27" display too). Perhaps I'm in the minority because Apple is shipping MBA in a 55/45 split in favor of the 11.

But my guess is that if there were a 15 offered, the split would be something like 50/30/20.

franko v

Jul 20, 2011, 04:45 PM

My late-2010 MBA 13 is all of a sudden feeling quite sluggish. And the keyboard is decidedly unlit. Oh, what to do...

;)

Sell it!

I cannot believe my luck - I just sold my late 2010 MBA 13 yesterday with the hopes of a new MBA being released soon.

I originally paid $1339 for it on MacMall.com and I sold it for $1075 -

Every dollar is now going to the new 2011 MBA 13 (256gb) - and I'll get $50 off for the Educational discount...

It says it'll be on my doorstep either July 22 or July 23...

Yay!

norsemen

Jul 20, 2011, 04:45 PM

That is amazing how well the CPU fares even in ULV CPUs. The 11" MBA seems like a much more capable system than before as it competes identically with the 13" MBA now. Before they had different CPUs in that 11 had ULV and 13 has LV CPUs. And the clock speed was 50% faster in the 13" MBA as well.

Scottsdale, I have a sneaking feeling that Apple might be running the Core i7-2677M in the 11" MBA at a lower frequency to tackle any heat issues.

wikus

Jul 20, 2011, 04:47 PM

IS Geekbench available for PC? I want to put these Macs to shame.

LOL, everyone knows PCs are faster for half the price.

The drawback is using Windows.

MacRumorUser

Jul 20, 2011, 04:49 PM

IS Geekbench available for PC? I want to put these Macs to shame.

I hear three Billy goats attempting to cross your bridge....

Looking at your post history PlipPlop you clearly have an anti Apple Agenda, so one wonders why do you spend time posting in an Apple forum other than to troll posters.

ECUpirate44

Jul 20, 2011, 04:50 PM

Completely defeats the purpose. Thin only "counts" if it's a small footprint. ;)

The WHOLE THING has to be small.

When did Apple say that was the strategy? Last time I checked it was "the future of notebooks"

iSee

Jul 20, 2011, 04:51 PM

Mord

Jul 20, 2011, 04:54 PM

Damnit.

Were I a less ethically minded person I'd have an accident with my 15" 2010 i7 MBP, it's fully insured.

Unfortunately I'm afflicted with honesty :(

budselectjr

Jul 20, 2011, 04:57 PM

1.7 Ghz? haha i remember buying a 2.4 white back in 2008 why would anyone subject themselves to such a slow processor

:rolleyes:

wikus

Jul 20, 2011, 04:57 PM

Damnit.

Were I a less ethically minded person I'd have an accident with my 15" 2010 i7 MBP, it's fully insured.

Unfortunately I'm afflicted with honesty :(

Youre being ripped off by your insurance company. Even if an accident were to happen to your laptop, or it got stolen, they would find every possible way to either not reimburse you at all or reimburse you as little as possible.

Theyre scam artists; money for nothing.

Do it if you know they'll pay through all the way. Don't worry, they have a ton of cash thats come out of your pocket and people like you.

Mord

Jul 20, 2011, 04:59 PM

wikus

Jul 20, 2011, 04:59 PM

I don't pay the premiums, I got it paid for by a grant as I'm a university student with specific learning disabilities.

I'd never pay for such cover myself.

All the more reason to do it :P

MacTheSpoon

Jul 20, 2011, 05:05 PM

Those are impressive performance numbers. I wish they offered a matte screen, as well as a larger screen opening angle. Oh well.

smeade

Jul 20, 2011, 05:05 PM

Steve Jobs' means it, literally, when he says that the MBA is 'the future of laptops'.

ThisIsNotMe

Jul 20, 2011, 05:07 PM

BuTZ ThEY AR UndR PoWEReD anD HaZ ApLE Tax

shouldbeworking

Jul 20, 2011, 05:08 PM

Well, it looks like shouldbeworking may be correct. There is a thread on Apple's support forums where this question was raised and someone reported that they called Apple and the support genius confirmed that the new MacBook Airs don't support either turbo boost or hyperthreading. Seems a bit odd and obviously it isn't 100% confirmed as yet.

In any case, the new Airs definitely have a faster CPU than the previous models.

Mac minis and airs were both redesigned for this release, minis got turbo boost (as did previous sandy models), the airs did not:

mac mini: http://www.apple.com/macmini/features.html

mac air: http://www.apple.com/macbookair/features.html

I imagine that turbo boost would have really made it pointless to upgrade the processor from the i5 to the i7, maybe they removed it to keep a little bottleneck in the processor speed on the low end model. Plus it leaves room for an update next year.

chrmjenkins

Jul 20, 2011, 05:10 PM

I'm most excited for the MBP (IB) refresh. Standard Quad Core (3D Transistors look fantastic), new gen of AMD mGPUs, no ODD and .75 inch body, standard SSD...and most of all, the much needed resolution bump. 1280x800 on the 13" MBP is a total joke. I can't believe Apple got away with that one.

I don't know where you get off thinking it will be .75" Even without optical drive, it has to be as thick as it is to get proper airflow.

mbh

Jul 20, 2011, 05:12 PM

That's a flaw of the 15" MBP, not a strength of the 13" MBA.

The 15" MBP has the option for 1680x1050 and antiglare.

Eidorian

Jul 20, 2011, 05:15 PM

IS Geekbench available for PC? I want to put these Macs to shame.What bothers me is the discrepancy in performance between operating systems. The performance on my MacBook increased very slightly with each successive version of OS X (2700-2900) and a little more moving to Snow Leopard (~3000). The scores do not match what you can churn out in Windows though. The dramatic difference is in memory performance.

My hardware has not changed since 2007. I take these Geekbench scores as a grain of salt. I really do want to have faith in the results.

Nielsenius

Jul 20, 2011, 05:17 PM

Mac minis and airs were both redesigned for this release, minis got turbo boost (as did previous sandy models), the airs did not:

mac mini: http://www.apple.com/macmini/features.html

mac air: http://www.apple.com/macbookair/features.html

I imagine that turbo boost would have really made it pointless to upgrade the processor from the i5 to the i7, maybe they removed it to keep a little bottleneck in the processor speed on the low end model. Plus it leaves room for an update next year.
This is disappointing. I have always considered buying a MBA. They look great and are really portable. I love my MBP too much to sell it for a non-Turbo Boost machine, though. I just hope that next year's MBP doesn't have a disk drive. I feel that this is a big possibility since the new Mac minis don't have one. Apple even explains that "you don't need one" on their website.

siii

Jul 20, 2011, 05:20 PM

Good upgrade, shame about using intel hd 3000, but was inevitable.

If something like AMD Radeon HD 6630M found in the new mac mini was an option I would have purchased one.

no open gl support on the intel 3000,
cuda support (nvidia card) would be ideal...

I would like to at least do simple auto cad, c4d work and merge them later to form complicated scenes.
(Rhino + 3ds Max under bootcamp) (I have my i7 iMac 8gb ram, for heavier loads...)
I wouldn't bother even opening those apps on the intel 3000...

There is definitely a market to fill between 13 MBA and 15 MBP... Lets see what the MBP refresh brings... 15" wedge design, keep the quad core, 8gb ram dedicated gpu ahhhhh I can dream!

winston1236

Jul 20, 2011, 05:21 PM

I actually prefer glossy and every big azz monitor I have ever used since mac started making computers were glossy

Pro's know how to set up their lighting, of course if your word processor maybe you should get something like an acer

hector

Jul 20, 2011, 05:22 PM

Forgive me for asking what might be a stupid question...

I'm planning on upgrading from my iMac 2.4 C2D; I now need a laptop. Apart from web browsing, word processing and email, I use my computer for photography - iPhoto, PS Lightroom and PS Elements - I had been thinking along the lines of a 13" 2.3 MBP.

My brain tells me that a 1.6 MBA should be much slower than my 2.4 iMac, and way slower than the 2.3 i5, but if I understand this thread correctly, I am wrong.

The form factor of the Air is very appealing, am I being mean in assuming it wouldn't be able to handle Lightroom? If it performed similarly to my iMac then I'd be tempted to go for it over the MBP; if these geekbench numbers are right in saying that the 2011 MBA would be an all-round better performer than my 2008 iMac then I'm ready to click "Buy Now"...

superfula

Jul 20, 2011, 05:25 PM

Youre being ripped off by your insurance company. Even if an accident were to happen to your laptop, or it got stolen, they would find every possible way to either not reimburse you at all or reimburse you as little as possible.

Theyre scam artists; money for nothing.

Do it if you know they'll pay through all the way. Don't worry, they have a ton of cash thats come out of your pocket and people like you.

Hmm, you don't know much about insurance do you. The insurance industry as a whole is micromanaged to the smallest detail, so the claim that "they would find every possible way to either not reimburse you at all or reimburse you as little as possible" is simply not true. It's akin to James Harrison claiming the NFL is racist. Both statements are laughable at best and made out of ignorance.

I hate paying insurance premiums as much as the next guy, but at least I know what I'm paying into.

iExpensive

Jul 20, 2011, 05:38 PM

Sell it!

I cannot believe my luck - I just sold my late 2010 MBA 13 yesterday with the hopes of a new MBA being released soon.

I originally paid $1339 for it on MacMall.com and I sold it for $1075 -

Every dollar is now going to the new 2011 MBA 13 (256gb) - and I'll get $50 off for the Educational discount...

It says it'll be on my doorstep either July 22 or July 23...

Yay!
Where did you sell it?

twilson

Jul 20, 2011, 05:43 PM

The new MBA dont have turbo boost or hyperthreading. Read the specifications on the Apple Website.

Really, because the only CPUs they could possibly be (there are only four dual-core Sandy Bridge ULV i7s, and the MBA is clocked the same as three of them).

And according to Intel's spec sheets all of i7 ULV CPUs have Turbo Boost.

http://ark.intel.com/products/54618/Intel-Core-i7-2637M-Processor-(4M-Cache-1_60-GHz)
http://ark.intel.com/products/54615/Intel-Core-i7-2657M-Processor-(4M-Cache-1_60-GHz)
http://ark.intel.com/products/54617/Intel-Core-i7-2677M-Processor-(4M-Cache-1_70-GHz)

BeauPaul

Jul 20, 2011, 05:47 PM

Pro's know how to set up their lighting, of course if your word processor maybe you should get something like an acer

Nope - Professional Graphic Artist here with 25 years experience wise @$$, worked for 3 Fortune 100 companies. They all provide us with large glossy monitors, although we did tweak the over head lighting.

shouldbeworking

Jul 20, 2011, 05:49 PM

Really, because the only CPUs they could possibly be (there are only four dual-core Sandy Bridge ULV i7s, and the MBA is clocked the same as three of them).

And according to Intel's spec sheets all of i7 ULV CPUs have Turbo Boost.

http://ark.intel.com/products/54618/Intel-Core-i7-2637M-Processor-(4M-Cache-1_60-GHz)
http://ark.intel.com/products/54615/Intel-Core-i7-2657M-Processor-(4M-Cache-1_60-GHz)
http://ark.intel.com/products/54617/Intel-Core-i7-2677M-Processor-(4M-Cache-1_70-GHz)

From your link: "Intel Turbo Boost Technology performance varies depending on hardware, software, and overall system configuration. Check with your PC manufacturer on whether your system delivers Intel Turbo Boost Technology"

gooddeal

Jul 20, 2011, 05:59 PM

Hmmm, backlit keyboard + nice speed + nice 11.6 inch = I might have to get 1 but my 1st gen Air is still working fine.:mad:

franko v

Jul 20, 2011, 05:59 PM

Where did you sell it?

Craigslist -

I've actually sold two computers this month -

I sold my wife's mid-2008 20" iMac for $725, and put that money towards the new 2011 21.5" iMac...

Then of course I sold my Air yesterday too...

It's really all in the details when selling it... price it a little higher, because people will always haggle... and of course honesty works too...

:D

twilson

Jul 20, 2011, 06:01 PM

From your link: "Intel Turbo Boost Technology performance varies depending on hardware, software, and overall system configuration. Check with your PC manufacturer on whether your system delivers Intel Turbo Boost Technology"

Okay, but it does also say that in the Intel Turbo Boost Document (http://www.intel.com/technology/turboboost/), if the OS requests highest performance (P0) which OS X Lion does because of other Turbo Boost CPUs it will invoke Turbo Boost, you'd assume it will be fine.

Hopefully Apple aren't that much of an ******* to disable the P0 requests for the MBA, although... :confused:

hithere

Jul 20, 2011, 06:10 PM

Hi

If you consider 2011 MBP's, numbers are quite different.
The benchmarks of I7 13 inchers are here (http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/chart/show/440789), and they range from 5000 to 7500, depending on clock speed and, surprisingly, luck of the owner.
I7 15 inchers are here (http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/chart/show/440836), and except for outliers they go from 7500 to 11500.

There is still a reason to go bulky.

shouldbeworking

Jul 20, 2011, 06:12 PM

Okay, but it does also say that in the Intel Turbo Boost Document (http://www.intel.com/technology/turboboost/), if the OS requests highest performance (P0) which OS X Lion does because of other Turbo Boost CPUs it will invoke Turbo Boost, you'd assume it will be fine.

Hopefully Apple aren't that much of an ******* to disable the P0 requests for the MBA, although... :confused:

I dont think its software disabled, that would be too easy to hack. They probably disabled it in the logic board. Hyperthreading is also missing from the processor (although supported by the CPU and OS). Again, something that could have been disabled in hardware.

I dont think they did it to be rude, they are probably afraid of heat issues or pulling too much power. Its also possible they tested it with/without turbo boost and the marginal improvement did not warrant supporting it. It also leaves room for the next upgrade cycle and keeps the air from competing with the pro.

rcalderoni

Jul 20, 2011, 06:14 PM

Of course it would bench 2.5x faster CPU with that beautiful i7, but that's maximum load right?

The question to me is how does the Intel HD 3000 with its 12 pipelines stack up to the 32 on the 320m? The http://www.notebookcheck.net/ pages showed the FPS to be at least 30% lower when running on high to very high settings with the HD 3000.

If you don't use it for gameplay but instead for encoding video I think you will find however that the Sandy Bridge has far superior HD video and processing/encoding speed.

shanmugam

Jul 20, 2011, 06:15 PM

From your link: "Intel Turbo Boost Technology performance varies depending on hardware, software, and overall system configuration. Check with your PC manufacturer on whether your system delivers Intel Turbo Boost Technology"

i highly doubt turbo boost was disabled in the MBA, it just the omission in the MBA tech specs ...

If the turbo boost not there, you would not get this much performance improvement.

clock per clock 2010 and 2011 MBA are very similar

and turbo boost is disabled the 13" MBA will be even slower (even though the newer ones are new generation and new architecture)

just wait for apple to update their website soon ...

if turbo boost disabled, it would be noticed by anandtech and other tech site, it just not mentioned on the apple site.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4512/the-2011-macbook-air-specs-and-details

jackrv

Jul 20, 2011, 06:19 PM

I am looking forward to getting a 13" MBA now. I've been on the fence a while between an MBA and a 13 MBP as a secondary computer. The geek in me wants the 15" Ultimate MBP, but I don't really need all that power for a secondary/travel laptop :(

The clinchers:

Backlit KB - I do work in low light often, so I was swinging towards the Pro, but now the MBA has it once again.

Performance - CPU performance seems very good so far compared to the MBP.

The Bad:

Graphics - I'm not really a fan of integrated graphics, but I don't really NEED it on my portable. It would be nice, but I won't be gaming on it and it should be sufficient for light photo editing. With little need for 3D acceleration, the HD3000 should be fine for me.

Memory - 4GB limit. Again, nothing I really NEED on this, but I'm of the "more is better" club.

Also a question: How is the built in audio on the MBA? I assume it is the same as the previous model. I do use headsets, but sometimes I just like to have some music in the BG while I work.

I'm just waiting for an iFixit or other teardown to verify if the SSD is soldered or not, to choose the 128 and upgrade later or just go for the 256.

:D

Looking forward to 3rd party Thunderbolt docking stations :)

Lesser Evets

Jul 20, 2011, 06:23 PM

MBA ranks around my 2006 Pro tower. Would love to try it out and see how it compares. With Thunderbolt, these small Macs are now excellent values. Can't wait to see all Geekbench benchmarks soon.

TigerWoodsIV

Jul 20, 2011, 06:29 PM

Hogwash

I lol'd at the use of hogwash, what a great word.

kevink2

Jul 20, 2011, 06:33 PM

ronin510

Jul 20, 2011, 06:34 PM

The new MBA dont have turbo boost or hyperthreading. Read the specifications on the Apple Website.

Macworld editor-in-chief Jason Snell has a unit and posted a review. He was told by Apple that the new MacBook Airs have both Turbo Boost and Hyperthreading.

You can find him answering people's questions on his twitter account twitter.com/jsnell

I'm not a twitter user myself so I'm not sure how to link to the specific comments where he addresses those concerns.

Kranchammer

Jul 20, 2011, 06:38 PM

I lol'd at the use of hogwash, what a great word.

Plus it sounds like Hogswatch and Hogwart's, both of which are excellent British inventions.

borisvian

Jul 20, 2011, 06:40 PM

And you get half of the performance if you compare it to the recent MBP 17"

Geekbench score (32-bit free edition): 10133
http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/440917

vladi

Jul 20, 2011, 06:44 PM

Nope - Professional Graphic Artist here with 25 years experience wise @$$, worked for 3 Fortune 100 companies. They all provide us with large glossy monitors, although we did tweak the over head lighting.

Glossy takes time to get used to it but other than that its pretty much same thing.The only problem could be if you are manipulating with very bottom end of light spectrum and ambient lights reflect of glossy coating.

Anyway if you want correct colors :apple: Cinema Display is not the best choice. I would suggest Sony PVM (http://pro.sony.com/bbsc/ssr/cat-monitors/cat-oledmonitors/product-PVM2541/). We have only one so far, we use it for color monitoring in a dual setup together with :apple:CD. Works like a charm and differrence in gamut, picture quality (motion), blacks and overall contrast compared to ordinary displays is amazing. Its worth every cent.

G33and

Jul 20, 2011, 06:45 PM

And you get half of the performance if you compare it to the recent MBP 17"

Geekbench score (32-bit free edition): 10133
http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/440917
a Dual i7 is half the performance of a Quad i7? Can anyone confirm this?

Stridder44

Jul 20, 2011, 06:51 PM

wait until the refresh of the MBP.

it will take few features from MBA (SSDs, no super drive) and bring it to MBP

then MBP (35 watt TDP CPU) smack MBA (17 watt TDP CPU) in the face

No optical drive? God I hope not. How the hell are you supposed to use Boot Camp? At least on my '08 MBP, the EFI doesn't allow for booting from a USB drive. Meaning you wouldn't be able to install Windows (no, not even with drive sharing).

Ubik1981

Jul 20, 2011, 06:53 PM

Supa_Fly

Jul 20, 2011, 06:58 PM

I use my older Air as my workhorse! While my big desktop collects dust.

That old Air isn’t as fast, but it’s plenty fast enough, and having all my stuff ready to grab with one hand and take to another room or a friend’s house is just too convenient. I don’t MEAN to ignore the big guy, but it’s what has happened! (It makes a nice TV/DVR though.)

With the new Air I’ll be VERY happy! Probably the 11” with Core i7. But maybe the 13” for $50 less (but less speed and more bulky).

And I often throw my iPad in the bag, which gives me a second display to use (DisplayPad app) while still keeping me highly portable. Thus the 13” is less tempting, even for Photoshop/Flash/tons-o-palettes.

Sounds tempting, right? An external display/docking station for desktop-style use, 2nd-gen Core speed, SSD speed, plus the most portable laptop ever—all in one?

But you’re flat-out crazy if you’d consider an Air for serious work: I’ve done that (Photoshop, Flash, OpenOffice) for 3 years on my Air, and it means that ALL MY WORK is right there, ready to grab with one hand and run out the door! No synching needed, nothing to think about. I just have all my projects with me SO much more of the time than I used to with my 15” bulkmonster. And yet I can do everything I need right on the Air.

That means I’m never away from work :( My clients can get me to do stuff all the time!

Do yourself a favor: if you do pro work, get the bulkiest laptop you can, or a giant tower, and tell your clients you’ll "deal with it" when you get back to the office :)

Don’t get addicted to the Air like me. Save yourself.

^ PR Man sold me on 13" MBA! End of this month it's upgrade time x2 wifey gets birthday present I do too, daughter "may' get macbook or it gets sold along with 2009 Mac Mini and the mini gets 2011 spec'd with SSD and connects to the new LED LCD TV :D

Supa_Fly

Jul 20, 2011, 06:59 PM

No optical drive? God I hope not. How the hell are you supposed to use Boot Camp? At least on my '08 MBP, the EFI doesn't allow for booting from a USB drive. Meaning you wouldn't be able to install Windows (no, not even with drive sharing).

Have you not heard of Parallels or VMWare yet?

Supa_Fly

Jul 20, 2011, 07:00 PM

Completely defeats the purpose. Thin only "counts" if it's a small footprint. ;)

The WHOLE THING has to be small.

Perception is a VERY powerful concept.

WOAH!!!

Bluetooth 4.0 wireless technology The only Mac to have this thus far?!!

akhbhaat

Jul 20, 2011, 07:03 PM

Impressive...
MBP 13 i5 (2011): 5917
MBA 13 i5 (2011): 5860
Not apples to apples. The number you cited for the MBP is taken from a 32 bit test whereas the MBA (from Laptop Mag's test) was running a 64 bit test.

It should actually be:
MBP 13 i5 (2011): 6448
MBA 13 i5 (2011): 5860

So there's still a ~10% difference, at least in this synthetic benchmark. And it's also worth noting that the ULV SB processors have a very aggressive turboboost setting which probably wouldn't be sustainable in extended real world circumstances (heat, etc).

These results are still impressive, but I'd wait for real world tests before jumping to conclusions.

Note: the 11" MBA running the 1.6 GHz i5 scored just 5060. The main reason? A paltry 2.3 GHz boost vs. the 1.7 GHz model's 2.7 GHz peak.

lilo777

Jul 20, 2011, 07:05 PM

i highly doubt turbo boost was disabled in the MBA, it just the omission in the MBA tech specs ...

If the turbo boost not there, you would not get this much performance improvement.

clock per clock 2010 and 2011 MBA are very similar

and turbo boost is disabled the 13" MBA will be even slower (even though the newer ones are new generation and new architecture)

just wait for apple to update their website soon ...

if turbo boost disabled, it would be noticed by anandtech and other tech site, it just not mentioned on the apple site.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4512/the-2011-macbook-air-specs-and-details

Frequency alone does not tell the whole story. Previous CPUs were decade old architecture (for some reason Apple was too slow to get rid of them).

Aspen

Jul 20, 2011, 07:08 PM

If the 13" MBA has the same resolution as the 15" MBP, do I understand correctly that if one is looking at a web page, that both computers would show the exact same amount of lettering/words (same amount of the web page)?

If so, do you find that the 13" MBA words are too small? I guess you could increase the font size but wouldn't that defeat the point? Also, increasing font size does make the occasional web page not display correctly.

shouldbeworking

Jul 20, 2011, 07:10 PM

Macworld editor-in-chief Jason Snell has a unit and posted a review. He was told by Apple that the new MacBook Airs have both Turbo Boost and Hyperthreading.

You can find him answering people's questions on his twitter account twitter.com/jsnell

I'm not a twitter user myself so I'm not sure how to link to the specific comments where he addresses those concerns.

http://www.macworld.com/article/161200/2011/07/apple_announces_macbook_air_core_i5.html

It looks like he took out the part about turbo boost...maybe someone corrected him?

It would be really great if Apple did in fact pack 2.6Ghz processors into these little airs, but unfortunately I dont believe they did. Their website has been up all day showing 1.6-1.8ghz processors with no mention of extra features that people are just assuming them to have. If the air did have turbo, i would order one in a minute, I just cant seem to confirm it with anyone.

manu chao

Jul 20, 2011, 07:20 PM

Previous CPUs were decade old architecture (for some reason Apple was too slow to get rid of them).
Intel prevented Nvidia from producing chipsets for anything post Core 2 Duo and Apple relied on Nvidia's integrated graphic solution. Apple three choices last year:
1) Move to iX processors but also to lower-performing Intel IGP
2) Move to iX processors but via a discret graphic card add volume, heat and energy consumption to their slimmest laptop
3) Stick with Core 2 Duo and Nvidia's slightly updated integrated graphic solution (and chipset)

We all know they chose (3). In 2011, they chose (1) because Intel's IGP got better and the difference between Sandy Bridge and Core 2 Duo became just too large.

Stridder44

Jul 20, 2011, 07:24 PM

Have you not heard of Parallels or VMWare yet?

Have you not heard of gaming? Because that's what I use the Windows partitions for (and it works really well). And when it comes to gaming, virtual machines suck. Besides, why pay $70 to run something worse, when I can pay nothing and run it at native speeds?

borisvian

Jul 20, 2011, 07:27 PM

a Dual i7 is half the performance of a Quad i7? Can anyone confirm this?

i'm sorry what do you want me to confirm? i just run geekbench when i saw this article.

shouldbeworking

Jul 20, 2011, 07:28 PM

i highly doubt turbo boost was disabled in the MBA, it just the omission in the MBA tech specs ...

If the turbo boost not there, you would not get this much performance improvement.

clock per clock 2010 and 2011 MBA are very similar

and turbo boost is disabled the 13" MBA will be even slower (even though the newer ones are new generation and new architecture)

just wait for apple to update their website soon ...

if turbo boost disabled, it would be noticed by anandtech and other tech site, it just not mentioned on the apple site.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4512/the-2011-macbook-air-specs-and-details

http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_mac/family/macbook_air?mco=MjMzOTQwMDA

You can call them or chat right there, there will be a number and a link like this:

Call 1-800-MY-APPLE or chat online.

I saw on the apple support forum someone called and verified it at the source. They do NOT support hyperthreading or turbo boost because "macbook air is supposed to be an entry level notebook". sounds pretty lame

ronin510

Jul 20, 2011, 07:29 PM

I am a very happy user of a mid-2009 MBA. No way I am going to switch to the new model.

The only real improvement for my needs is the better res. and 4 GB ram. It took Apple TWO YEARS (including the messing up with non-backlit keyboard). They have also managed to

- downgrade the graphics (from Nvidia to integrated Intel)
- downgrading the processor clock speed to 1.7ghz (mine is a 2.13 C2D) [ok guys I know clock speed is not everything and that i7 is much better than C2D... but still...]
- downgrade the on-chip L2 cache (from 6 MB to 3 MB) [ source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacBook_Air ]
- keep the SSD storage virtually the same (mine is 128 gb SSD...) or upgrade for a premium

Battery is better as well as TB etc etc. But I am happy with my current machine.

The 'improvements' may be OK, I agree. But guys ... I am speaking about 2 YEARS... which in 2011, with re. to technology, sounds like ages.

Until real-world usages benchmarks come out, I will not be persuaded that it is worth spend extra $$$ to upgrade my wonderfully working machine

Clock speed really isn't everything. It's all in your head. You see 1.7Ghz vs 2.13Ghz and want the "faster" clock speed, but what is it really? You can put it in terms of wall-clock time and say the time it takes for an instruction in the CPU to complete.

In non-technical terms, think of it as a foot race. All you see is a guy who can run 5 MPH vs a guy that can run 6.5 MPH. The problem is, the 6.5MPH runner is running a race that's 20 miles long while the 5 MPH is running a race that is 10 miles long. Now I ask, who finishes first?

Now take that analogy and compare the C2D's 65-45 nanometer fabrication size compared to the new i5's 32 nanometer (smaller size) fabrication size. Start to finish line the i5 has a shorter way.

The 1.7Ghz i5 also has Turbo Boost (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Turbo_Boost). It can operate at 2.7Ghz (faster than your C2D's 2.13Ghz) when it really needs processing power.

Cheffy Dave

Jul 20, 2011, 07:29 PM

The MBA is the new "style" for what :apple: has up it's sleeve:eek:

Lukeyy19

Jul 20, 2011, 07:35 PM

Where it says "2011 13-inch MBA 1.6GHz Core i5" on the graph, that's supposed to be the 11-inch, not 13-inch like it says right?

whoever made the graph should probably proof-read...

ronin510

Jul 20, 2011, 07:50 PM

http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_mac/family/macbook_air?mco=MjMzOTQwMDA

You can call them or chat right there, there will be a number and a link like this:

Call 1-800-MY-APPLE or chat online.

I saw on the apple support forum someone called and verified it at the source. They do NOT support hyperthreading or turbo boost because "macbook air is supposed to be an entry level notebook". sounds pretty lame

I just tried the Apple online chat and the person was useless. He couldn't confirm or deny whether Turbo Boost was on there, just that the information available online is what is available to him.

The Anandtech article lists Turbo Boost speeds for the Air's, though:

Max SC Turbo 2.3GHz 2.7GHz 2.9GHz
Max DC Turbo 2.0GHz 2.4GHz 2.6GHz (?)

Max SC Turbo = Max Single Core Turbo
Max DC Turbo = Max Dual Core Turbo

It wouldn't make sense for Intel to create/release these ultra-low power i5 and i7 chips (with Turbo Boost) the past month and Apple not to use them. There aren't any other ultra-low power chips currently listed on Intel's site.

Samsumac

Jul 20, 2011, 07:51 PM

taeclee99

Jul 20, 2011, 08:04 PM

I wasn't planning on getting this new revision but these geekbench numbers are making me reconsider. Time to put my 13 in ultimate mba 2010 on eBay!

DribbleCastle

Jul 20, 2011, 08:06 PM

The biggest limiting factor is the same one that kept me from buying the previous generation (when I bought the MBP last fall). 4GB of max ram. For my usage, 4GB was too slow, which led me to quickly upgrade to 8GB.

Same issues here. I need the RAM to run multiple VM's smoothly. Even if these little MBA's beat my 2010 MBP it still can't do everything I need it to with 4GB RAM. Its a shame, I really love the form factor and weight because I typically only use the 15" MBP at home with a 22" monitor. The 15" to 13" screen change wouldn't bother me a bit.

The new Mac Minis look like great machines. Don't really need one until my current one decides to die. Which I hope isn't soon.

shouldbeworking

Jul 20, 2011, 08:08 PM

Clock speed really isn't everything. It's all in your head. You see 1.7Ghz vs 2.13Ghz and want the "faster" clock speed, but what is it really? You can put it in terms of wall-clock time and say the time it takes for an instruction in the CPU to complete.

In non-technical terms, think of it as a foot race. All you see is a guy who can run 5 MPH vs a guy that can run 6.5 MPH. The problem is, the 6.5MPH runner is running a race that's 20 miles long while the 5 MPH is running a race that is 10 miles long. Now I ask, who finishes first?

Now take that analogy and compare the C2D's 65-45 nanometer fabrication size compared to the new i5's 32 nanometer (smaller size) fabrication size. Start to finish line the i5 has a shorter way.

The 1.7Ghz i5 also has Turbo Boost (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Turbo_Boost). It can operate at 2.7Ghz (faster than your C2D's 2.13Ghz) when it really needs processing power.

Clock speed admittedly is not everything. But you made an incorrect statement regarding fabrication size. The smaller fabrication size is what allows them to speed up the clock. By making the transistor smaller, it takes less time to change states, and thus can be effectively clocked at a higher frequency. The information does not travel across transistors however; the transistors are the information, the CPU clock sets how fast the information changes, the system bus determines how fast the information moves. The way they improve the architecture without increasing the frequency of the the CPU is by either adding specialized hardware or increasing the speed of the bus.

The specialized hardware would include most notably different types of memory controllers and GPUs, but can also be for accelerating tasks related to encryption or wireless, or by adding extra cores and starting threads early (hyperthreading).

Where you are wrong again, is that the MBA does not support turbo boost or hyperthreading. See the above post, or call apple yourself (1-800-MY-APPLE) and ask. yes, at first they give you a sales person who says something lame. ask to speak to a tech and they will tell you that it is not supported. :D

Scarrus

Jul 20, 2011, 08:14 PM

BuTZ ThEY AR UndR PoWEReD anD HaZ ApLE Tax

This

mattlol

Jul 20, 2011, 08:18 PM

Not entirely surprising, considering how aggressive the Turbo Boost is.

Everyone should keep in mind that Ivy Bridge is next year. This is when we should see a quad-core MacBook Air (and Mac Mini), and 8-core iMacs. Additionally, there will also be the move to 22nm fabrication processes in addition to 3D transistors, which should be comparable to a fabrication shrink itself.

If you think this year was a big boost, wait until you see what Intel has in store for next year.

you mean next years line of computers will be faster than this ones?

no... WAY!!!

Minority_taxi

Jul 20, 2011, 08:20 PM

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_4 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8K2 Safari/6533.18.5)

I really only use my 11" MBA for web browsing. I have a desktop PC as my workhorse.

Still, seeing these improvements makes me very jealous.

Thinkin bout turning a MBA into a workstation, thoughts?

Was going to use it in closed clamshell mode, leave it on standby all the time. Think it'll handle HD video editing well with 4GB ram? Thoughts? :)

Cc

Minority_taxi

Jul 20, 2011, 08:21 PM

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_4 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8K2 Safari/6533.18.5)

Maybe I am crazy, but Ive just realised that I want new 11inch MBA and Thunderbolt Display. Am I crazy? I need feedback. I want it mostly for Aperture and Photoshop. Cinema display has firewire so I can connect my external drives. Seems perfect. Doesnt it?

Ditto! But want dual displays in closed clamshell mode. Is this possible? Doubt the MBA could handle two even with TB.

shouldbeworking

Jul 20, 2011, 08:27 PM

Anand says that all MB Air i5's support hyperthreading and turbo boost.

You can find this in his tweeter discussions... This seems to be something quite major to have slipped by reviewers so far. Apple support and "geniuses" read from a prepared script that is not necessarily exact in the information it provides.

I will be glad to purchase a shiny new MBA if it has turbo... dont care about the extra threads but I would need at least turbo to justify this over the new MBP. However, only thing I saw that indicates turbo is a table that anandtech clearly cut and paste out of an intel catalog showing CPU capability (which doesnt mean apple implemented it).

The new mac mini and air were released at the same time and the mini ($500) clearly shows turbo boost, why not the air($1000)? why does tech support claim the air doesnt have turbo(i called and asked until she connected me to someone who actually said they KNEW it is disabled)? why would they not market a 1ghz jump in speed? and those extra two threads btw. I may be wrong (im hopeful i am) but i really think i am unfortunately correct.

Where I agree: I will wait for some teardown, screenshot, or just go to the apple store and poke till i find out (i believe you need windows to see turbo boost but the hyperthreading should show up as 4 available cores).

shanmugam

Jul 20, 2011, 08:33 PM

and intel design specification says it can turbo boost and stay within 17watts.

unless Apple says otherwise, the CPUs has Turbo Boost.

the 2010 MBA 13" had 25 watts TDP CPUs, the newer one has 17 watts TDP.

I am 100% sure it just the typo in the website.

there is no way without the turbo boost the newer 2011 MBA CPUs beat the hell of 2010 MBA CPUs.

wait till the site updated.

John.B

Jul 20, 2011, 08:36 PM

I'm dying to see a teardown of the new MBA to see if they flash storage is soldered or socketed. C'mon, ifixit! :cool:

Epic Xbox Revie

Jul 20, 2011, 08:38 PM

I can slowly see the iPhone and iMac of 2007 coming together... iPhone moving to iPad... iMac moving to MBP and then MBA... and with LION the MBA is even closer to the iPad.. Pretty exciting to see what Apple has in store in the next couple years!! Hopefully I resist the urge to jump onto one of these devices while I am in college and that this MBP will satisfy me. I know I'll end up buying the next phone, hopefully not the next laptops, at least until I am done with school.

Minority_taxi

Jul 20, 2011, 08:42 PM

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_4 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8K2 Safari/6533.18.5)

I can slowly see the iPhone and iMac of 2007 coming together... iPhone moving to iPad... iMac moving to MBP and then MBA... and with LION the MBA is even closer to the iPad.. Pretty exciting to see what Apple has in store in the next couple years!! Hopefully I resist the urge to jump onto one of these devices while I am in college and that this MBP will satisfy me. I know I'll end up buying the next phone, hopefully not the next laptops, at least until I am done with school.

Just need 3G hey in the MBA!?

Epic Xbox Revie

Jul 20, 2011, 08:58 PM

Just need 3G hey in the MBA!?

Google has this in their Chromebooks, I don't see why they wouldn't implement it, or perhaps wait for 4G LTE in a year or two! That would be one awesome computer. I'd probably jump for.. :rolleyes:

holmesf

Jul 20, 2011, 09:05 PM

http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_mac/family/macbook_air?mco=MjMzOTQwMDA

You can call them or chat right there, there will be a number and a link like this:

Call 1-800-MY-APPLE or chat online.

I saw on the apple support forum someone called and verified it at the source. They do NOT support hyperthreading or turbo boost because "macbook air is supposed to be an entry level notebook". sounds pretty lame

It's pretty obvious just from the benchmark figures alone that the Air does support turbo boost and hyperthreading. Both of these factors combined are required to explain the 2.5x jump in benchmark numbers. Architectural improvements affecting instructions per clock do matter, but not on that order of magnitude when we're comparing two aggressively speculative out of order super scalar processors (Core 2 Duo and Core i5-i7).

John.B

Jul 20, 2011, 09:41 PM

Just need 3G hey in the MBA!?
I, for one, don't want to have to pay for a separate data plan for every iDevice I own. :eek:

Sign me up for a 3G/4G wireless hotspot instead.

toddybody

Jul 20, 2011, 09:42 PM

I'm gonna totally out myself and just ask, how does it run SC2?

ronin510

Jul 20, 2011, 09:52 PM

Clock speed admittedly is not everything. But you made an incorrect statement regarding fabrication size. The smaller fabrication size is what allows them to speed up the clock. By making the transistor smaller, it takes less time to change states, and thus can be effectively clocked at a higher frequency. The information does not travel across transistors however; the transistors are the information, the CPU clock sets how fast the information changes, the system bus determines how fast the information moves. The way they improve the architecture without increasing the frequency of the the CPU is by either adding specialized hardware or increasing the speed of the bus.

It's true that smaller fabrication size gives faster clock rate. The problem is more heat accompanies the faster clock. The smaller package size means less area for heat to dissipate. That's why you'll find CPUs such as this ultra-low power i5 with a slower clock.

It was a simple analogy with the race length and IC size, but I still stand behind the argument that the signal itself does benefit from smaller IC size. Smaller transistor size corresponds to a linear reduction of transistor delay. Wires traverse shorter distances -- while the wires are narrower and resistance increases, the shorter distance currently outweighs the added resistance.

Where you are wrong again, is that the MBA does not support turbo boost or hyperthreading. See the above post, or call apple yourself (1-800-MY-APPLE) and ask. yes, at first they give you a sales person who says something lame. ask to speak to a tech and they will tell you that it is not supported. :D

Two reviewers who have actual units have already said the MacBook Airs have both HyperThreading and Turbo Boost (Jason Snell from Macworld and Anand Lal Shimpi from Anandtech). Their source? The review units and information passed along to them when Apple gave them those review units.

wizard

Jul 20, 2011, 10:00 PM

I wonder if other benchmarks can reproduce this or if it is an artificial result. It seems hard to believe this year's 1.7 GHz processor can outperform last year's 2.7 GHz processor

Clock for clock we should be 20% faster. That however is processor performance. Geekbench Benefits greatly from the SSD, this is not a bad thing because many user programs do too. However these numbers do not represent CPU bound performance where we should see a substantial difference. The most interesting thing here is the comparison to the old AIRs.

What I suspect is that fewer will be complaining about CPU performance on these machines. If you have software performance issues I wouldn't go out and buy one of these AIRs until more testing is done. However if you are running almost any older laptop these new machines are very inviting.

On top of all of that these machines are running Lion. Now I've only played with Lion for a couple of hours now but my impression is that there has been considerable improvements in speed. At least on my old 2008 MBP. You really need to take the OS out of the equation. By the way take these comments with a grain of salt, like I've said it's only been a couple of hours and most of that time was spent updating

holmesf

Jul 20, 2011, 10:03 PM

Clock for clock we should be 20% faster. That however is processor performance. Geekbench Benefits greatly from the SSD

Geekbench does not in any way use or measure hard drive performance. Geekbench results are not changed by installing an SSD.

this is not a bad thing because many user programs do too. However these numbers do not represent CPU bound performance where we should see a substantial difference.

Actually the Geekbench numbers very closely represent CPU bound performance in a heavily threaded scenario.

zen.state

Jul 20, 2011, 10:07 PM

Completely defeats the purpose. Thin only "counts" if it's a small footprint. ;)

The WHOLE THING has to be small.

Finally someone with the sense to understand that.

The MBA is easily Apple's biggest gimmick product to date and it serves no real purpose or practical uses. It's a completely unnecessary product.

smulji

Jul 20, 2011, 10:12 PM

Finally someone with the sense to understand that.

The MBA is easily Apple's biggest gimmick product to date and it serves no real purpose or practical uses. It's a completely unnecessary product.

How is it a gimmick? Please explain. I find for general everyday tasks and light content creation (ie: MS Office, iLife, etc.) the MBA is a pleasure to use.

CP1091

Jul 20, 2011, 10:19 PM

This makes me want the 13 inch more... but I still can't decide if I want the smaller footprint, since I don't need the power.

silentnite

Jul 20, 2011, 10:19 PM

The 1 thing that we can all say about the MBA is, it did get better. Pretty much what we had been waiting for we got. Have we not been entertained?:confused:

zen.state

Jul 20, 2011, 10:20 PM

How is it a gimmick? Please explain. I find for general everyday tasks and light content creation (ie: MS Office, iLife, etc.) the MBA is a pleasure to use.

It's a gimmick because there is nothing practical about it when there are the MacBook Pro's and they are also due for an update in the next couple months. Lets compare these numbers again with the new MBP when the time comes.

If thinner and lighter but less powerful is something you want then go for it. How long can you and your friends admire how thin something is? I admire computers that give me the best performance possible by using the fastest parts available. The MBA has to sacrifice a lot of that to keep it's gimmick thinness. Fact.

wizard

Jul 20, 2011, 10:20 PM

and intel design specification says it can turbo boost and stay within 17watts.

They can actually draw more power.

unless Apple says otherwise, the CPUs has Turbo Boost.

I'm sure it does but that doesn't mean it is enabled.

the 2010 MBA 13" had 25 watts TDP CPUs, the newer one has 17 watts TDP.

Don't forget the additional logic for TB.

I am 100% sure it just the typo in the website.

there is no way without the turbo boost the newer 2011 MBA CPUs beat the hell of 2010 MBA CPUs.

Sure their is.

You are getting something close to a 50% boost in performance clock for clock.
Sandy Bridge implements some new technology or instructions which can speed up some apps significantly.
The new AIRs run Lion, which seems to be much faster. At least I'm getting interesting behavior out of my old 2008 MBP.
The GPU in Sandy Bridge may suck in some respects but it does 2D really well.
You can't judge a machine based on one benchmark. Especially when that benchmark exploits the machines advantages.

wait till the site updated.

If performance is a serious issue for you wait for more credible bench marks. Especially benchmarks that target your usage. Benchmarks are statistics and statistics are often lies or very misleading.

My impression right now is that several things have come together to give use very good performance on the new machines.

koruki

Jul 20, 2011, 10:23 PM

If only there was a 15" Air :rolleyes:

Thats my dream machine.

Eidorian

Jul 20, 2011, 10:23 PM

the 2010 MBA 13" had 25 watts TDP CPUs, the newer one has 17 watts TDP.
The SL9xxx are at 17W.

SirHaakon

Jul 20, 2011, 10:26 PM

John.B

Jul 20, 2011, 10:27 PM

Two reviewers who have actual units have already said the MacBook Airs have both HyperThreading and Turbo Boost (Jason Snell from Macworld and Anand Lal Shimpi from Anandtech). Their source? The review units and information passed along to them when Apple gave them those review units.
I gotta say, without official word from Apple (or a 2011 MBA of my own to test with) those are probably the two sources I would trust most to ferret out the facts.

:)

Finally someone with the sense to understand that.

The MBA is easily Apple's biggest gimmick product to date and it serves no real purpose or practical uses. It's a completely unnecessary product.
I think you are confusing your needs with the needs of everyone. :p

wizard

Jul 20, 2011, 10:28 PM

It's a gimmick because there is nothing practical about it when there are the MacBook Pro's and they are also due for an update in the next couple months. Lets compare these numbers again with the new MBP when the time comes.

By that time the new AIR owners won't care! Why because of the pleasure they get from using the machine.

If thinner and lighter but less powerful is something you want then go for it. How long can you and your friends admire how thin something is? I admire computers that give me the best performance possible by using the fastest parts available. The MBA has to sacrifice a lot of that to keep it's gimmick thinness. Fact.
All right I have to call BS on this one! If what you say actually represents your thinking you would not even bother with a laptop thread.

So what does AIR sacrifice that makes it such a terrible machine? Let me answer that for you: nothing. For most users it has everything they need.

KingCrimson

Jul 20, 2011, 10:29 PM

zen.state

Jul 20, 2011, 10:33 PM

By that time the new AIR owners won't care! Why because of the pleasure they get from using the machine.

All right I have to call BS on this one! If what you say actually represents your thinking you would not even bother with a laptop thread.

So what does AIR sacrifice that makes it such a terrible machine? Let me answer that for you: nothing. For most users it has everything they need.

This from a guy that wrote "Geekbench Benefits greatly from the SSD". Massive fail on that statement.

You are obviously one who is swayed by pretty over practical so lets just leave it at that.

John.B

Jul 20, 2011, 10:34 PM

So what's the deal with the benchmarks on these MBAs being off the charts? I was under the impression that moving to Sandy Bridge would decimate the graphics performance as they'd be force to use an integrated solution.
The HD 3000 graphics are slower than the 320M, but the specific H.264 encode/decode hardware and the significantly faster iCore CPU will more than make up for that in a many cases.

It'll be interesting to see how all the gaming benchmarks come in when people really start getting their hands on these. Something to tax the GPU in a way that the H.264 acceleration can't mask.

wizard

Jul 20, 2011, 10:40 PM

So what's the deal with the benchmarks on these MBAs being off the charts? I was under the impression that moving to Sandy Bridge would decimate the graphics performance as they'd be force to use an integrated solution.

First off the benchmark sucks. Second never judge a machine via one benchmark.

As to Sandy Bridge the GPU is a mixed bag. It is actually a faster 2D performer but falls on it's face as graphics become more and more demanding 3D wise.

The CPU is about 50% faster for general instructions but it also implements some really interesting new instructions. Instructions which can significantly speed up some operations.

Lion appears to have generally sped up many things. So by running Lion they have an advantage there.

if you look at what AMD is doing with CPU & GPU integration you will see there are some huge advantages to having that GPU on die. Now I believe Intel is a little behind here but still there is an advantage to keeping the GPU close by.

Finally don't make the fatal error of believing everything you read!

milesdavis

Jul 20, 2011, 10:43 PM

It's a gimmick because there is nothing practical about it when there are the MacBook Pro's and they are also due for an update in the next couple months. Lets compare these numbers again with the new MBP when the time comes.

If thinner and lighter but less powerful is something you want then go for it. How long can you and your friends admire how thin something is? I admire computers that give me the best performance possible by using the fastest parts available. The MBA has to sacrifice a lot of that to keep it's gimmick thinness. Fact.

You are completely wrong. I have the last MBA Ultimate 13" In and my job is design + film + production. I use it for everything from Photoshop to FCP. While it is obviously not a powerhouse when it comes to FCP it is adequate for the type of situation in which I would use a laptop. Nobody has actually ever admired or commented on my MBA -- it's not that big of a deal and is certainly not a status symbol or personal show piece.

This is a ridiculous attitude you have that somehow the MBA is a gimmick because it is thin and it has no merit. If it's not powerful enough for you then why don't you go back in time and pick up an Alienware unit?

SandynJosh

Jul 20, 2011, 10:46 PM

Not entirely surprising, considering how aggressive the Turbo Boost is.

Everyone should keep in mind that Ivy Bridge is next year. This is when we should see a quad-core MacBook Air (and Mac Mini), and 8-core iMacs. Additionally, there will also be the move to 22nm fabrication processes in addition to 3D transistors, which should be comparable to a fabrication shrink itself.

If you think this year was a big boost, wait until you see what Intel has in store for next year.

I can't imagine such speed with the new MBA, much less where it will be a year from now! I'm sitting here with a late 2006 MBP that barely qualifies to be upgraded to Lion. I feel like I'm toodling along in a crank-start tin lizzy on a San Francisco interstate.

dbam987

Jul 20, 2011, 10:51 PM

I'm most excited for the MBP (IB) refresh. Standard Quad Core (3D Transistors look fantastic), new gen of AMD mGPUs, no ODD and .75 inch body, standard SSD...and most of all, the much needed resolution bump. 1280x800 on the 13" MBP is a total joke. I can't believe Apple got away with that one.

Indeed the rez on the MBP13 is too low considering the MBA is higher. Wonder what apple was thinking on the one. Next year I may make the jump to a new Mac.

smeade

Jul 20, 2011, 10:55 PM

you mean next years line of computers will be faster than this ones?

no... WAY!!!

Funny!

Think of it this way; referring to the Core 2 Duo machines: "You would need six hundred Pentium based computers, in an office the size of a hangar, to equal the processing power of a single Macbook Air that fits in an envelope. Yet if you would believe what you read, the Macbook Air, is under spec'ed." - http://www.davidgalbraith.org/archives/001309.html

AppleScruff1

Jul 20, 2011, 10:56 PM

I admire computers that give me the best performance possible by using the fastest parts available. The MBA has to sacrifice a lot of that to keep it's gimmick thinness. Fact.

I take it you use Windows based computers if you want the fastest parts available.

smeade

Jul 20, 2011, 11:00 PM

I admire computers that give me the best performance possible by using the fastest parts available.

Then why are you even dealing with laptops? Seems a windows tower or Mac Pro would be best for you.

SandynJosh

Jul 20, 2011, 11:01 PM

This makes me want the 13 inch more... but I still can't decide if I want the smaller footprint, since I don't need the power.

My first laptop was a white 10" iBook (not counting an early 2300 duo), and I really enjoyed it. I then went to a 15" MBP and was astounded with what more I could get done with the extra screen size.

While the 11" outsells the 13", think about what you may need to get done. for example spreadsheet sizes, side-by-side docs, et al. If I remember right, all things being equal, there's only $100 between the two sizes.

zen.state

Jul 20, 2011, 11:03 PM

Odd how people assume I am a windows person because I don't embrace 1 of Apple's products. There is no relating logic there at all.

I have been a Mac user and only a Mac user since 1994.

SandynJosh

Jul 20, 2011, 11:15 PM

The MBA is easily Apple's biggest gimmick product to date and it serves no real purpose or practical uses. It's a completely unnecessary product.

I want some of what you're smoking. It's so popular for it's light weight and battery life that Apple is dropping their last white MacBook. It stopped being a "gimmick" after the first models that were over-priced and under-powered.

WissMAN

Jul 20, 2011, 11:22 PM

I am still happy with my MBA (last version). It is a very nice and a well built pc in my opinion. :)

I only wish it had a kensington lock slot.

Tagbert

Jul 20, 2011, 11:23 PM

My first laptop was a white 10" iBook (not counting an early 2300 duo), and I really enjoyed it. I then went to a 15" MBP and was astounded with what more I could get done with the extra screen size.

Then I hooked my 11" MBA to my 24" monitor and was astonished all over.

I weighed 11 vs 13 for a while but decided that I wanted it to be as portable as possible and that I could still hook it up to a decent size monitor when at my desk.

For you the trade off calculation might be different.

kiljoy616

Jul 20, 2011, 11:25 PM

If only there was a 15" Air :rolleyes:

Then it defeats the purpose of an Airbook. :rolleyes:

If you need such a big laptop then a normal one makes more sense and you get the extra video power.

Air like a iPad are about light and more in line with consumption and light needs not for hard core users needed heavy duty lifting. Next you want to play Crysis on an Air. :rolleyes:

iExpensive

Jul 20, 2011, 11:25 PM

I think it just started to shed the gimmick image today. You can tell by the amount of MBP users hopping over to ultra portables.

Also the graph shows the 2010 MPB's not the Feb 2011. I want to see a chart with the newest.

speedylomeli

Jul 20, 2011, 11:28 PM

I hope people realize that they are not comparing the new MacBook Air to the Quad Core MacBook Pro.

smeade

Jul 20, 2011, 11:39 PM

Odd how people assume I am a windows person because I don't embrace 1 of Apple's products. There is no relating logic there at all..

The logic is that you said - "I admire computers that give me the best performance possible by using the fastest parts available."

Windows machines can give you better performance than Apple machines and can use faster parts than Apples. By not using those machines, the conclusion now is that either you do not really admire best performance and fastest parts or you are not using machines you most admire. I think people were giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming you use a Windows machine.

SirHaakon

Jul 20, 2011, 11:45 PM

First off the benchmark sucks. Second never judge a machine via one benchmark.

As to Sandy Bridge the GPU is a mixed bag. It is actually a faster 2D performer but falls on it's face as graphics become more and more demanding 3D wise.

The CPU is about 50% faster for general instructions but it also implements some really interesting new instructions. Instructions which can significantly speed up some operations.

Lion appears to have generally sped up many things. So by running Lion they have an advantage there.

if you look at what AMD is doing with CPU & GPU integration you will see there are some huge advantages to having that GPU on die. Now I believe Intel is a little behind here but still there is an advantage to keeping the GPU close by.

Finally don't make the fatal error of believing everything you read!
I'm not judging anything by one benchmark. I haven't even looked at these benchmarks. I'm more curious about how Sandybridge has affected graphics performance, and when you say things like "[it] falls on it's face as graphics become more and more demanding 3D wise," that doesn't give me much reassurance. Saying "Lion appears to have generally sped up things" is even more vague than the benchmarks. Care to elaborate? Lion has only been out for 15 hours now, so I doubt anyone has a good grasp of what is all going on under the hood. Frankly, I'm just curious how the new MBAs compare to the previous generation when it comes to graphic performance in a variety of common graphics intensive tasks (playing HD files, gaming, editing video, etc.).

praetorian909

Jul 20, 2011, 11:45 PM

The jump from SB to IB won't be as big as C2D to SB. You'll be very disappointed.

Exactly right. This jump to SB was a 2 generations: C2D-> Core 1G -> Core 2G aka SB.

shanmugam

Jul 20, 2011, 11:50 PM

The SL9xxx are at 17W.

hmmm, i misspoke earlier.

http://www.intel.com/products/processor/core2duo/mobile/specifications.htm

2010 11" MBA had 10W and 2010 13" MBA had 17W.

but impressive that Apple (or intel delivered a CPU which) can pack the 17W TDP into 11"

shanmugam

Jul 20, 2011, 11:52 PM

If performance is a serious issue for you wait for more credible bench marks. Especially benchmarks that target your usage. Benchmarks are statistics and statistics are often lies or very misleading.

My impression right now is that several things have come together to give use very good performance on the new machines.

just remember though right now Core i5 has both the CPU and GPU

earlier it has to be CPU+ nVidian 320M - you got to think in terms of TDP and Heat for both these but right now it is one package.

I am confident it is a mistake in the apple website. well we will know once iFixit tears it down.

All in all, i like the entire line, i wish $999 had 4GB and 128GB SSD.

I have no rush to replace my iMac yet, just waiting ...

shanmugam

Jul 20, 2011, 11:53 PM

Exactly right. This jump to SB was a 2 generations: C2D-> Core 1G -> Core 2G aka SB.

also we have to consider the integrated Memory controller and 32nm from 45nm... it is overall different beast.

Nostromo

Jul 20, 2011, 11:56 PM

when there are the MacBook Pro's and they are also due for an update in the next couple months.

2 months?

What's your source of information?

From what I have heard it'll be March 2012.

wywern209

Jul 21, 2011, 12:14 AM

bigandtasty

Jul 21, 2011, 12:16 AM

2 months?

What's your source of information?

From what I have heard it'll be March 2012.

I sure hope its' 3/2012, I just got this thing!

Ravich

Jul 21, 2011, 12:26 AM

Sure, the fact that the tested MBP didnt have an SSD is silly, but from a price perspective it's much much more reasonable to have an SSD in the macbook air.

skier777

Jul 21, 2011, 12:27 AM

i just ran a 32bit geekbench on my 2010 15" i7 2.6ghz MBP and got a score of 5705.

I also had, safari w/ 8 tabs, ichat, preview, office, itunes, thunderbird, acrobat reader, firefox w/ 9 tabs and the App Store all running while i did the test.

Im fairly sure that I would do a lot better if I got the 64bit version and ran tests after force quitting out of everything...

skier777

Jul 21, 2011, 12:29 AM

dimer0

Jul 21, 2011, 12:30 AM

Odd how people assume I am a windows person because I don't embrace 1 of Apple's products. There is no relating logic there at all.

I have been a Mac user and only a Mac user since 1994.

Umm, check your signature... You look definitely like a "Windows guy".

ma2ha3

Jul 21, 2011, 12:44 AM

so much power . wasted on the target buyer of macbook air.
I am sure the people who buy these macbook air will not be able to use the cpu power of the new air.

it is such a pity. look on the brightside, the next generation macbook pro lower end model will be sizzling hot.

beg_ne

Jul 21, 2011, 01:01 AM

Umm, check your signature... You look definitely like a "Windows guy".

Huh? Did he change his sig? Because it says he has a Macbook and a Sawtooth...

iSayuSay

Jul 21, 2011, 01:05 AM

bradl

Jul 21, 2011, 01:08 AM

Huh? Did he change his sig? Because it says he has a Macbook and a Sawtooth...

His sig also says that he owns a Dell. So unless he hackintoshed it, he's running Windows, Linux, *BSD, or Solaris.

BL.

Eidorian

Jul 21, 2011, 01:12 AM

His sig also says that he owns a Dell. So unless he hackintoshed it, he's running Windows, Linux, *BSD, or Solaris.

BL.It is a Dell monitor. An old 24" PVA one but still a decent monitor. I guess the MacBook and Sawtooth do not count then.

bpaluzzi

Jul 21, 2011, 02:58 AM

I wouldn't say MBPs are desktop replacements given that the rest of the computer industry is looking at Dell's M6600 as such. The MBPs are just really well built middle of the line models.

Oh, definitely, when I think 'trend-setting laptop', it's Dell that comes to mind.

Wow. :rolleyes:

bpaluzzi

Jul 21, 2011, 03:08 AM

randfee2

Jul 21, 2011, 04:49 AM

sounds nice... mine is ordered but it seems it won't get to me until the 4th of august ... so much for available within 24h, which the apple store told me it would be.

Anyways, a powerful MBA, exactly what I was waiting for... would have been nice for it to be a MBA/iPad hybrid though.

Are there any other real world benchmarks out there yet?

illian

Jul 21, 2011, 05:57 AM

twilson

Jul 21, 2011, 06:02 AM

Google has this in their Chromebooks, I don't see why they wouldn't implement it, or perhaps wait for 4G LTE in a year or two! That would be one awesome computer. I'd probably jump for.. :rolleyes:

An Internet Connection isn't pretty much needed to anything of any real value on an MBA. Plus for something that STILL, hardly anyone will actually use, it seems a waste of expense.

MacDarcy

Jul 21, 2011, 06:02 AM

Backlight keyboard
Just as powerful as basic 13" MBP
SSD as standard
Higher resolution display

only + $70 if you really want Superdrive so bad.

Macbook Air just killed Macbook (sadly) .. and now trying to kill Macbook Pro as well .. A lot of people suddenly being hypocrite when saying MBA is never going to be as fast as MBP .. Now it does !! And even more :D

The death of the white plastic macbook was inevitable. The Macbook Air won't "kill" the macbook pro....but come January the pro will radically change it's form factor and follow the same form factor by dropping the optical drive finally. I believe the pros will look like Macbook Airs, only slightly thicker to accomodate pro features.

The writing is on the wall. The new mac mini just dropped its optical drive. OSX Lion, the app store and the cloud are ushering in a new age of downloading and storing online.

I know some are complaining that an 11" Air with a 64 gig HD is no substitute for the white macbook, but Eventually the prices of flash drives will come down in price and get bigger too. Besides, alot of the education market which the white macbook catered to...is switching to the ipad anyway.

MacDarcy

Jul 21, 2011, 06:16 AM

Then I hooked my 11" MBA to my 24" monitor and was astonished all over.

I weighed 11 vs 13 for a while but decided that I wanted it to be as portable as possible and that I could still hook it up to a decent size monitor when at my desk.

For you the trade off calculation might be different.

I agree. EVERYBODY's situation, preference and needs are different and unique. Apple gives us alot of choices to choose from. There truly is something for everyone.

Having said that, i too am weighing my options and trying to decide between the 11" & 13". I am a photographer who travels ALOT, so weight is an issue. Personally tho, it's not the size difference that is making my decision tougher. They are both pretty close in size and weight and are the same thickness.

The thing that is making me bounce back and fourth is that the 13" has an SD card slot and the 11" does not. If the 11" update had squeezed in an SD slot, i'd probably buy it without hesitation. But the lack of one is giving me pause.

Ah....decisions decisions. :-D

MiltonThales

Jul 21, 2011, 06:28 AM

Maybe I am crazy, but Ive just realised that I want new 11inch MBA and Thunderbolt Display. Am I crazy? I need feedback. I want it mostly for Aperture and Photoshop. Cinema display has firewire so I can connect my external drives. Seems perfect. Doesnt it?

But don't forget that you can get -- some of the time -- a refurb iMac 27" for $1439. That gets a complete system for $440 more, with 1 TB and 4 GB more than just the MacBook Air. You can always set it up as an OS X server for $50 more. But you do have to buy your own Thunderbolt cable for $49. ;)

jonnysods

Jul 21, 2011, 06:30 AM

Put a 7200rpm drive in the new MBA and then retest, and then tell me how fast it is.

This isn't a processor for processor, GPU, for GPU comparison here.

KnightWRX

Jul 21, 2011, 07:01 AM

His sig also says that he owns a Dell. So unless he hackintoshed it, he's running Windows, Linux, *BSD, or Solaris.

BL.

How does running Linux, one of the BSDs or Solaris make you a "Windows guy" ? :rolleyes:

Maybe you should quit before you choke on that foot in your mouth.

An Internet Connection isn't pretty much needed to anything of any real value on an MBA. Plus for something that STILL, hardly anyone will actually use, it seems a waste of expense.

Since when does XCode, perl, MacVim, mPlayer, bash require an Internet connection ? Heck, my copy of Worms Armageddon is a pure blast offline...

Heck, I just made a few graphics this morning using X11 and MacGimp. I didn't that required an Internet connection...

A lot of you guys have a weird notion about the MBAs. You guys do realise that these computers are much more powerful than machines we had like 2 years ago and that we still managed to use non-Internet apps back then ?

Heck, I remember my first computer that had no communications hardware at all, completely, 100% offline. It ran on a single digit mhz chip if even that and required tapes for storage because it didn't have a hard drive. Heck, since I didn't get the writable tape drive, only the RO version, I had to save my documents I typed out to this thing called a printer and paper.

wfptravis

Jul 21, 2011, 07:09 AM

Isn't there no such thing as a 2011 MBA 13'' with a 1.6 GHZ processor? I thought the choices were 1.7 i5 and 1.8 i7? Anyone concerned about heating and battery issues with the i7?

AidenShaw

Jul 21, 2011, 07:18 AM

so much power . wasted on the target buyer of macbook air.

I am sure the people who buy these macbook air will not be able to use the cpu power of the new air.

Sure they will be able to use the power - think of when it's docked to the TBolt display.

Oh, definitely, when I think 'trend-setting laptop', it's Dell that comes to mind.

He didn't say "trend-setting", he said "desktop replacement". Those aren't ultra-portables, they're larger systems with roughly the power of a mid-range mini-tower - in other words, they're a replacement for a desktop. The class is sometimes called "mobile workstations" as well.

An M6600 has up to:
Intel® Core™ i7-2920XM (Extreme Quad Core 2.50GHz,8M cache) with Turbo Boost
17.3" UltraSharp™ FHD(1920x1080) Wide View Anti-Glare LED-backlit with no bright pixel guarantee
NVIDIA® Quadro® 4000M with 2GiB GDDR5, Quadro® 3000M 2 GiB, or AMD® FirePro® M8900 Mobility Pro Graphics with 2GiB GDDR5
16.0GiB DDR3-1600MHz SDRAMm, or 32.0GiB, DDR3-1333MHz SDRAM
Three 2.5" internal drive slots, mix and match up to 750 GB 7200 RPM or 256 GB SSD
RAID 0,1,5 support, including boot drive
DVD or BD
WiFi, WiMAX, EVDO/HSPA with GPS
Fingerprint reader

Obviously, not something the MBA buyer would be interested in (or maybe the buyer has the MBA in the cabin with the M6600 in checked baggage with the other professional gear).

Put a 7200rpm drive in the new MBA and then retest, and then tell me how fast it is.

This isn't a processor for processor, GPU, for GPU comparison here.

You could put the 7200 RPM in a TBolt enclosure once those become available.

KnightWRX

Jul 21, 2011, 07:24 AM

Put a 7200rpm drive in the new MBA and then retest, and then tell me how fast it is.

This isn't a processor for processor, GPU, for GPU comparison here.

Hum... wouldn't change a thing, Geekbench tests CPU performance. It's really that worthless of a benchmark. Yes, this is a Processor for processor comparison since they're using Geekbench.

But you knew that right ? ;)

diminiko

Jul 21, 2011, 07:37 AM

Mr. Gates

Jul 21, 2011, 07:40 AM

I wonder how the Asus UX21 (http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2386149,00.asp) is going to compare ?

pcmike

Jul 21, 2011, 07:48 AM

You sir, are clueless. Enjoy your relic. :rolleyes:

I’m really happy that I have bought old one 13“ coz missing NVIDIA Graphic card is NO BUY factor for me. I do hate anything called Intel HDXXXX maybe good for portability but I don’t care… step back for me. Anyway - objective power is different than this test just because it is only the highest power of CPU not CPU+GPU as 1part so I thing first gen is better and backlit keyboard isn’t something I would really appreciate :) but anyway I’m happy that I don’t have to be disappointed that I have bought old one instead of new one :)

KnightWRX

Jul 21, 2011, 07:56 AM

You sir, are clueless. Enjoy your relic. :rolleyes:

How is he clueless ? I happen to enjoy the power of the 320m also and hardly ever tax the C2D processor as it is. Plus I've had 9 extra months to enjoy mine while all the "Core iX or bust!" crowd were frotting at the mouth and waiting for Apple to deliver. :p

Roller

Jul 21, 2011, 08:11 AM

It's a gimmick because there is nothing practical about it when there are the MacBook Pro's and they are also due for an update in the next couple months. Lets compare these numbers again with the new MBP when the time comes.

If thinner and lighter but less powerful is something you want then go for it. How long can you and your friends admire how thin something is? I admire computers that give me the best performance possible by using the fastest parts available. The MBA has to sacrifice a lot of that to keep it's gimmick thinness. Fact.

I'm getting an 11" MBA for work. It's about one inch smaller in each dimension, a bit thinner, and faster than the aluminum MacBook it's replacing. But the major attraction for me is that it's also more than two pounds lighter - that's a big difference to me.

Don't be so arrogant to assume that what's not right for you is a gimmick.

diamond.g

Jul 21, 2011, 08:15 AM

Exactly right. This jump to SB was a 2 generations: C2D-> Core 1G -> Core 2G aka SB.

2 processor architectures, 3 generations. Apple skipped Clarksfield and went straight to Arrandale (which the obviously skipped for the Air).

Typswif2fingers

Jul 21, 2011, 08:24 AM

Just this morning while I was still wondering if I should satisfy the tingling need to exchange the means with Apple :) I asked about the comparison between the speed of processors etc. (I have a 2.66GHz C2D mid-2009 MBP)...

Anyway, half way through the day I couldn't resist and called the store to ask them if they a got top specced MBA.

Went, got it, brought it home and turned it on.

Now, I have very little knowledge about the tests, processors, speed etc.

But, this thing is bloody fast.

I feel like that guy (http://scrapetv.com/News/News%20Pages/usa/images-2/2001-a-space-odyssey-ape-monolith.jpg) but I have been looking at the MBA, turning it around, looking some more and wondering, just how did they manage to fit anything into the MBA body, little own the machine that has just kicked my MBP into its bum... big time...

dr Dunkel

Jul 21, 2011, 08:40 AM

Are there any allround benchmarks for Macs?

gnasher729

Jul 21, 2011, 08:43 AM

The 13" 1.7GHz i5 air is about the same score as my 2011 13" 2.3GHz i5 pro :/

That's because Intel is using some very, very, very strange numbers for their GHz ratings. The 1.7 GHz means "this processor can run with two cores at 1.7 GHz forever without damaging the MacBook Air through excessive heat". The 2.3 GHz means "this processor can run with two cores at 2.3 GHz forever without damaging the MacBook Pro through excessive heat".

Both processors are mostly limited in their speed by heat production. For a short time, when the heat doesn't matter, both run at the same, much higher speed. The MBA processor can also run a lot faster if only a single core is used, because that single core can probably run around 2.5 GHz producing the same heat as two cores at 1.7 GHz.

(That's also why the quad core processors have lower numbers. If only two cores are used, they run at a much higher speed, but with four cores in use the speed has to be turned down a bit to reduce the heat. So the "official" GHz number is lower than for a dual core chip).

gnomeisland

Jul 21, 2011, 08:44 AM

But don't forget that you can get -- some of the time -- a refurb iMac 27" for $1439. That gets a complete system for $440 more, with 1 TB and 4 GB more than just the MacBook Air. You can always set it up as an OS X server for $50 more. But you do have to buy your own Thunderbolt cable for $49. ;)

Thought of that, the problem/question is whether you can use the ports like a docking station as you can in the thunderbolt model. I imagine not as it would be a very niche feature, but I for one would love a 27" base-model iMac which instantly switched to being a docking station for my regular-usage MBP and left the iMac's computer parts running silently in the background as a server. Sigh.

Fukui

Jul 21, 2011, 08:46 AM

If only there was a 15" Air :rolleyes:
:):):):):):):):)

zen.state

Jul 21, 2011, 08:47 AM

I wonder how the Asus UX21 (http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2386149,00.asp) is going to compare ?

How can you compare them when the Asus won't run Mac OSX? It's staggering how many people think you can compare 2 different computers that runs 2 different OS's.

If someone only wants a Mac OS device then what good at all would that Asus serve them? Get some perspective.

KnightWRX

Jul 21, 2011, 08:51 AM

How can you compare them when the Asus won't run Mac OSX? It's staggering how many people think you can compare 2 different computers that runs 2 different OS's.

It's staggering how many people place so much importance on the OS. Who cares what OS it runs, it's the tasks it does that are important. What is it you want your computer do to ?

Obviously, if you like your computer doing some memory management, process scheduling and primitives drawing, then yes, OS is important. However, if you want to e-mail, edit video, edit photos, browse the web, listen to music, watch videos, who cares about the OS ?

The OS doesn't matter. Both Windows and OS X have the same apps roughly or equivalents. Heck, even Linux is pretty capable when it comes to 90% of workflows out there.

MrCrowbar

Jul 21, 2011, 08:52 AM

Hmmm... if it had more storage space, 8 GB RAM and Firewire (I need that for professional audio interfaces), I'd totally get one to replace my 13" MPB.

zen.state

Jul 21, 2011, 08:59 AM

KnightWRX

Jul 21, 2011, 09:03 AM

You obviously don't understand at all why most people use Macs in the first place. I have no interest in having an OS orgy because there is only one I have any interest in using.

No, quite the contrary, I do understand why people use Macs, but it's obviously flawed thinking. The OS doesn't matter. People that think it does obviously don't understand what it is that matters : the tasks that get accomplished.

Posting on Facebook is the same from any OS. Unless you have an application that is required for your workflow that locks you into a particular platform, you are not locked to any OS. That's called vendor lock-in btw. ;) And for consumer applications, that is a very rare occurence. This mostly happens at the professional or high-end level nowadays.

No need to have an OS war. The OS doesn't matter. All OSes these days are GUI based, with multi-user and multi-task support. For the end user, it makes no difference.

If the OS doesn't matter then why did you ever bother buying a Mac in the first place?

Frankly ? Because I wanted some commercial application support for my Unix installation. I'm a big Microsoft hater (not their software, the company) and I haven't used Windows in a good 11 years aside from a WoW addiction.

So I moved from running Linux on my self-built rig and Dell laptops to Macs.

bpaluzzi

Jul 21, 2011, 09:06 AM

It's staggering how many people place so much importance on the OS. Who cares what OS it runs, it's the tasks it does that are important. What is it you want your computer do to ?

Obviously, if you like your computer doing some memory management, process scheduling and primitives drawing, then yes, OS is important. However, if you want to e-mail, edit video, edit photos, browse the web, listen to music, watch videos, who cares about the OS ?

The OS doesn't matter. Both Windows and OS X have the same apps roughly or equivalents. Heck, even Linux is pretty capable when it comes to 90% of workflows out there.

I agree with what you're saying, but keep in mind that for most people, when they say "OS", they really mean "GUI". For me, the Mac GUI is vastly superior to the Windows GUI. Little things like Quick Look, application switching, Expose, etc -- those are all indispensable parts of my workflow. While not part of the OS (from a computer science standpoint), they're certainly "Mac-specific" features.

Edit -- (didn't mean that application switching is exclusive to Mac -- just meant that I prefer the way it is handled on the Mac, compared to Windows)

zen.state

Jul 21, 2011, 09:11 AM

No, quite the contrary, I do understand why people use Macs, but it's obviously flawed thinking. The OS doesn't matter. People that think it does obviously don't understand what it is that matters : the tasks that get accomplished.

Posting on Facebook is the same from any OS. Unless you have an application that is required for your workflow that locks you into a particular platform, you are not locked to any OS. That's called vendor lock-in btw. ;) And for consumer applications, that is a very rare occurence. This mostly happens at the professional or high-end level nowadays.

No need to have an OS war. The OS doesn't matter. All OSes these days are GUI based, with multi-user and multi-task support. For the end user, it makes no difference.

Frankly ? Because I wanted some commercial application support for my Unix installation. I'm a big Microsoft hater (not their software, the company) and I haven't used Windows in a good 11 years aside from a WoW addiction.

So I moved from running Linux on my self-built rig and Dell laptops to Macs.

You make some valid points indeed about what the typical consumer does in any given OS. I myself do a lot of audio, video and graphic arts work and all at a reasonably high level. That is why for me there is only one choice.

John.B

Jul 21, 2011, 09:42 AM

It's staggering how many people place so much importance on the OS. Who cares what OS it runs, it's the tasks it does that are important. What is it you want your computer do to ?

Obviously, if you like your computer doing some memory management, process scheduling and primitives drawing, then yes, OS is important. However, if you want to e-mail, edit video, edit photos, browse the web, listen to music, watch videos, who cares about the OS ?

The OS doesn't matter. Both Windows and OS X have the same apps roughly or equivalents. Heck, even Linux is pretty capable when it comes to 90% of workflows out there.
I care very much which OS my computer runs. I've said this all before, but it's worth repeating:

My son, running a patched-up version of XP on a non-admin account, got the family PC infected with a rootkit virus and spyware doing nothing but playing Flash-based games on the web. It took a complete reinstall of Windows to fix. Six months later the same thing happened, except that I got WGA-ed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Genuine_Advantage) during that reinstall (due to changing the DVD burner and video card). I had to call Redmond on a Saturday and beg them to generate a new Windows license key for me.

The fact that my bandmates at that time used Logic was the nudge I needed, and I've never looked back. My son complained early on about some games that aren't on OS X, but the combination of Steam and a new gaming console solved that little problem.

I'm not saying that Mac OS X is perfect, but I am saying it's a damned sight better than Windows. (FWIW, we are still seeing rootkit viruses on our Windows 7 PCs at work.)

bradl

Jul 21, 2011, 10:02 AM

How does running Linux, one of the BSDs or Solaris make you a "Windows guy" ? :rolleyes:

Maybe you should quit before you choke on that foot in your mouth.

Please, don't get me started.

Is it a bloody crime to mention what other OSes the guy could run on a Dell? :rolleyes:

BTW.. 15 year Linux and Solaris sysadmin here. I think I've earned, figuratively, monetarily, and experience wise a little leeway. Or do I also have to mention that he could LiveCD, run Windows in any of those via VMWare, Xen, or VirtualBox? FreeDOS, perhaps? Or maybe he did that Win95 on-a-stick (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1091019)?

Or maybe you're right.. I should just give up. I digress. back to my little Linux cubbyhole... :rolleyes:

Heck, I remember my first computer that had no communications hardware at all, completely, 100% offline. It ran on a single digit mhz chip if even that and required tapes for storage because it didn't have a hard drive. Heck, since I didn't get the writable tape drive, only the RO version, I had to save my documents I typed out to this thing called a printer and paper.

So, you're Sid from UserFriendly, eh? ;)

Seriously, this sounds like me at age 7, except I really must have been lucky.. My IIe had *2* 5.25 drives! But somehow, while I thought it was cool, the notion of going outside and playing sounded funner. So that was what I did.

zen.state

Jul 21, 2011, 10:11 AM

His sig also says that he owns a Dell. So unless he hackintoshed it, he's running Windows, Linux, *BSD, or Solaris.

BL.

It's a Dell LCD you poor little unable to read properly person you. Read what it says..

Not sure if you realize this but an LCD is not a computer.

Eidorian

Jul 21, 2011, 10:14 AM

Please, don't get me started.

Is it a bloody crime to mention what other OSes the guy could run on a Dell? :rolleyes:

BTW.. 15 year Linux and Solaris sysadmin here. I think I've earned, figuratively, monetarily, and experience wise a little leeway. Or do I also have to mention that he could LiveCD, run Windows in any of those via VMWare, Xen, or VirtualBox? FreeDOS, perhaps? Or maybe he did that Win95 on-a-stick (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1091019)?

Or maybe you're right.. I should just give up. I digress. back to my little Linux cubbyhole... :rolleyes:The Dell UltraSharp 2407WFP (http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?c=us&l=en&s=gen&sku=320-4335) is a PVA based monitor.

Ever deploy Sunrays? I love those things.

Mr. Gates

Jul 21, 2011, 10:18 AM

How can you compare them when the Asus won't run Mac OSX? It's staggering how many people think you can compare 2 different computers that runs 2 different OS's.

If someone only wants a Mac OS device then what good at all would that Asus serve them? Get some perspective.

I was talking about Benchmarks ...you know....the thread topic.:rolleyes:

Anyway, don't try to tell me I can't put OSX on that Asus unless you want to bet some money. I'd be glad to take your money.

"Get some perspective"???

Really?!

Get Some Manners !

zen.state

Jul 21, 2011, 10:19 AM

The Dell UltraSharp 2407WFP (http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?c=us&l=en&s=gen&sku=320-4335) is a PVA based monitor.

Ever deploy Sunrays? I love those things.

Correct. Mine is actually the later HC variant that upgraded the backlighting to LED.

Eidorian

Jul 21, 2011, 10:23 AM

Correct. Mine is actually the later HC variant that upgraded the backlighting to LED.I thought the "HC" variant increased the color gamut. (70 to 92%) I do not recall any Ultrasharp displays having LED backlights even to this day. They should all be CCFL up to this point. Dell does offer an array of LED backlit monitors but they are not Ultrasharps or PVA/IPS.

kapolani

Jul 21, 2011, 10:24 AM

No, quite the contrary, I do understand why people use Macs, but it's obviously flawed thinking. The OS doesn't matter. People that think it does obviously don't understand what it is that matters : the tasks that get accomplished.

Of course the OS matters. Maybe not to you, but to a lot of people it does matter.

Your thinking is flawed. Flawed because you assume everyone thinks as you do.

zen.state

Jul 21, 2011, 10:25 AM

I was talking about Benchmarks ...you know....the thread topic.:rolleyes:

Anyway, don't try to tell me I can't put OSX on that Asus unless you want to bet some money. I'd be glad to take your money.

"Get some perspective"???

Really?!

Get Some Manners !

The benchmarks are pretty much meaningless if they come from different operating systems. Different OS, apps etc etc.

So many here are so sensitive to things. Asking someone to get perspective is certainly not rude. It's practical.

Also, when you use the name of a software overlord and the avatar of a former Russian overlord it's a little challenging to take you seriously.

jsw

Jul 21, 2011, 10:28 AM

No, quite the contrary, I do understand why people use Macs, but it's obviously flawed thinking. The OS doesn't matter. People that think it does obviously don't understand what it is that matters : the tasks that get accomplished.
It's not in any way "flawed thinking." It's a matter of personal preference. In nearly any product category, and especially in consumer product categories, there are a wide variety of choices which all essentially perform the same tasks. There are only so many ways to brew coffee, to wash dishes, to provide vehicular transport from point A to point B, and so on. The fact that the underlying task can be performed in essentially the same way by a number of products does not negate the usefulness of allowing personal choice to enable consumers to pick what "feels" best for them.

Yes, if one is using Facebook, the experience for that specific task is fundamentally the same on all platforms, but the enveloping experience is quite different. I can read a book on a hammock in the shade between two palm trees, and I can read the same book in a room lit by florescent lights and with garish images painted all over the walls. In both cases, the book is the same, but the overall experience is vastly different.

My issue is with saying that it is wrong to prefer a given OS over another. It's not. However, it's just as wrong to say that it's wrong to have a preference, regardless of what it is, and that having one is flawed thinking because you can do the same things on all of them.

I strongly suspect that even you, KnightWRX, choose items based on personal preference and not solely on what accomplishes a task in the least expensive/most expedient way.

zen.state

Jul 21, 2011, 10:32 AM

I thought the "HC" variant increased the color gamut. (70 to 92%) I do not recall any Ultrasharp displays having LED backlights even to this day. They should all be CCFL up to this point. Dell does offer an array of LED backlit monitors but they are not Ultrasharps or PVA/IPS.

Dell claimed it was LED to me and several forums I have read either confirm that or say that even if it isn't it's very close to what other LED displays look like. Not 100% sure exactly but at the minimum it's very close in visual quality.

Mr. Gates

Jul 21, 2011, 10:32 AM

The benchmarks are pretty much meaningless if they come from different operating systems. Different OS, apps etc etc.

So many here are so sensitive to things. Asking someone to get perspective is certainly not rude. It's practical.

Also, when you use the name of a software overlord and the avatar of a former Russian overlord it's a little challenging to take you seriously.

It is rude.
Practical ?

Anyway, it has nothing to do with the OS when looking at these two machines

As a matter of fact, people are always comparing benchmarks of Macs to PC's

AppleScruff1

Jul 21, 2011, 10:36 AM

Have any of you checked out the new MBA and Lion yet? I'm going to try to get out later today or tomorrow and play around with them a bit.

jhende7

Jul 21, 2011, 10:42 AM

It's staggering how many people place so much importance on the OS. Who cares what OS it runs, it's the tasks it does that are important. What is it you want your computer do to ?

Obviously, if you like your computer doing some memory management, process scheduling and primitives drawing, then yes, OS is important. However, if you want to e-mail, edit video, edit photos, browse the web, listen to music, watch videos, who cares about the OS ?

The OS doesn't matter. Both Windows and OS X have the same apps roughly or equivalents. Heck, even Linux is pretty capable when it comes to 90% of workflows out there.

This has got to be one of the dumbest things I've ever read in my entire life. The OS doesn't matter? the OS isn't important?

The OS is the backbone of the GUI (you know, the interface which the user actually interacts with). I would argue that the OS (more specifically GUI) is the most important part of the computer - period. I don't care if you have a 100 core processor with 512 GB ram, a 20 TB SSD with 10000 GB/s read/write speeds if it only runs windows DOS - I won't buy it.

In the Mac vs PC world, the OS is the most defining aspect of the two computers. For that reason, I call your assessment bollocks, and side with the poster you quoted.