PDA

View Full Version : MacBook Air 13. I5 or i7?




Grmnracing
Jan 16, 2013, 12:46 PM
I will be purchasing a MacBook Air. I don't have a need to get the i7 with 8gb of RAM, ( as of now). I know the i5 4gb would be fine for my use. However, my question is should I spend the extra money to get a higher spec MacBook Air or just get the base? I'm trying to decide if by upgrading the Air is worth the money in the extra amount of time I will get out of it.

Secondly, from what I researched the i5/i7 only turbo boost in some apps that are optimized for the chips. How popular is the support for the ultra low voltage i5/i7?



danistyping
Jan 16, 2013, 12:51 PM
They sell a ton of these things, so my guess is that support is widespread for ULV turbo boost. I have the i7 after returning the i5. You won't notice a day to day difference - they're both very fast. You will notice a difference when you do processor intensive things like compressing files, working with HD video, file conversion and audio recording.

I strongly suggest the 8GB RAM upgrade. This is important for future proofing the device (unless you don't plan on owning it long). More significant than the i7 upgrade. Do both if you can afford it.

Nimravus
Jan 16, 2013, 12:56 PM
i7 runs hotter and uses more power so if you don't need it, stick with the i5. The i5 in the Mid 2012 MBA from what I researched now hyper threads as does the i7 so the performance bump is minimal. Maybe worth it if you are doing heavy processing but at a battery hit. i5 is overkill for most consumers I think, who check email, sur the web, light video/photo edit, etc.

I would however get the 8gb ram for $100 more. It's not upgradable later so you will be stuck with 4gb if you don't order it with 8gb.

The SSD is upgradable so I would go with the 128gb and if you need to later, upgrade the SSD and use the one that came with the MBA as an external SSD in a USB 3.0 enclosure. For the same $300 it will cost you to get the 256gb SSD from Apple, you can upgrade after but now have the extra drive.

Just my thoughts, MBA is an awesome choice for portability.

krspkbl
Jan 17, 2013, 03:39 AM
Originally, when first considering the Air, I was gonna just max it out with i7/8GB/256GB. I ended up getting i5/8GB/128GB. Coming from a 4 year old MacBook, the i5 feels like a beast!

Like others have said, the i7 only has minimal speed advantages when doing intensive processes. It runs hotter and uses more battery. If you absolutely need more processing power and don't mind the lower battery life then I'd suggest looking at a Pro model.

The i5 is great and it's perfectly fine for just browsing the net, watching YouTube (4K playback is smooth!), listening to music, watching films, word processing and light gaming (chess/minecraft/football manager) That's about all I need it for. I can't tell you how far these machines can be pushed as I haven't really tested it myself.

Again, I'm comparing this to an 4 year old MacBook but i was impressed by how cool the Air runs! It's get warm of course but still very cool especially for such a small computer! Depending on settings/usage you can get anywhere between 6.5/9hrs usage out the battery.

I'd suggest i5 Air or a Pro model depending on what you want to do. Maybe the i7 isn't really as bad as I seem to be making it out to be but this is just my thoughts. Finally, the i5 can turbo boost up to 2.8ghz and has 2 virtual cores. It is a dual core but each core runs a virtual core so in some sort of definition you potentially have a 2.8ghz quad-core CPU. This is only available if needed of course.

As for other specs. Definitely get 8GB if you can afford it! I never seem to use more than 4GB but it's there if you need it, it'll future proof the machine when you update to upcoming OS releases. Also, it'll get you more if you want to sell it for whatever reason. The SSD is can be upgraded by yourself. I have ~71GB free still and once it fills up I can just put some stuff on an external HD. Hopefully by that time SSD prices drop a good bit and there are more 3rd party drives available for the Air.

Grmnracing
Jan 17, 2013, 04:40 AM
Thank you everyone. It will be the i5 8gb Air. And it will be my first Mac!

designs216
Jan 17, 2013, 07:07 AM
Thank you everyone. It will be the i5 8gb Air. And it will be my first Mac!

Enjoy and report back. I'm thinking about getting the very same model for my wife.

krspkbl
Jan 17, 2013, 09:42 AM
Thank you everyone. It will be the i5 8gb Air. And it will be my first Mac!

Awesome! It really is an amazing little machine. Nothing like your first Mac! If you have any questions feel free to ask :)

Hope you enjoy it when it arrives!

wolfpuppies3
Jan 18, 2013, 02:37 PM
Do it, go for the i7. whatever is adequate today will be overtaxed tomorrow. unless, of course, you upgrade every year.

docal97
Jan 18, 2013, 05:15 PM
Thank you everyone. It will be the i5 8gb Air. And it will be my first Mac!

only thing that i particularly surprising is that Apple does not carry an 8gb model in stores. They are special order items and take about 7-10 days to receive.

sam84
Aug 13, 2013, 09:21 AM
i am i web designer always used windows.
thinking to buy macbook 13" but confused what is best option for me.

i need to use simple notepad,programming languages like jquery, java script, little bit php, photoshop and dreamweaver. not big fan of games.
i am currently looking at macbook air with 256gb flash storage.

should i upgrade from i5 to i7? if usefull
should i upgrade from 4gb ram to 8gb? if usefull

i have been using amd turion dual core mobile rm-75 2.20ghz hp windows laptop with 4 gb ram and i was facing only two problems.
1) heated all the times, always using cooling pad
2) it takes some time to open photoshop
everything else is fine.

what should be the best macbook for me at starting level
after few months i will also buy imac for sure.

thanks

robvas
Aug 13, 2013, 09:51 AM
I would get the 8GB machine. the i7 is about 20% faster but if you were using a Turion before the i5 will be a BIG upgrade. The SSD will help with programs like Photoshop taking forever to load.

sam84
Aug 13, 2013, 10:23 AM
I would get the 8GB machine. the i7 is about 20% faster but if you were using a Turion before the i5 will be a BIG upgrade. The SSD will help with programs like Photoshop taking forever to load.


i want to upgrade only one part either i5 to i7 or 4gb to 8 gb.
then according to you, shall i go for 256/ 8gb /i5? or 4gb and i5 are fine with 256 gb
thanks

mattferg
Aug 13, 2013, 10:37 AM
i5/8/256 is the sweet spot for the Air, you should go for that one :)

magbarn
Aug 13, 2013, 11:06 AM
i want to upgrade only one part either i5 to i7 or 4gb to 8 gb.
then according to you, shall i go for 256/ 8gb /i5? or 4gb and i5 are fine with 256 gb
thanks

If keeping your MBA longer than a year or two, get the 8GB for sure. Even heavy web browsing already causes page outs (memory runs out and has to write to SSD, while much faster than HDD in the past, still much slower than RAM) on 4gb. Yes, Mavericks has that fancy memory compression, but unless there has been serious breakthroughs in this tech, it's going to be more hype than substance.

sam84
Aug 13, 2013, 11:16 AM
If keeping your MBA longer than a year or two, get the 8GB for sure. Even heavy web browsing already causes page outs (memory runs out and has to write to SSD, while much faster than HDD in the past, still much slower than RAM) on 4gb. Yes, Mavericks has that fancy memory compression, but unless there has been serious breakthroughs in this tech, it's going to be more hype than substance.

thanks alot for your support.
one more question
is mba good decision since we have retina display ans mbp.not sure

magbarn
Aug 13, 2013, 11:24 AM
It depends on your priorities. If battery life and portability are the most important criteria, then MBA. If performance and screen quality are tops, then Haswell rMBP. Although Haswell will add at least an hour or 2 to rMBP battery life, it's not going to be as significant as in the MBA as the Retina screens are serious power hogs. It's unlikely this year's rMBP will have Sharp's IGZO tech which will allow Retina screens that consume much less power. Apple is probably saving that for next year's Haswell refresh as Broadwell has been delayed to 2015.

SchodMC
Aug 13, 2013, 01:54 PM
i am i web designer always used windows.
thinking to buy macbook 13" but confused what is best option for me.

i need to use simple notepad,programming languages like jquery, java script, little bit php, photoshop and dreamweaver. not big fan of games.
i am currently looking at macbook air with 256gb flash storage.

should i upgrade from i5 to i7? if usefull
should i upgrade from 4gb ram to 8gb? if usefull

i have been using amd turion dual core mobile rm-75 2.20ghz hp windows laptop with 4 gb ram and i was facing only two problems.
1) heated all the times, always using cooling pad
2) it takes some time to open photoshop
everything else is fine.

what should be the best macbook for me at starting level
after few months i will also buy imac for sure.

thanks

Looks for me that the discussion i5 vs. i7 is a never ending story. :rolleyes:

I had both machines, yesterday I send back the i5. The reasons you can find here (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=17710136&postcount=12), also some words about the "hotter" i7. While doing office work, the temp is equal to slightly higher on the i7 - my experience is, that (while in idle / office / light usage) heat, battery life and rpm speed is nothing to complain about.

Just have a look inside the forum. Some users say, that everything is fine with the speed of the i5, while others (like me) come to the conclusion, that the i5 is fine but you will notice that it is a slow machine, also during web browsing and something like that. On the other hand, none of the i7 owners regret it to bought an i7. Neither heat nor battery life or fan noise will be a problem. If I'm wrong, just let me know (wait, I think there was one exception, but it could be the guy has a defect machine because he seems to be the only one with the problem he reported). Battery life an heat only will be worse compared to the i5 if you drain power from your system (e. g. while using handbreak, iMovie, something like that). And how often will you use this apps without the ability to put your MBA on a desk and plug it to your power adaptor?

You will only have one problem with the i7. That will be the feeling that you have to say "sorry" inside this forum because you ordered an i7. :(

I think it's not sure that you won't notice the difference of the machines in your daly work. You will notice it, maybe only if you can compare them side by side. Just go to the Apple store and have a look for your own.

However, buy an i5 or an i7, just as you want and what your moneybag tells you to do. :) IMHO the i5 is a good machine, the i7 will be the cherry on the cake.

Regardless of the CPU I think you should go for 8 GB RAM and 256 GB SSD. (The 256 GB SSD is faster than the 128 GB model). I think the order of upgrade-option should be RAM, SSD, CPU. Well, it could also be RAM, CPU, SSD because the SSD could be changed later if you accept that all warranty will be gone. If possible, go for all update.

Just my two cents.

cu
SchodMC

mattferg
Aug 13, 2013, 02:06 PM
SchodMC, I've used both the i7 and the i5, and day to day tasks there's literally no difference whatsoever. If you've noticed something it's entirely psychological.

All the benchmarks have shown that in any form of task where the extra power of the i7 is needed, battery life is cut dramatically as a result of having the i7.

ZBoater
Aug 13, 2013, 02:15 PM
SchodMC, I've used both the i7 and the i5, and day to day tasks there's literally no difference whatsoever. If you've noticed something it's entirely psychological.

All the benchmarks have shown that in any form of task where the extra power of the i7 is needed, battery life is cut dramatically as a result of having the i7.

Yes, but you continue to miss the point and exaggerate the difference. The point is that you have the power for when you need it. And that "dramatically" different battery life is precisely that - "drama". And the "literally no difference whatsoever" is 20-25%.

You can continue to downplay the difference all you want, but there is a reason Intel made the i5 and the i7. For those who need or want a more powerful processor, the i7 is there. And Apple has managed to give you the option with a "very slight" difference in battery performance, which is further made insignificant when you consider people wanting to do heavy lifting on their computer will likely be plugged in anyway. So I'd rather have the more POWERFUL and FASTER processor for when I need it than save $150. :rolleyes:

mattferg
Aug 13, 2013, 02:20 PM
Yes, but you continue to miss the point and exaggerate the difference. The point is that you have the power for when you need it. And that "dramatically" different battery life is precisely that - "drama". And the "literally no difference whatsoever" is 20-25%.

You can continue to downplay the difference all you want, but there is a reason Intel made the i5 and the i7. For those who need or want a more powerful processor, the i7 is there. And Apple has managed to give you the option with a "very slight" difference in battery performance, which is further made insignificant when you consider people wanting to do heavy lifting on their computer will likely be plugged in anyway. So I'd rather have the more POWERFUL and FASTER processor for when I need it than save $150. :rolleyes:

ZBoater you continue to miss the point. For day to day tasks (what most people do on an Air) there's no benefit whatsoever to having an i7, the extra power just isn't used. Both CPUs stay at their base clocks and don't max out.

For tasks where the power is needed, you get maybe a 15% increase (25% compared to the base model, I tested myself with various configs) but you also lose 35% battery life on the i7 vs the i5 doing these same advanced tasks. All the benchmarks show this.

It's also important to remember that most modern applications that max the CPU before anything else are programming, and other CPU intensive tasks, of which gaming is not one of them, as the GPU is the bottleneck. As such the i7 starts to become more and more of a niche option.

jadAce
Aug 13, 2013, 02:32 PM
i5/8/256 is the sweet spot for the Air, you should go for that one :)

+1
Works great. On a student budget, so couldn't afford the i7, but this is an excellent, excellent config - very cost effective.

ZBoater
Aug 13, 2013, 02:37 PM
...For day to day tasks (what most people do on an Air) there's no benefit whatsoever to having an i7, the extra power just isn't used. Both CPUs stay at their base clocks and don't max out.

Precisely. So no extra heat, power loss, blah blah. But for when I need the power, I have it, where in the i5 I am stuck. See the point?

It's also important to remember that most modern applications that max the CPU before anything else are programming, and other CPU intensive tasks, of which gaming is not one of them, as the GPU is the bottleneck. As such the i7 starts to become more and more of a niche option.

No, not really all that important. That broad generalization is completely inaccurate. Calling the i7 a niche option is like calling the v8 a niche engine. If you are happy with your i5, good for you. But for those of us who prefer a more powerful and capable processor, we prefer the i7. Thank you for your concern though. :rolleyes:

magbarn
Aug 13, 2013, 02:47 PM
Like some of the other posters here, I had access to 2 identical MBA 11's other than for their CPU. Both had 8gb Ram and Samsung HDD. The i7 is noticeably faster not just in photo editing RAW files, but also in heavy websites like Facebook/Verge. The i7 machine loaded the websites quicker and scrolled smoother too. Unfortunately (or fortunately hehe) you're not going to know this unless you have both machines side-by-side. Also, I've been to 3 Apple stores and NONE of them have MBA's with i7's out for comparison. Some had different SSD sizes, but all were i5/4gb machines. As they say 'Ignorance is bliss'. Once I saw the difference in performance, the i5 machine went back...

SchodMC
Aug 13, 2013, 03:04 PM
SchodMC, I've used both the i7 and the i5, and day to day tasks there's literally no difference whatsoever. If you've noticed something it's entirely psychological.

All the benchmarks have shown that in any form of task where the extra power of the i7 is needed, battery life is cut dramatically as a result of having the i7.
I noticed a difference when using the MBA on an external monitor. In this case, I got some really annoying lags inside the OS X GUI (e. g. switching space). The i7 is snappier - noticeable not psychological. And I tested it on two monitors (one with HDMI, one with VGA). Maybe it is because I have a lot of Apps open or because I had an i5 model with some hardware problem. Don't know. But this was the main reason for me to go for the i7. BTW, both systems have 8GB RAM and 256GB SSD.

About the battery life - benchmarks also had shown, that in office / idle usage, the battery life was equal (while the i7 is still a little bit faster in base clock than the i5). Sure, under medium load there will be a difference. But for me, it's similar whether the battery life lasts for 8,9 (i5) or 7,8 hours (source: AnandTech (http://www.anandtech.com/show/7113/2013-macbook-air-core-i5-4250u-vs-core-i7-4650u/4)). For me also the lower battery life will be enough to work a whole day without getting plugged or work mobile when I need to. Especially because I don't have a whole day of medium load work.

To be honest: the i5 was not unusable! It is a fine machine. But there will be a noticeable difference (except when typing / writing texts - no one can write that fast, that current CPU's will ran out of power ;-) ). The question is: will you notice the difference? I have some situations where I notice them.

So - a simple solution: buy the i5, have a look to it, use it for the tasks you normally use them and also plug the system to you external monitor (if you use one). If you happy with it, than keep it. If not, go for the i7. Thats the whole story.

cu
SchodMC

P.S.: Am I wrong or do the i7 owners really have to defend themselves for owning or recommending the i7?

----------

For tasks where the power is needed, you get maybe a 15% increase (25% compared to the base model, I tested myself with various configs) but you also lose 35% battery life on the i7 vs the i5 doing these same advanced tasks. All the benchmarks show this.

You maybe right, but having low power day to day tasks for now won't say anything about the future. And a lot of users will use the MBA also for more than just the day to day tasks at work. I think this is the reason that leads Anand to his conclusion: If you want extreme battery life, go for the i5. If the MBA is your own machine, he "[...] can definitely make a case for opting for more performance." (http://www.anandtech.com/show/7113/2013-macbook-air-core-i5-4250u-vs-core-i7-4650u/5)

So the i5 vs. i7 discussion isn't only a money / need-the-power discussion. It's also about whether the MBA will be a second system you use or the only on with an ultra-portable option.

Again - just my two cents. ;-)

cu
SchodMC

DisplacedMic
Aug 13, 2013, 03:49 PM
SchodMC, I've used both the i7 and the i5, and day to day tasks there's literally no difference whatsoever. If you've noticed something it's entirely psychological.

All the benchmarks have shown that in any form of task where the extra power of the i7 is needed, battery life is cut dramatically as a result of having the i7.

so restated - all things being equal, tasks requiring more computing power will also require more battery power. That's not surprising. Additionally, I question your claim that the battery life is cut "dramatically" on the i7.

mattferg
Aug 13, 2013, 05:46 PM
Precisely. So no extra heat, power loss, blah blah. But for when I need the power, I have it, where in the i5 I am stuck. See the point?

No, not really all that important. That broad generalization is completely inaccurate. Calling the i7 a niche option is like calling the v8 a niche engine. If you are happy with your i5, good for you. But for those of us who prefer a more powerful and capable processor, we prefer the i7. Thank you for your concern though. :rolleyes:

I have one very simple reply to that.

What do YOU need the extra power that the i7 gives you for? Since you seem to prefer a more powerful and capable processor in exchange for battery life, what are you doing that needs the power?

Can't be gaming as all the benchmarks show it gives a minute FPS increase as the GPU is the bottleneck. The i7 is starting to seem more and more like a V12...

----------

I noticed a difference when using the MBA on an external monitor. In this case, I got some really annoying lags inside the OS X GUI (e. g. switching space). The i7 is snappier - noticeable not psychological. And I tested it on two monitors (one with HDMI, one with VGA). Maybe it is because I have a lot of Apps open or because I had an i5 model with some hardware problem. Don't know.

So - a simple solution: buy the i5, have a look to it, use it for the tasks you normally use them and also plug the system to you external monitor (if you use one). If you happy with it, than keep it. If not, go for the i7. Thats the whole story.

cu
SchodMC

Definitely psychological, as the external monitor thing would be a GPU load and the CPU clock speed would have minimal to no effect on this. HD 5000 is more than enough to have no lag on an external monitor. Again, I've tried all this, and in day to day tasks there's no difference whatsoever between the i5 and i7.

ZBoater
Aug 13, 2013, 05:49 PM
What do YOU need the extra power that the i7 gives you for? Since you seem to prefer a more powerful and capable processor in exchange for battery life, what are you doing that needs the power?

Well, that would be my business. I didn't know one needed a reason to want the fastest and most powerful model of a computer one could afford. And you are basing your comment on a false premise. For my usage pattern, I am not exchanging battery life. I am just paying to have the upgraded capability of the i7 over the i5. If I choose to encode a movie or play Civ5, I typically do not do that on battery anyway. Those would drain an i5 just as well as an i7 anyway, I mean, if an i5 could play Civ5 that is....

Ronnoco
Aug 13, 2013, 06:14 PM
i'd rather have the more powerful and faster processor for when i need it than save $150. :rolleyes:

+1

alexandermont
Aug 13, 2013, 11:44 PM
I've just ordered a 8 GB RAM 13 inch with an i7. This thread gives me a bit of doubt.

Stuff I'll be doing that could require the i7:

* Some video creation and editing
* Programming (just learning at the moment)

I don't really care about battery life, not a constraint for me. However, I HATE having the fan run.

Is this significantly more likely with the i7, in light and in heavy use cases?

sam84
Aug 14, 2013, 12:45 AM
looks like i am in trouble to purchase

as i am flying from canada to india this friday night, i decided to purchase mba with 8gb memory finally. but when i called apple, they said they have only 4gb (i tried many stores with no success). time required to order online and get delivered is 1 week.so i have no option to go for 8gb in mba. in india there is no option to customize mac.
now i have two options.
1) mba i5 with 4gb/ 256 gb
2) mbp with ratina 128 gb , 256 is expensive

i was thinking if i5 mba with 4gb will be fine with photoshop,dreamweaver and other programming.
any suggestions plz..
thanks

SchodMC
Aug 14, 2013, 05:36 AM
Definitely psychological, as the external monitor thing would be a GPU load and the CPU clock speed would have minimal to no effect on this. HD 5000 is more than enough to have no lag on an external monitor. Again, I've tried all this, and in day to day tasks there's no difference whatsoever between the i5 and i7.

Believe me - I can see the difference of a smooth animation and an animation that lags. But nice that you can define whether it is a fact or only "psychological" what I will see. Thanks for that. :rolleyes:

I just ordered the i5 and thought, the machine will be enough. The monitor-thing was something that leads me to order the i7. And I see the difference. I don't know why there is a difference, but as I told it could also be a problem of the i5 I had.

But what is your problem? I went for the i7 not only because of that - let call it "psychological" - monitor problem / mistake, but also because the MBA is my one and only machine (beside a PS3 for gaming, but that's not the point here). And so for me the MBA is an ultra portable desktop replacement. Having a little bit more power is no failure. Beside this when I'm at work, I connect my iPhone and iPad with the MBA (for charging reasons), and also plug in an external USB drive, etc. So the i7 is not the problem for battery life here. And when I go to work outside the office (e. g. somewhere where I also could take a cup of coffee), the battery life will be enough to do the job. And I still have enough battery life left to sit on my couch after the work is done and browse the internet, do a little bit just-for-fun-Xcode coding, etc.

Could the i5 do the same job? Yes, of course! Is the i7 necessary - maybe no, but it's also no overkill. It's not to have a powerful machine like an 4 core rMBA or an Mac Pro. It's only to have a ultra portable, nice machine with an extra kick of power that come in handy if doing some photo / video / gaming / any other cpu-itensive things. Is that wrong? I thing no. Why can't you accept this as well as the fact that all the i7 users (with the similar argumentation) tell it to others just to say "Hey - i5 will be fine, i7 will be finer and nothing you will regret".

You're fine with the i5, we are fine with the i7. Couldn't we just agree with that? Beside this I think, that the battery life of the i7 will be good enough for at least 90% of the MBA owners. Nothing I can prove, just a theory.

cu
SchodMC

AXs
Aug 14, 2013, 11:18 AM
if it was dual core i5 to quad core i7, I would certainly say i7.

But you're not going to see much difference, especially with the Air's build. either i5 or i7 - it is still FAR from a good performance computer.

A 2011 15" Pro is still twice or thrice as fast as the latest ultimate Air.

imo - if you're in graphics designing, or editing, processing - Definitely go for a laptop with dedicated graphics. In Apple's case - Macbook Pro 15".

But now if one can't afford the 15" Pro, I could see why they would opt for the i7/8.

AXs
Aug 14, 2013, 11:30 AM
So I'd rather have the more POWERFUL and FASTER processor for when I need it than save $150. :rolleyes:

Yes, that's why I have a $2000 custom PC and a $2500 Ethos Notebook... so I have the more powerful and faster processors when I need it ;)

sam84
Aug 14, 2013, 12:28 PM
Yes, that's why I have a $2000 custom PC and a $2500 Ethos Notebook... so I have the more powerful and faster processors when I need it ;)

what should i buy then?
usage
photoshop,dreamweaver,notepad++, internet,jquery,java script.

ZBoater
Aug 14, 2013, 12:59 PM
Yes, that's why I have a $2000 custom PC and a $2500 Ethos Notebook... so I have the more powerful and faster processors when I need it ;)

I can appreciate that, but I think we are discussing this topic in the context of the MBA, and specifically between the i5 and i7 and the $150 difference between the 2. The MBA is certainly not the be all end all of computers.

SchodMC
Aug 14, 2013, 02:11 PM
if it was dual core i5 to quad core i7, I would certainly say i7.

But you're not going to see much difference, especially with the Air's build. either i5 or i7 - it is still FAR from a good performance computer.

A 2011 15" Pro is still twice or thrice as fast as the latest ultimate Air.

imo - if you're in graphics designing, or editing, processing - Definitely go for a laptop with dedicated graphics. In Apple's case - Macbook Pro 15".

But now if one can't afford the 15" Pro, I could see why they would opt for the i7/8.

Your right - the MBA is FAR from a good performance computer. Well, the distance is greater for the i5 than for the i7 ;) - not only because of more MHz but also because of internal differences (e. g. like the bigger internal cache) that for itself will bring an improvement. However, a super fast computer is not what I want if i buy a MBA. And the MBA on the other hand is no unusable slow computer (this includes the i5). It is a awesome computer with a not yes seen speed for this kind of mobile systems (including - or better - especially the I/O speed of the internal SSD).

IHMO the i7 MBA is a good compromise for an ultra-portable and enough power to manage some desktop-replacment jobs in an acceptable time / speed. Nice to see that there is at least someone who could see the reason, why an i7 has the right to exists. (Sorry if the last sentence sounds strange - it's because I don't know the english saying for this situations. :confused::)).

cu
SchodMC

AXs
Aug 14, 2013, 05:00 PM
I can appreciate that, but I think we are discussing this topic in the context of the MBA, and specifically between the i5 and i7 and the $150 difference between the 2. The MBA is certainly not the be all end all of computers.

With all due respect, $150 is big money for some people. I wasn't born rich, so I had to work for what I have, and I worked hard. So when i see you say - "oh haha just $150"... no, $150 is money my friend.

So for you "just 150" - is like for me, just $1500... because I make enough now.

But it doesnt change the fact that even $1 is so valuable buddy, I hope you will realize that one day. Good luck.

mattferg
Aug 14, 2013, 05:21 PM
Well, that would be my business. I didn't know one needed a reason to want the fastest and most powerful model of a computer one could afford. And you are basing your comment on a false premise. For my usage pattern, I am not exchanging battery life. I am just paying to have the upgraded capability of the i7 over the i5. If I choose to encode a movie or play Civ5, I typically do not do that on battery anyway. Those would drain an i5 just as well as an i7 anyway, I mean, if an i5 could play Civ5 that is....

Thanks for finally proving my point :)

Primus84
Aug 14, 2013, 05:23 PM
With all due respect, $150 is big money for some people. I wasn't born rich, so I had to work for what I have, and I worked hard. So when i see you say - "oh haha just $150"... no, $150 is money my friend.

So for you "just 150" - is like for me, just $1500... because I make enough now.

But it doesnt change the fact that even $1 is so valuable buddy, I hope you will realize that one day. Good luck.

His money, his values. Your money, your values.

Quit preaching!

mattferg
Aug 14, 2013, 05:25 PM
Believe me - I can see the difference of a smooth animation and an animation that lags. But nice that you can define whether it is a fact or only "psychological" what I will see. Thanks for that. :rolleyes:

I just ordered the i5 and thought, the machine will be enough. The monitor-thing was something that leads me to order the i7. And I see the difference. I don't know why there is a difference, but as I told it could also be a problem of the i5 I had.

But what is your problem? I went for the i7 not only because of that - let call it "psychological" - monitor problem / mistake. Could the i5 do the same job? Yes, of course! Is the i7 necessary - maybe no, but it's also no overkill. "Hey - i5 will be fine, i7 will be finer and nothing you will regret".



I'm sorry but to argue that an i5 is incapable of loading a non laggy animation vs a mildly faster i7 just proves that you don't get it.

The i7 isn't any faster in regular every day scenarios. There is no speedier performance, no less laggy animations, it just doesn't exist. Hence why the i7 won't be finer, for most people it just isn't worth the money because they will never see nor use the performance.

As for the fellow who ordered it for programming/editing, HE is the user who should be buying the i7, not the everyday joe who's being told to "go for it because you might as well" because, for him, he shouldn't buy the i7, and it isn't 'finer'. It IS overkill.

w00d
Aug 14, 2013, 05:57 PM
When's the last time you were using a laptop, and thought to yourself: I'd be just as happy if this machine were slower.

This has never happened to me.

I tried the 2013 i5 side by side with the 2013 i7 and there is a noticeable difference.

I have the 2013 i7 MBA and wish it were faster.

Mike in Kansas
Aug 14, 2013, 08:54 PM
So for you "just 150" - is like for me, just $1500... because I make enough now.


Just so we all understand - what you are saying is that $150 to ZBoater is just like $1,500 to you, which is a trivial amount. Is that what you're saying?

If so, wow. Just wow. Someone has self esteem issues if they need to be arrogant enough to brag about how little impact $1,500 has on their personal financial situation. Of course, this IS the Internet so I guess we can all be what we want to be on here...

Tarrou8
Aug 14, 2013, 09:37 PM
To each their own. Both the i5 and i7 are terrific on the new Haswell Airs. When the (subpar) display finally gets updated in the (hopefully) very near future, this already great ultraportable will once again dominate the field as it should.

ZBoater
Aug 14, 2013, 09:46 PM
With all due respect, $150 is big money for some people. I wasn't born rich, so I had to work for what I have, and I worked hard. So when i see you say - "oh haha just $150"... no, $150 is money my friend.

So for you "just 150" - is like for me, just $1500... because I make enough now.

But it doesnt change the fact that even $1 is so valuable buddy, I hope you will realize that one day. Good luck.

i wasnt born rich either, but $150 was less than 10% of the laptop price, almost as much as taxes, and I value top performance over $150.

With all due respect of course. :rolleyes:

----------

Thanks for finally proving my point :)

Ummmmm, ok? :confused:

AXs
Aug 14, 2013, 11:19 PM
i wasnt born rich either, but $150 was less than 10% of the laptop price, almost as much as taxes, and I value top performance over $150.

With all due respect of course. :rolleyes:

----------



Ummmmm, ok? :confused:

Yea that's completely fine dude. But you've been boasting about how it's "just $150" and "some people have deeper wallets" and so on... and again 10% is a lot of money.
10% of$15,000 bucks would be $1,500 - so what if I told you, why not pay $16,500 instead of $15,000 sapphire ring. It is ONLY 10%.

Same thing if you're buying a house - 10% of a million bucks is "only" $100,000

Like I said - "only" is subjective. The way you are rubbing it in to everyone that it is only "$150" and using emoticons to increase your argument strength... it's "only" $1500 bucks for me - same money I spent last night taking a customer out for dinner and drinks... the same way $15,000 would be "only" for a tycoon and $150,000 is something Kanye West would spend on one trip to the mall.

Please understand relativity. good day.

DisplacedMic
Aug 15, 2013, 05:32 AM
With all due respect, $150 is big money for some people. I wasn't born rich, so I had to work for what I have, and I worked hard. So when i see you say - "oh haha just $150"... no, $150 is money my friend.

So for you "just 150" - is like for me, just $1500... because I make enough now.

But it doesnt change the fact that even $1 is so valuable buddy, I hope you will realize that one day. Good luck.


Yea that's completely fine dude. But you've been boasting about how it's "just $150" and "some people have deeper wallets" and so on... and again 10% is a lot of money.
10% of$15,000 bucks would be $1,500 - so what if I told you, why not pay $16,500 instead of $15,000 sapphire ring. It is ONLY 10%.

Same thing if you're buying a house - 10% of a million bucks is "only" $100,000

Like I said - "only" is subjective. The way you are rubbing it in to everyone that it is only "$150" and using emoticons to increase your argument strength... it's "only" $1500 bucks for me - same money I spent last night taking a customer out for dinner and drinks... the same way $15,000 would be "only" for a tycoon and $150,000 is something Kanye West would spend on one trip to the mall.

Please understand relativity. good day.

yikes, i didn't get the sense that he was making light of the money or "rubbing it in to everyone" at all.

all he said was that he values the performance increase at or above the $150 cost.

if you'd rather have your quarter than that glass of lemonade, don't buy the lemonade.


i really don't understand why these threads need to turn nasty.

SchodMC
Aug 15, 2013, 07:24 AM
I'm sorry but to argue that an i5 is incapable of loading a non laggy animation vs a mildly faster i7 just proves that you don't get it.

The i7 isn't any faster in regular every day scenarios. There is no speedier performance, no less laggy animations, it just doesn't exist. Hence why the i7 won't be finer, for most people it just isn't worth the money because they will never see nor use the performance.

As for the fellow who ordered it for programming/editing, HE is the user who should be buying the i7, not the everyday joe who's being told to "go for it because you might as well" because, for him, he shouldn't buy the i7, and it isn't 'finer'. It IS overkill.

Ok, NOW I get the point - sorry for being laggy for myself. ;-) Well, it seems to me that my argumentation was not differentiated (was that the right word?) enough.

Generally I think that there is a noticeable difference between the i5 vs the i7. But it really could be that for a lot of "only-email-and-internet" users it won't be worth to spend $150 more for the i7. Even if the system will be plugged to an external monitor, the i5 will be fine, no question.

If someone uses his MBA for more - e. g. light photo / video editing, programming (as I do), maybe gaming - the i5 will be fine, but for this scenario the i7 is the finer option. So for people doing this, the i7 upgrade would be worth the money.

So if someone has $150 left to invest (because of need the more power, or because the MBA will be the one-and-only system), I think it's nothing that will be regretted later. If someone won't spend the money or don't have it, the i5 will also be fine. Never said that the i7 is a "must have" upgrade and the i5 is a no-go machine. Also the i7 upgrade is no "always-useless" thing. The argument with the laggy GUI shouldn't be used as "you always must go for i7" argument. It is only to argue that the difference is noticeable (at least not only for me) and the i7 upgrade could be worth to think about.

If you understand it otherwise, than I'm sorry. It's not that easy for me to say in english what I want to. Thinking and writing in a non-native language is a little bit complicated. :)

cu
SchodMC

Cythth
Aug 15, 2013, 08:11 AM
It's only a $150 difference, so get the i7 in my opinion. $150 is cheap in the respect that it buys you a year or two more down the road before having to replace it. If cost is an issue, you can always buy refurbished. There are some MBA's there.

Primus84
Aug 15, 2013, 08:12 AM
It's only a $150 difference, so get the i7 in my opinion. $150 is cheap in the respect that it buys you a year or two more down the road before having to replace it. If cost is an issue, you can always buy refurbished. There are some MBA's there.

Agreed, my i7 Haswell benchmarks almost the same score as my 2 year old iMac, it's a phenomenal machine.

Patriks7
Aug 15, 2013, 08:22 AM
Looks like this is the toughest question in the world :p

Trying to decide as well (11" though). Going from a 2008 2.4GHz MacBook Pro, everything is pointing to the i5 being fast enough (especially providing better battery life). But then I read a couple times that people seem to have lag with the i5 and an external display (which I plan to use quite a bit) so now I'm back at the beginning with my decision.

I don't want to lose the battery life, but I'm not sure I can accept such lag (especially since I use Aperture quite a bit) and I want to keep this machine for at least 4 years like my Pro (which by the way is still running great, but the battery lasts 1 hour and its too big/heavy to carry around all the time).

In my case, would i5 be enough or is i7 the smarter choice?

Primus84
Aug 15, 2013, 08:35 AM
Looks like this is the toughest question in the world :p

Trying to decide as well (11" though). Going from a 2008 2.4GHz MacBook Pro, everything is pointing to the i5 being fast enough (especially providing better battery life). But then I read a couple times that people seem to have lag with the i5 and an external display (which I plan to use quite a bit) so now I'm back at the beginning with my decision.

I don't want to lose the battery life, but I'm not sure I can accept such lag (especially since I use Aperture quite a bit) and I want to keep this machine for at least 4 years like my Pro (which by the way is still running great, but the battery lasts 1 hour and its too big/heavy to carry around all the time).

In my case, would i5 be enough or is i7 the smarter choice?

From the tests I have seen online the i7 doesn't really have a poorer battery life than the i5 anyway.

Patriks7
Aug 15, 2013, 09:00 AM
From the tests I have seen online the i7 doesn't really have a poorer battery life than the i5 anyway.

Really? What I've seen from people's claims, it can cut up to one hour into the battery life with the same tasks. Now I'm even more confused :confused:

Primus84
Aug 15, 2013, 09:02 AM
Really? What I've seen from people's claims, it can cut up to one hour into the battery life with the same tasks. Now I'm even more confused :confused:

Depends how you use it:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/7113/2013-macbook-air-core-i5-4250u-vs-core-i7-4650u/4

SchodMC
Aug 15, 2013, 09:50 AM
Looks like this is the toughest question in the world :p

Trying to decide as well (11" though). Going from a 2008 2.4GHz MacBook Pro, everything is pointing to the i5 being fast enough (especially providing better battery life). But then I read a couple times that people seem to have lag with the i5 and an external display (which I plan to use quite a bit) so now I'm back at the beginning with my decision.

I don't want to lose the battery life, but I'm not sure I can accept such lag (especially since I use Aperture quite a bit) and I want to keep this machine for at least 4 years like my Pro (which by the way is still running great, but the battery lasts 1 hour and its too big/heavy to carry around all the time).

In my case, would i5 be enough or is i7 the smarter choice?

Well - i think that you one of the users, for that the i7 will be the "finer" CPU. It's because of your use case (Adepture). The i5 will do the job, the i7 will do it a little bit faster. The i7 could be worth the investment for your usage.

cu
SchodMC

mattferg
Aug 15, 2013, 09:55 AM
If someone uses his MBA for more - e. g. light photo / video editing, programming (as I do), maybe gaming - the i5 will be fine, but for this scenario the i7 is the finer option. So for people doing this, the i7 upgrade would be worth the money.

If someone does processor-intensive stuff like you do (editing, programming etc) absolutely I say, go for the i7, you made the right choice. But for someone like ZBoater, who takes the attitude that you should just spend the $150 if you have it, they don't need the i7, because nothing they do on an i7 the i5 wouldn't be just as good at. As such you and him are arguing completely different points. I agree with you wholeheartedly.

Hence why it was so funny when I asked him what he needed the extra power for, and he couldn't answer me, thus proving my point :)

----------

It's only a $150 difference, so get the i7 in my opinion. $150 is cheap in the respect that it buys you a year or two more down the road before having to replace it. If cost is an issue, you can always buy refurbished. There are some MBA's there.

The i7 isn't going to give anyone that much extra time on their MBA. As such the $150 is best saved on their next Air.

----------

Trying to decide as well (11" though). Going from a 2008 2.4GHz MacBook Pro, everything is pointing to the i5 being fast enough (especially providing better battery life). But then I read a couple times that people seem to have lag with the i5 and an external display (which I plan to use quite a bit) so now I'm back at the beginning with my decision.


I use the i5 with an external display all the time, there's no lag whatsoever. If there was, it'd be due to the HD 5000 graphics being maxxed out, not the processor, so having the i7 doesn't really help here. Also it's only Schod who mentioned the lag, which might be because he does a lot of programming.

Go for the i5! :)

SchodMC
Aug 15, 2013, 10:18 AM
If someone does processor-intensive stuff like you do (editing, programming etc) absolutely I say, go for the i7, you made the right choice. But for someone like ZBoater, who takes the attitude that you should just spend the $150 if you have it, they don't need the i7, because nothing they do on an i7 the i5 wouldn't be just as good at. As such you and him are arguing completely different points. I agree with you wholeheartedly.


Finally come together. Always the same with misunderstandings (seems to be a language / country independent "problem") ;-)

I use the i5 with an external display all the time, there's no lag whatsoever. If there was, it'd be due to the HD 5000 graphics being maxxed out, not the processor, so having the i7 doesn't really help here. Also it's only Schod who mentioned the lag, which might be because he does a lot of programming.

Go for the i5! :)

"A lot" is relative. But could be that it will be more the next time. ;) However, I really wonder what was the reason for the lags I had. You don't have lags, so just a question - what kind of monitor do you have?

Beside this, if Patrik7 uses Adapture the i5 will be fine, the i7 will be "finer" :p What I mean is, that it depends on how intensive he uses Adpeture and photo editing, it could be that he will use the power the i7 provides.

I think someone should figure out how much photos per day will let the i7 to come in handy. ;)

cu
SchodMC

ZBoater
Aug 15, 2013, 12:56 PM
,,,The way you are rubbing it in to everyone that it is only "$150" and using emoticons to increase your argument strength... it's "only" $1500 bucks for me - same money I spent last night taking a customer out for dinner and drinks... the same way $15,000 would be "only" for a tycoon and $150,000 is something Kanye West would spend on one trip to the mall.

Please understand relativity. good day.

Dude. Rubbing it in? What forum are you reading? If anything I've been consistent in saying "worth" is relative. Read up before you mouth off like that.

And let's try to stick to performance. i7 > i5. The conversation is about why the $150 upgrade is or is not "worth it". Were it not for the severe i7 envy of some posters, maybe we could have a civil discussion. I have no interest in your or anyone else's financial situation. :rolleyes:

----------

... for someone like ZBoater, who takes the attitude that you should just spend the $150 if you have it, they don't need the i7, because nothing they do on an i7 the i5 wouldn't be just as good at.

Dude, you're putting words in my keyboard, but ok. Yes, I recommend buying as much computer as you can afford. Because if you can afford the i7 it makes absolutely no sense to intentionally cripple yourself. You may not need the extra power today, but next year you might. Better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it. No one has ever complained about their computer being too powerful.

Now, if you want to argue the merits of $150, that's a different conversation for a different forum. As far a computer performance goes, i7 > i5. Period. Any posts claiming excessive heat or significantly less battery life are full of it. THAT is my point. For someone trying to decide between the i5 and the i7, price should be the primary consideration. Should I spend the extra $150 or should I get a slower computer? Period. These red herrings of fan noise, battery life, and heat are just that.

mattferg
Aug 15, 2013, 02:39 PM
"A lot" is relative. But could be that it will be more the next time. ;) However, I really wonder what was the reason for the lags I had. You don't have lags, so just a question - what kind of monitor do you have?


1080p, sometimes HDMI sometimes VGA.

----------

Dude, you're putting words in my keyboard, but ok. Yes, I recommend buying as much computer as you can afford. Because if you can afford the i7 it makes absolutely no sense to intentionally cripple yourself. You may not need the extra power today, but next year you might. Better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it. No one has ever complained about their computer being too powerful.


Better to not have it and not need it then to not need it and have it. The i7 doesn't give any extra power for most users and for the price you're paying you're really not making the laptop last any longer or add that much more performance for life span.

ZBoater
Aug 15, 2013, 04:37 PM
...The i7 doesn't give any extra power for most users and for the price you're paying you're really not making the laptop last any longer or add that much more performance for life span.

Ummmmm, ok. Whatever dude. It the i5 makes you THAT happy, then I'm happy for you too. :rolleyes:

I think I'd rather stick with THIS assessment...

"Oh man, the Core i7 upgraded seriously fixes everything. We get near perfect scaling here, showing a massive 27% increase in performance over the default Core i5 1.3GHz setup. The single threaded performance of the upgraded 13-inch MacBook Air is almost able to equal that of the 15-inch MacBook Pro with Retina Display."

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7113/2013-macbook-air-core-i5-4250u-vs-core-i7-4650u/2

kate22
Aug 15, 2013, 05:19 PM
I'm torn between a MBA i5 or i7.
An i5 would be enough for my computer usage, but I have 2 questions.

Everyone says to buy enough RAM for future proofing, but is that also the case for the processor? I plan to keep my MBA for many years. With that in mind, would it be better to buy the i7 or wouldn't that make a difference?

For people who compared the i5 and the i7, is there a difference in fan noise? I hate fan noise, so that would make me reconsider.

magbarn
Aug 15, 2013, 05:39 PM
I'm torn between a MBA i5 or i7.
An i5 would be enough for my computer usage, but I have 2 questions.

Everyone says to buy enough RAM for future proofing, but is that also the case for the processor? I plan to keep my MBA for many years. With that in mind, would it be better to buy the i7 or wouldn't that make a difference?

For people who compared the i5 and the i7, is there a difference in fan noise? I hate fan noise, so that would make me reconsider.

If you're not editing 36 megapixel RAW images, editing gigabytes of iMovie videos, ripping DVD/blu-rays, or any other CPU intensive task, just get the i5. The 8gb upgrade IMHO is a must BTW if you're keeping this laptop for 'years' Just heavy web browsing will already cause 'page outs' on 4gb of ram.

mattferg
Aug 15, 2013, 06:30 PM
I think I'd rather stick with THIS assessment...

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7113/2013-macbook-air-core-i5-4250u-vs-core-i7-4650u/2

I've explained this over and over, but obviously someone who bought an i7 and doesn't use the extra power might not be able to get it.

Benchmarks stress test the CPU and pushes it to it's absolute limit. At this point, yes, the i7 runs about 15% faster than the i5. But, for most users, including yourself, you'll never reach this point even with an i5. As such it's wasted money. Oh, and running at that performance level sees a 30% drop in battery over the i5.

----------

I'm torn between a MBA i5 or i7.
An i5 would be enough for my computer usage, but I have 2 questions.

Everyone says to buy enough RAM for future proofing, but is that also the case for the processor? I plan to keep my MBA for many years. With that in mind, would it be better to buy the i7 or wouldn't that make a difference?

For people who compared the i5 and the i7, is there a difference in fan noise? I hate fan noise, so that would make me reconsider.

Since the i7 just adds a few MHz and not anything significant like quad core, it's not really the same future proof sort of upgrade the 8GB of RAM is. For most people they'll never hit the limits of the i5 so the upgrade isn't worth it. It's likely stuff like the screen, RAM, battery life or SSD will be the limiting factor for people when they want to upgrade these Airs.

ZBoater
Aug 15, 2013, 07:28 PM
I've explained this over and over...Benchmarks stress test the CPU and pushes it to it's absolute limit.

You obviously did not read the benchmark setup. Repeating it over and over doesn't make it any more true. You don't need to push your system "to the absolute limit" to experience the advantages of a clearly superior and more powerful i7 CPU. The i5 is clearly a budget minded CPU that is less capable than the i7. If you want to save $150 and get an i5, that is your prerogative. Enjoy your i5. :rolleyes:

----------

I'm torn between a MBA i5 or i7.
An i5 would be enough for my computer usage, but I have 2 questions.

Everyone says to buy enough RAM for future proofing, but is that also the case for the processor? I plan to keep my MBA for many years. With that in mind, would it be better to buy the i7 or wouldn't that make a difference?

For people who compared the i5 and the i7, is there a difference in fan noise? I hate fan noise, so that would make me reconsider.

If you plan to keep it for many years and can afford it, spend the extra $150 and get the clearly superior i7. No one has ever complained about their computer being too powerful.

DisplacedMic
Aug 16, 2013, 05:26 AM
I'm torn between a MBA i5 or i7.
An i5 would be enough for my computer usage, but I have 2 questions.

Everyone says to buy enough RAM for future proofing, but is that also the case for the processor? I plan to keep my MBA for many years. With that in mind, would it be better to buy the i7 or wouldn't that make a difference?

For people who compared the i5 and the i7, is there a difference in fan noise? I hate fan noise, so that would make me reconsider.

did you read the thread?
if so, are you suddenly expecting everyone to just magically come together on this issue?

read the thread.

mattferg
Aug 16, 2013, 07:46 AM
You obviously did not read the benchmark setup. Repeating it over and over doesn't make it any more true. You don't need to push your system "to the absolute limit" to experience the advantages of a clearly superior and more powerful i7 CPU. The i5 is clearly a budget minded CPU that is less capable than the i7. If you want to save $150 and get an i5, that is your prerogative. Enjoy your i5. :rolleyes:

----------



If you plan to keep it for many years and can afford it, spend the extra $150 and get the clearly superior i7. No one has ever complained about their computer being too powerful.

Um, do you understand how Intel processors work? Until you get to the high end of performance, it's a case of "anything you can do I can do too" because the i5 can just turbo boost up to whatever the i7 is running at. It's only when you get to 2.6ghz+ on the i7 that you get any benefit from the processor whatsoever. This is why at the low end the i5 and i7 have the same battery levels - they're basically doing the same tasks in the same amount of time, giving no benefit to the more expensive silicon. Calling the i5 a budget minded option on a laptop that costs a grand? Again showing you have no clue what you're talking about.

If someone plans to keep the Air for many years and can afford it, upgrade the RAM to make it last, then the SSD. The i7 should be THE LAST thing you upgrade, if you can afford it. And at that point, if you're spending that much and want a machine that lasts, just get the rMBP, it runs faster and has a better screen anyways.

As for 'clearly superior" this is only the case when running tasks that demand high end CPU performance... of which you don't even run, and at that level the performance gains are dwarfed by the battery loss. No one's complained about a computer being too powerful, but they sure as hell have complained about it being too expensive.

Nysska
Aug 16, 2013, 09:07 AM
Hi all,
This is my first post - I have been lurking for some time now, but had nothing interesting to say, so now: Hi everybody!

Just bought Air i7/8GB/256SSD - I had to, I am a programmer and my computer just went dead this morning - I can not afford to be one day without my computer, not saying anything about two weeks.

My eyes were set on i7 for some time now - I was just raising funds.
IMO: if you can afford - take it, its better to have that tiny bit extra power than regret not having this bit of money more.

DisplacedMic
Aug 16, 2013, 09:24 AM
Um, do you understand how Intel processors work? Until you get to the high end of performance, it's a case of "anything you can do I can do too" because the i5 can just turbo boost up to whatever the i7 is running at. It's only when you get to 2.6ghz+ on the i7 that you get any benefit from the processor whatsoever. This is why at the low end the i5 and i7 have the same battery levels - they're basically doing the same tasks in the same amount of time, giving no benefit to the more expensive silicon. Calling the i5 a budget minded option on a laptop that costs a grand? Again showing you have no clue what you're talking about.

If someone plans to keep the Air for many years and can afford it, upgrade the RAM to make it last, then the SSD. The i7 should be THE LAST thing you upgrade, if you can afford it. And at that point, if you're spending that much and want a machine that lasts, just get the rMBP, it runs faster and has a better screen anyways.

As for 'clearly superior" this is only the case when running tasks that demand high end CPU performance... of which you don't even run, and at that level the performance gains are dwarfed by the battery loss. No one's complained about a computer being too powerful, but they sure as hell have complained about it being too expensive.

and value is subjective. he would rather have the i7 than his $150. so what?

do you two realize that this thread is coming up on 9 months old and not likely to go anywhere else interesting?

I have to, again, question your claim that the gains are "dwarfed by the battery loss"

all things being equal a higher frequency is going to require more power to run. i understand that you're claiming that you don't need it, but again that seems to be a pretty subjective claim and i am always wary about someone telling someone else what they do or do not need - especially while making dubious claims such the claim that "All the benchmarks have shown that in any form of task where the extra power of the i7 is needed, battery life is cut dramatically as a result of having the i7"

the i5 mba is the "budget-minded" laptop. it's less than a thousand dollars with the student discount - one of the cheaper Apple laptops to come out that's competitive with the "workhorses" in my opinion.

i vehemently disapprove of his use of the term "crippled" and I think i have pointed that out in other threads, but never the less i don't see how this conversation is going anywhere productive and i think the nastiness is starting to take it to a point of no return. how about we all just agree to be happy with what we got? i assume in the 9 months since he's posted this the OP has gotten all the info he needs to make an informed decision.

Scott6666
Aug 16, 2013, 09:44 AM
For people who compared the i5 and the i7, is there a difference in fan noise? I hate fan noise, so that would make me reconsider.

I don't see that anyone has addressed her question on the fan/noise. In the early days of this release there seem to be a lot of posts that the i7 did indeed get hotter faster and cause the fans to go. This seems to have faded as an issue. Were those posters wrong? Are people taking Anand's word over the those posters?

SchodMC
Aug 16, 2013, 10:56 AM
For people who compared the i5 and the i7, is there a difference in fan noise? I hate fan noise, so that would make me reconsider.

Depends on what you are doing. On light usage (office / internet / etc.), there is no difference in fan noise. I compared both systems and realized, that in this case the fan runs at the same rpm on both machines.

The fan only kicks in if the CPU goes over a specified temperature. This happens when you use the power of the i7. However - also the i5 will kick in his fan when you try to get everything out of the CPU, although not as fast as the i7.

Long story short: fan noise and heat are no argument to decide which CPU to take (IMHO). Meanwhile I think there are only three questions to answer:


Will the MBA be your own system and have to work as desktop replacement for the next years?
Is there a chance that you will come into situations where the power of the i7 comes in handy? (e. g. photo / video editing, software development, gaming, etc. - everything could also be done in a fine way with the i5, but will be snappier with the i7).
Do you have the extra $150 and are you willing to pay it for the opportunity to have some extra power if you will need it?

If you can answer the third and at least one of the first two questions with yes, go for the i7. If not (especially with the last one), you will also be happy with the i5.

Just my two cents

SchodMC

ZBoater
Aug 16, 2013, 03:21 PM
If someone plans to keep the Air for many years and can afford it, upgrade the RAM to make it last, then the SSD. The i7 should be THE LAST thing you upgrade, if you can afford it. And at that point, if you're spending that much and want a machine that lasts, just get the rMBP, it runs faster and has a better screen anyways.

See, this is your epic fail. Presuming to make these blanket statements that apply to everyone. I could afford a rMBP. I didn't get one. Why? For ME, it was size. For someon else, it may be something else. Just because I dropped $2000 on a MBA, doesn't meant I need to "just get" anything else. I got what I wanted. And I got it with the 512GB SSD, which I assume meets with your disapproval too? :rolleyes:

----------

Depends on what you are doing. On light usage (office / internet / etc.), there is no difference in fan noise. I compared both systems and realized, that in this case the fan runs at the same rpm on both machines.

The fan only kicks in if the CPU goes over a specified temperature. This happens when you use the power of the i7. However - also the i5 will kick in his fan when you try to get everything out of the CPU, although not as fast as the i7.

Long story short: fan noise and heat are no argument to decide which CPU to take (IMHO). Meanwhile I think there are only three questions to answer:


Will the MBA be your own system and have to work as desktop replacement for the next years?
Is there a chance that you will come into situations where the power of the i7 comes in handy? (e. g. photo / video editing, software development, gaming, etc. - everything could also be done in a fine way with the i5, but will be snappier with the i7).
Do you have the extra $150 and are you willing to pay it for the opportunity to have some extra power if you will need it?

If you can answer the third and at least one of the first two questions with yes, go for the i7. If not (especially with the last one), you will also be happy with the i5.

Just my two cents

SchodMC

Bravo! Very well put. +1

----------

I don't see that anyone has addressed her question on the fan/noise. In the early days of this release there seem to be a lot of posts that the i7 did indeed get hotter faster and cause the fans to go. This seems to have faded as an issue. Were those posters wrong? Are people taking Anand's word over the those posters?

There's a tremendous amount of i7 envy that has clouded some posts. Typically reviewers like Anandtech tend to be more objective than the guy who bought an i5 and wishes he had gotten an i7, then latches on to every little comment or whisper about fan noise, heat, or battery life to justify their purchase. It's sad to read sometimes, really.

Fan noise is very subjective, as is "heat on my lap" (vs a REAL temp monitor), as is my unofficial battery test. I personally trust a professional reviewer more than an anonymous Macrumors poster. But that's just me. :D

Tarrou8
Aug 16, 2013, 06:07 PM
You two are utterly hilarious ZBoater and mattferg. I think sitting down together and having a beer with Obama would do you both a world of good.

Aylan
Aug 16, 2013, 08:38 PM
I have always said this: If you know the difference between a dual core Intel i5 and i7 and you still feel like you want/need the i7 then get the i7 and do not listen to anyone else.

Truthfully, most people have no idea what the difference is, hence the 3 page thread on i5 vs i7. A faster processor with extra cache will always be faster but in this configuration, the difference that most people will notice is quite small, unless you are doing CPU intense tasks for a measurable amount of time (more than 1 minute, such as rips, renders, compiles, etc.)

Save the $ and get the 256GB SSD, that upgrade will double your write speed! :cool:

ZBoater
Aug 16, 2013, 09:41 PM
You two are utterly hilarious ZBoater and mattferg. I think sitting down together and having a beer with Obama would do you both a world of good.

Ummmmm, ewwww no. I'll buy mattferg TWO beers if we can skip Obama... :p

zachusaf
Aug 17, 2013, 09:07 AM
The way I look at it, you have 3 items: the SSD, memory, and processor.

2 of those items are not upgradeable once the unit leaves the factory. (memory and processor).

Spend the money to upgrade the processor and memory; upgrade the SSD later when its convenient, and hope you have the added benefit of SSD price reductions and technology advances.

DisplacedMic
Aug 17, 2013, 12:26 PM
The way I look at it, you have 3 items: the SSD, memory, and processor.

2 of those items are not upgradeable once the unit leaves the factory. (memory and processor).

Spend the money to upgrade the processor and memory; upgrade the SSD later when its convenient, and hope you have the added benefit of SSD price reductions and technology advances.

This is not an unreasonable position, but I disagree. First, to my knowledge there isn't a SSD available for the MBA yet. Now that being said, presumably there will be - probably sooner rather than later. Second, I think the first upgrade for most people would be the SSD, followed by the RAM and then the CPU. Some people absolutely do not need the extra space so you can choose for yourself, but I will say that the 256 SSD has faster write speeds than the small drive so in addition to the added space, that is probably going to be your biggest performance increase right there.

mattferg
Aug 17, 2013, 06:37 PM
Is there a chance that you will come into situations where the power of the i7 comes in handy? (e. g. photo / video editing, software development, gaming, etc. - everything could also be done in a fine way with the i5, but will be snappier with the i7).



Just my two cents

SchodMC

Sorry Schod, but this is incorrect. Only high-intensity stuff like editing and software development will be snappier with an i7, not everything. As I said before, it's a case of the i5 being able to do everything that the i7 can do until it reaches it's max frequency, as such only high intensity stuff will be faster.

Especially with gaming, the i7 adds no extra benefit whatsoever as the bottleneck in speeds is the GPU.

----------

See, this is your epic fail. Presuming to make these blanket statements that apply to everyone. I could afford a rMBP. I didn't get one. Why? For ME, it was size. For someon else, it may be something else. Just because I dropped $2000 on a MBA, doesn't meant I need to "just get" anything else. I got what I wanted. And I got it with the 512GB SSD, which I assume meets with your disapproval too? :rolleyes:

----------



Bravo! Very well put. +1

----------



There's a tremendous amount of i7 envy that has clouded some posts. Typically reviewers like Anandtech tend to be more objective than the guy who bought an i5 and wishes he had gotten an i7, then latches on to every little comment or whisper about fan noise, heat, or battery life to justify their purchase. It's sad to read sometimes, really.

Fan noise is very subjective, as is "heat on my lap" (vs a REAL temp monitor), as is my unofficial battery test. I personally trust a professional reviewer more than an anonymous Macrumors poster. But that's just me. :D

No, I totally approve of the 512GB SSD.

There's a tremendous amount of misinformation about how the technology inside our Macs work on this forum, and if you think my opinion is down to i7 envy (which BTW, I had the money to upgrade to and chose not to, so I could spend it on other things) you're seriously misguided.

The fact remains that for the HUGE portion of MBA users that do not do high intensity CPU tasks, which judging by this thread seems to be MOST PEOPLE (including yourself, ironically), they do not nor will ever need the i7. The i5 can match it in pretty much anything, and including the anand review there are various sources across the internet that state this view. As such, with users who don't do high intensity tasks, upgrading the RAM and SSD is a much better way to future proof their devices. Eliciting a blanket statement recommending one upgrade is what YOU do in pretty much every one of these threads.

What there does seem to be emanating from you is a need to justify wasting $150 on performance you don't need. As such you seem to feel the need to make others think they should spend it too. I guess your wallet really misses that $150 :rolleyes:

And as for the battery life issue, I've stated facts before that the anand review supports and you completely dismiss them, so I know who's latching onto ideas here.

magbarn
Aug 18, 2013, 12:14 AM
Mattferg, given you routinely espouse that we don't need the i7, have you actually compared the i7 and i5 side-by-side? Even loading up web pages like facebook - which a large percentage of the users here use - there's a notable difference in how fast the i7 MBA will render the website vs. the i5. Not saying the majority of here need the i7, but there is difference in speed in many everyday tasks.

ZBoater
Aug 18, 2013, 12:15 AM
... MOST PEOPLE (including yourself, ironically), they do not nor will ever need the i7. The i5 can match it in pretty much anything, and including the anand review there are various sources across the internet that state this view....

What there does seem to be emanating from you is a need to justify wasting $150 on performance you don't need..

What I find fascinating is how presumptuous you are in your statements.

"The i5 can match it (the i7) in pretty much anything..."

ROFL!!! Good one!

And thanks for setting me straight on what I need and don't need. I appreciate that. Really. :rolleyes:

mattferg
Aug 18, 2013, 06:00 AM
What I find fascinating is how presumptuous you are in your statements.

"The i5 can match it (the i7) in pretty much anything..."

ROFL!!! Good one!

And thanks for setting me straight on what I need and don't need. I appreciate that. Really. :rolleyes:

Again, fails to rebuke any of my points, and just resorts to childish ridicule. I think it's become obvious here who's got a personal stake in this.

----------

Mattferg, given you routinely espouse that we don't need the i7, have you actually compared the i7 and i5 side-by-side? Even loading up web pages like facebook - which a large percentage of the users here use - there's a notable difference in how fast the i7 MBA will render the website vs. the i5. Not saying the majority of here need the i7, but there is difference in speed in many everyday tasks.

I'm sorry, but this just isn't true. I've just replied to a fellow who's messaged me asking what CPU he should go for, and I've recommended the i7 because for the stuff he does, he will actually notice the difference (video editing). I've compared the two side by side, and yes, there's no noticeable difference whatsoever between the i5/8/256 and the i7/8/256 in everyday tasks. Anything you see is purely psychological.

magbarn
Aug 18, 2013, 09:05 AM
I'm sorry, but this just isn't true. I've just replied to a fellow who's messaged me asking what CPU he should go for, and I've recommended the i7 because for the stuff he does, he will actually notice the difference (video editing). I've compared the two side by side, and yes, there's no noticeable difference whatsoever between the i5/8/256 and the i7/8/256 in everyday tasks. Anything you see is purely psychological.


I guess some of us here will agree to disagree. I had 2 identical machines save for the cpu, same 8gb of ram, same Samsung 256gb, heck even both of the 11" had LG screens, and again and again I compared the 2 side-by-side. The i7 finished browsing, brought up iPhoto pics faster, rendered in Lightroom faster. I DESPERATELY wanted to keep the i5 to save a few bennies, but ended up returning her as she was definitely slower. I used to have these similar arguments when I got my 2012 rMBP and many of us went back and forth about screen 'lag' between the cMBP/rMBP when scrolling. To this day, the 2012 cMBP still has a much smoother Safari experience for me. I guess I'm one of the gamer 'types' that definitely notice the difference between 60 fps/ 30fps, whilst a fellow friend of mine can't tell the difference at all.

ZBoater
Aug 18, 2013, 09:16 AM
....The i7 finished browsing, brought up iPhoto pics faster, rendered in Lightroom faster...

Yes, but its all in you head. You are imagining it. Return the i7, get the i5, and spend the $150 in a psychiatrist session... :rolleyes:

Which brings up the age old question - if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_a_tree_falls_in_a_forest)

mattferg
Aug 18, 2013, 09:49 AM
I guess some of us here will agree to disagree. I had 2 identical machines save for the cpu, same 8gb of ram, same Samsung 256gb, heck even both of the 11" had LG screens, and again and again I compared the 2 side-by-side. The i7 finished browsing, brought up iPhoto pics faster, rendered in Lightroom faster. I DESPERATELY wanted to keep the i5 to save a few bennies, but ended up returning her as she was definitely slower. I used to have these similar arguments when I got my 2012 rMBP and many of us went back and forth about screen 'lag' between the cMBP/rMBP when scrolling. To this day, the 2012 cMBP still has a much smoother Safari experience for me. I guess I'm one of the gamer 'types' that definitely notice the difference between 60 fps/ 30fps, whilst a fellow friend of mine can't tell the difference at all.

Oh no, for stuff like rendering lightroom I will completely agree with you that the i7 does it faster. That's what it's for - people who do high intensity CPU tasks like photo/video editing, or programming. However this really isn't everyday daily use for most people, and as such doing light everyday tasks the i5 and i7 are identical. I've done tests browsing and opening documents and they're identical, but yes I agree for rendering and the like the i7 is definitely a better choice :) You made the right call.

When it comes to the average end user though, who's just typing word documents and browsing the web, the i7 isn't going to make any difference whatsoever though :) And the $150 is best saved. Even for gaming it's a waste, as all the benchmarks have shown the $150 upgrade gives you 7FPS more, max. And that's not 7FPS like 18-25 where it could be useful, that's 7FPS in the 30+ range where it doesn't make much difference. I WISH it was a 30FPS increase, I'd pay for the i7 in a heartbeat.

Apologies if my position has confused you, I'm arguing against ZBoater who seems to recommend the i7 to everyone who has $150 to spare, over and above RAM and SSD, which is a terrible stance to have. He doesn't even use the performance.

----------

Yes, but its all in you head. You are imagining it. Return the i7, get the i5, and spend the $150 in a psychiatrist session... :rolleyes:


Again childish responses with no rebuke to my points. Your wallet must really miss that $150.

mr.bee
Aug 18, 2013, 10:24 AM
what a horrible discussion.

the i7 is faster, get over it. psychological statements my ....

do you need 100 horsepower or 120 horsepower? both cars will do the same job. will you notice it when you ride in a city at 30km/h? very slightly, it will not maximize the engine output for both.
will you notice it on a highway? yes.

what do you need to buy? whatever is your choice. don't start on what's needed or not or I'll cast you back to the days of no electricity. Electricity is not 'needed' either to live <_<

And yes I'm very interested in the exact performance difference between the two, because of the impact when working with an external screen. And the Airs in the Apple shop didn't blow me away.

AXs
Aug 18, 2013, 10:26 AM
Yea I am noticing the constant appeal to ridicule as well, especially how the emoticon at the end is meant to add strength?

Anyways, the bottom line is, it is $150 to get to i7. No big deal right? Why not get it even if you don't need it?

Oh wait, then it is 'just' another $150 to get to the base 13" Retina. Might as well right?

Wait wait, hold on a second... $150 on top of that and you'll get a 256GB SSD instead of base 128GB 13" Retina. Hold on now, that's surely better, right?

But Wait! $150 more and you're going to get a 15" Pro! woah, why settle for a entry level laptop when you can get a 15" Pro ? Bigger screen, faster, dedicated graphics!

Wait, before I swipe your card.... think about it, BECAUSE ANOTHER $150, you can get a 15" Retina Pro! How amazing is that? JUST another $150 - RETINA!

You know what... since we're already here- lets add ANOTHER $150, and JUST $150 more on top of that $150... and we're going to get Apple's top of the line 15" Retina Pro.

Thank you for spending JUST $150 to get what you want.
-Apple

----
One of the first things I learnt once I had to spend my own income, is that there will almost always be "just a biiiit more" to everything in life. It's the biggest propeller of debt.

Always spend less than your budget, not exactly your budget, and definitely NOT jusuust a 'bit' more.

There are always unseen expenses that will stretch your purchase. Spend about 10-20% less than your budget, and you'll end up spending your budget for the 'complete' product/service.

-AXs, out

SchodMC
Aug 18, 2013, 10:48 AM
Sorry Schod, but this is incorrect. Only high-intensity stuff like editing and software development will be snappier with an i7, not everything. As I said before, it's a case of the i5 being able to do everything that the i7 can do until it reaches it's max frequency, as such only high intensity stuff will be faster.

Especially with gaming, the i7 adds no extra benefit whatsoever as the bottleneck in speeds is the GPU.

You're right, but that was the usage scenario I had in mind as I wrote that post. The "i7 will be snappier" was meant for the situations I said in the second point (video / photo editing, developing - again I run into the "english-trap" :-( ). Ok, for gaming, It depends on the kind of game. Some benchmarks had shown, that (depending on the settings) the difference between i5 / i7 can be measured. But it also could be that there is no game the i5 can't run while the i7 will do the job. Maybe if the i5 wouldn't run the game in an playable way, the i7 won't do it either.

But to be honest - the MBA is no gaming machine. It's an ultra portable computer, delivering more power that will be expected (this also belongs to the i5) so that it is a good computer for nearly all kind of work and some gaming abilities... ;-)

cu
SchodMC

mattferg
Aug 18, 2013, 11:11 AM
what a horrible discussion.

the i7 is faster, get over it. psychological statements my ....

do you need 100 horsepower or 120 horsepower? both cars will do the same job. will you notice it when you ride in a city at 30km/h? very slightly, it will not maximize the engine output for both.
will you notice it on a highway? yes.

And yes I'm very interested in the exact performance difference between the two, because of the impact when working with an external screen. And the Airs in the Apple shop didn't blow me away.

Um, it's not really like that. It's more like the difference between 300 horsepower and 320. You'll never notice it driving through town or on a highway, only on a track where engine power is absolutely needed. As such, for most people, the power would never ever get used.

Oh, and there's no impact when working with an external screen, I think Schod's situation came from him working with high-intensity CPU stuff when using an external screen, which has little to nothing to do with the fact it was a second display. The rendering for the screen is done by the GPU, which as I'm sure you know, is the same 5000 for both the i5 and i7. The notion that Intel's latest processor series would struggle running an external screen is a silly one at best.

This discussion is important because it stops people wasting $150 they can spend on other stuff :) Most people don't need to spend it, some do, period.

SchodMC
Aug 18, 2013, 01:18 PM
Um, it's not really like that. It's more like the difference between 300 horsepower and 320. You'll never notice it driving through town or on a highway, only on a track where engine power is absolutely needed. As such, for most people, the power would never ever get used.

Oh, and there's no impact when working with an external screen, I think Schod's situation came from him working with high-intensity CPU stuff when using an external screen, which has little to nothing to do with the fact it was a second display. The rendering for the screen is done by the GPU, which as I'm sure you know, is the same 5000 for both the i5 and i7. The notion that Intel's latest processor series would struggle running an external screen is a silly one at best.

This discussion is important because it stops people wasting $150 they can spend on other stuff :) Most people don't need to spend it, some do, period.

I had the impact with a couple of windows / apps opened on different spaces screens, but no high-intensity CPU stuff was active then. Benchmark-Tests had shown, that the i5 will also throttle the GPU more than the i7 will do. But I don't know if this is also for idle mode or only for high GPU usage. And I also said a couple of times: I don't know if there was an other problem with the i5 model I had. Although there are some other users that will realize some lazy working power or lags with the i5. (Don't want to start over into the "psychological" discussion again. ;) )

Meanwhile I'm really totally confused. ;) The i7 has 400MHz more base clock as well as 1MB more L3 cache. Don't know if this really isn't noticeable. Anand wrote in his description for the battery life test "There's enough idle time baked in to make sure that the Core i7 based 13-inch MBA isn't artifically penalized by having to do more work than the i5 model simply because it's faster." So the i7 will do the same job as the i5 in a faster way!

IMHO, the primary question is not whether you will realize the difference or not. It's the question if the difference is that big that the i7 is a must-have upgrade for everyone. And here (as i7 owner) I have to be fair and say: no! But it also will not be a complete useless upgrade for the people that say to themselves "it's worth for me and for what I'm going to do with the MBA to invest the $150".

cu
SchodMC

AXs
Aug 18, 2013, 02:07 PM
Um, it's not really like that. It's more like the difference between 300 horsepower and 320. You'll never notice it driving through town or on a highway, only on a track where engine power is absolutely needed. As such, for most people, the power would never ever get used.

Oh, and there's no impact when working with an external screen, I think Schod's situation came from him working with high-intensity CPU stuff when using an external screen, which has little to nothing to do with the fact it was a second display. The rendering for the screen is done by the GPU, which as I'm sure you know, is the same 5000 for both the i5 and i7. The notion that Intel's latest processor series would struggle running an external screen is a silly one at best.

This discussion is important because it stops people wasting $150 they can spend on other stuff :) Most people don't need to spend it, some do, period.

Brilliantly and cleverly said.

Yea, and if I could run an external display on s-video 10 years ago without a problem, no way 2013 graphics is going to have problems. That's just crazy.

As the man politely said, it comes from CPU driven tasks and not a GPU bottleneck.

The thing is, the i5 and i7 are so minimally different - EVEN with high end tasks, that you will barely be able to account for the difference. 20% sounds big till you realize 10 seconds cut to 8 seconds IS the 20% Anandtech was talking about, amongst others.

Bottom line, if the i5 is struggling with some CPU intensive task, it almost guaranteed that the i7 will face those struggles too. And I'm not talking about a 1 second stutter. I'm talking about lack of processor power for a said task.

Okay, so say the i5 gives you stuttering performance for a high-performance task.. the i7 takes away SOME of the stuttering to make it smoother - though unlikely.

The underlying question still is - Is this the right laptop for you? a 1-2 month old laptop is already working at MAX CPU capability, or close - how good of a buy was it?
You're buying the Air to run at 100% to just get by for your primary functioning needs? That doesn't sound like an ideal purchase.

So at the end of the day just get what makes you happy. Either way, you're getting one of the weaker performance-based laptops in the entire market... BUT the BEST battery life ever on a mobile computer.

Dr. McKay
Aug 18, 2013, 04:05 PM
About that 'driving through town' and 'highway' analogy : I definitely consider surfing the web with safari or chrome to be nothing more than 'driving through town'.
Yet, people have been stating that the i5 even struggles with that (jerky scrolling on content heavy websites), even with 8Gb of RAM. If that's true, that's more than incentive enough to switch to an i7, much more so than gaining a couple of seconds when rendering video...

DisplacedMic
Aug 18, 2013, 04:33 PM
i don't know about you guys (and I know i"m contributing to the problem) but I really wish this thread would die.

mattferg
Aug 18, 2013, 04:58 PM
About that 'driving through town' and 'highway' analogy : I definitely consider surfing the web with safari or chrome to be nothing more than 'driving through town'.
Yet, people have been stating that the i5 even struggles with that (jerky scrolling on content heavy websites), even with 8Gb of RAM. If that's true, that's more than incentive enough to switch to an i7, much more so than gaining a couple of seconds when rendering video...

Um, seriously? You think a fairly high tier mobile processor from 2013 stutters running webpages? Honestly I've got an i5 (albeit with 8GB of RAM) and I've never experienced any stutter with a webpage, period. Chrome runs 100% smoothly on mine, people who have this issue should probably get their Air checked. As AXs amazingly put, the i7 isn't going to solve this, anyways.

Heck, I had a netbook from 2009 running Windows 8 before this, and that hardly ever stuttered running a webpage.

SchodMC
Aug 18, 2013, 05:02 PM
Um, seriously? You think a fairly high tier mobile processor from 2013 stutters running webpages? Honestly I've got an i5 (albeit with 8GB of RAM) and I've never experienced any stutter with a webpage, period. Chrome runs 100% smoothly on mine, people who have this issue should probably get their Air checked. As AXs amazingly put, the i7 isn't going to solve this, anyways.

Heck, I had a netbook from 2009 running Windows 8 before this, and that hardly ever stuttered running a webpage.

As far as I know shuttered web pages seems to be a Safari problem. People using chrome won't have these problem. And it seems that Safari 7 with Mavericks will change a lot at this point.

cu
SchodMC

Dr. McKay
Aug 18, 2013, 05:03 PM
Um, seriously? You think a fairly high tier mobile processor from 2013 stutters running webpages?

I didn't think so either, but I'd better make sure before forking out that much money...

mattferg
Aug 18, 2013, 05:04 PM
I didn't think so either, but I'd better make sure before forking out that much money...

There's no webpage issues whatsoever :) I've also run TF2 (albeit not wonderfully intense game here :P) on full settings and it ran perfectly smoothly! The i7 isn't really worth the money for most people tbh.

What were you planning to use your Air for?

Dr. McKay
Aug 19, 2013, 04:31 AM
What were you planning to use your Air for?

Browsing, youtube, iWork, iLife (mostly iTunes and iPhoto, some iMovie), Textwrangler, some gaming (most demanding games would be World of Warcraft and X-Com). No heavy photo and/or video editing, no creative suite level stuff. Also some website management via CMS or lightweight desktop editors (something like Rapidweaver).
Nothing too taxing, really.

I know an i5 just has to be able to handle stuff like this with ease, but I sometimes tend to listen too much to negative feedback. I guess I should stop reading this thread :D

ZBoater
Aug 19, 2013, 07:16 AM
...I know an i5 just has to be able to handle stuff like this with ease, but I sometimes tend to listen too much to negative feedback. I guess I should stop reading this thread :D

Please understand that people's feedback is often colored by their circumstances. Coming to a forum like this and reading posts is very useful, but you have to take the "advice" with a grain of salt. Some folks say their i5s stutter when browsing some webpages. Others say that is impossible and its all in their heads. Some people say their i7s run too hot and will melt their laps. Others say its not a big deal.

There is some value in reading these posts to help you make a decision, but in the end it will be up to you to decide (of course) so you need to consider your uses, your budget, and other sources of information. I put more weight on reviews done by other websites than on random posts by anonymous strangers on an internet forum (like me :D ). But even the website reviews could potentially be biased, so I don't simply accept them as gospel. Anandtech has a fairly strong reputation for doing good reviews. Check out their review (http://www.anandtech.com/show/7113/2013-macbook-air-core-i5-4250u-vs-core-i7-4650u) for additional information.

Also, when considering random anonymous advice from the internet, its a good idea to understand the motivation behind it. Some people recommend the i5 because its $150 cheaper, and they are big on saving $150. Others (like me) recommend the i7 because we value extra performance over saving $150. We rather get the most computer we can afford, because we believe no one ever complained about their computer being too fast or too powerful.

Whichever one you buy, the MBA is a great machine. Good luck.

AXs
Aug 19, 2013, 08:25 AM
You're missing out a few pointers on why people recommend the i5. The primary reason - most people will not ever use the extra power. The i5 will suffice for browsing, media, light gaming, office...

Secondly, i7 drains 20% more battery than i5 at med-high usage (up to 2 hours loss)

but yes, it will give you 20% extra performance for some tasks, like importing 720p (from 10 seconds to 8 seconds...yes this means 20%boost). I guess you'll save a minute for an hour's work. Might end up saving 10 minutes using the i7 on a busy day on the Air.

magbarn
Aug 19, 2013, 08:41 AM
You're missing out a few pointers on why people recommend the i5. The primary reason - most people will not ever use the extra power. The i5 will suffice for browsing, media, light gaming, office...

Secondly, i7 drains 20% more battery than i5 at med-high usage (up to 2 hours loss)

but yes, it will give you 20% extra performance for some tasks, like importing 720p (from 10 seconds to 8 seconds...yes this means 20%boost). I guess you'll save a minute for an hour's work. Might end up saving 10 minutes using the i7 on a busy day on the Air.

Kept the i7 as I will routinely use Lightroom and after exporting several hundred SLR images, that 20% can easily make a difference of 10-15 minutes per hour not 1 minute. In all honesty, I really didn't need the i7, but since I'm lazy and like to use my MBA instead of my much heavier rMBP 15, I use the MBA for photo editing and video conversions and in those 2 uses, the i7 walks all over the i5. Which the average Macrumors user doesn't do.

ZBoater
Aug 19, 2013, 09:25 AM
Here's some interesting reading to add more perspective to the debate...

http://blog.laptopmag.com/core-i7-macbook-air-2013

http://youtu.be/oDqJ-on03z4

http://www.macworld.com/article/2042347/lab-tested-ultimate-macbook-air-2013-holds-its-own-against-the-macbook-pro.html

http://michael.olivero.com/post/2012/07/29/Macbook-Air-2012-i5-vs-i7-Heat-Fan-Battery-Speed-analysis.aspx

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7113/2013-macbook-air-core-i5-4250u-vs-core-i7-4650u

m98custom1212
Aug 19, 2013, 09:43 AM
You're missing out a few pointers on why people recommend the i5. The primary reason - most people will not ever use the extra power. The i5 will suffice for browsing, media, light gaming, office...

Secondly, i7 drains 20% more battery than i5 at med-high usage (up to 2 hours loss)

but yes, it will give you 20% extra performance for some tasks, like importing 720p (from 10 seconds to 8 seconds...yes this means 20%boost). I guess you'll save a minute for an hour's work. Might end up saving 10 minutes using the i7 on a busy day on the Air.

Are you trying to justify your purchase on the I5?

AXs
Aug 19, 2013, 12:56 PM
Actually not at all. I don't need to justify anything to anyone. I have a $2500 laptop for performance tasks. And a MacPro equivalent custom PC.

I just don't see why people would buy an air for graphics designing? Unless it is a question of budget in a case where you MUST use a mac?

Whatever. i5 or i7. Pick your poison - Less battery life, or less power. Your call.

Just stating that to the 'average' user (which the Air is aimed at), i5 will suffice.

People are going on about how i5/8 is stuttering, or i5/4 wont work. It is utterly hilarious. An in-store product by apple cannot browse the web in 2013? Ridiculous.

If you need the i7 specifically, because you want to do graphics/engineering work, I think it's a great decision. Albeit, picking a pro with dedicated graphics would make more sense?
Again, Maybe budget is the issue? Our in-house designers all have iMacs or 15" Pros.

But that's a different topic for a different day. Maybe if you ONLY have the Air, you should go for an i7. Definitely in that case.

But I don't think owning the Air solely will suffice in 2013. Gotta have a graphics card, know what I mean?

Good day.

mattferg
Aug 19, 2013, 02:04 PM
Browsing, youtube, iWork, iLife (mostly iTunes and iPhoto, some iMovie), Textwrangler, some gaming (most demanding games would be World of Warcraft and X-Com). No heavy photo and/or video editing, no creative suite level stuff. Also some website management via CMS or lightweight desktop editors (something like Rapidweaver).
Nothing too taxing, really.

I know an i5 just has to be able to handle stuff like this with ease, but I sometimes tend to listen too much to negative feedback. I guess I should stop reading this thread :D

You do pretty much what I do on my Air, and I've never noticed it stutter or struggle to do any of this :) Get the i5, save $150 and enjoy your Mac. Enjoy the $150 even more :)

A lot of people in this thread have been coloured by 'Apple logic' which is what I call 'more expensive is always better' which is definitely not true in a lot of cases. Most people will never use the power of the i7, and as such the i5 is a great CPU to have. We're in this class my friend, enjoy your Mac :)

Dr. McKay
Aug 20, 2013, 09:49 AM
Let's make it a bit more interesting :
With my budget, I can get the i5/8/256.
I've got some money left, so I can either go for the i7, or spend practically the same amount on Applecare.

Tough one :D

m98custom1212
Aug 20, 2013, 10:00 AM
I7 RULES!

That is all

Ronnoco
Aug 20, 2013, 12:52 PM
Let's make it a bit more interesting :
With my budget, I can get the i5/8/256.
I've got some money left, so I can either go for the i7, or spend practically the same amount on Applecare.

Tough one :D

You have a year to get AppleCare...:D

mattferg
Aug 20, 2013, 02:13 PM
Let's make it a bit more interesting :
With my budget, I can get the i5/8/256.
I've got some money left, so I can either go for the i7, or spend practically the same amount on Applecare.

Tough one :D

Applecare. Applecare Applecare Applecare.

SchodMC
Aug 20, 2013, 03:05 PM
Let's make it a bit more interesting :
With my budget, I can get the i5/8/256.
I've got some money left, so I can either go for the i7, or spend practically the same amount on Applecare.

Tough one :D

Well - I like the i7 but if you have to make that choice, I only can say: go for AppleCare. (Wow, mattferg and I have the same point of view. Wonders happens from time to time - just kidding. :p)

My stepfather has an late 2011 MBP 13" and of his USB ports stopped working. He went to the Apple store and they made some tests. The result: the mainboard needs to be replaced. Normally it will cost round about $400, but because he bought an AppleCare, he got the replacement for free. On the other hand, it was the first of 6 MacBooks that I know where AppleCare comes in use. But there will always a chance that your MacBook is the one.

AppleCare is something you possibly will regret if you don't need it (maybe except the whole 3 years phone support). But you will be happy that you invested the money for it, if somethings goes wrong with your Apple-Hardware.

cu
SchodMC

flynz4
Aug 20, 2013, 03:29 PM
I generally use two computers as follows:

MBA - light use
iMac - Heavy use

However... often, when I am on the road, or spending a week at my beach house... my MBA (w/ATD) is my only machine... in that case:

MBA (on batteries) - light use
MBA (plugged in) - Heavy use, as my iMac replacement.

What I have found, is that during light use, there is no significant difference in battery life between an i5 and i7. Furthermore, I have never ever used my MBA for heavy use while running on batteries. When doing heavy work... I am plugged in, have external drives attached, and typically using my 27" ATD. In these case, the extra performance is welcomed.

Hence... there is zero penalty for having an i7 in my normal usage.
For me... the extra $150 is totally immaterial. I understand that it would not be the case for everyone.

/Jim

AXs
Aug 20, 2013, 05:23 PM
Having to plug it in everytime you want to use a high-performance tasks is definitely a penalty for a laptop that emphasizes portability - whether i5 or i7.

Should get yourself an iMac for your beach house. I dont know about you but $2000 is a tiny investment for a getaway house, right? Even if you may just visit periodically.

m98custom1212
Aug 20, 2013, 06:00 PM
Having to plug it in everytime you want to use a high-performance tasks is definitely a penalty for a laptop that emphasizes portability - whether i5 or i7.

Should get yourself an iMac for your beach house. I dont know about you but $2000 is a tiny investment for a getaway house, right? Even if you may just visit periodically.

I cant tell if your serious or not

ZBoater
Aug 20, 2013, 06:05 PM
Having to plug it in everytime you want to use a high-performance tasks is definitely a penalty for a laptop that emphasizes portability - whether i5 or i7.....

Huh? :confused:

Who has to plug in "every" time??? I can play Civ5 for 3 hours before I need to plug in. I don't expect to be able to play Civ5 unplugged for 9-12 hours. It's just not realistic. Nor am I going to give up portability because I want to run a high-performance application.

You can have your cake AND eat it too. Portability AND power. It's called the MBA i7. :cool:

AXs
Aug 20, 2013, 06:28 PM
huh? :confused:

Who has to plug in "every" time??? I can play civ5 for 3 hours before i need to plug in. I don't expect to be able to play civ5 unplugged for 9-12 hours. It's just not realistic. Nor am i going to give up portability because i want to run a high-performance application.

You can have your cake and eat it too. Portability and power. It's called the mba i7. :cool:

:d

Actually I wish it was powerful enough. I'm buying my 12 year old nephew a laptop for his birthday next month. And he loves to play games so I have to buy that bugger a 15" Pro... to play in his friend's house... because he can't carry his Mac Pro around. (he specifically asked for a 15" Apple Laptop).

(Not sure if bad parenting, or awesome Apple advertising).

flynz4
Aug 21, 2013, 01:36 AM
Having to plug it in everytime you want to use a high-performance tasks is definitely a penalty for a laptop that emphasizes portability - whether i5 or i7.

Should get yourself an iMac for your beach house. I dont know about you but $2000 is a tiny investment for a getaway house, right? Even if you may just visit periodically.

I think you totally missed the point... or maybe you just enjoy being difficult. I never said that I NEEDED to plug it in when I do high performance work... it is just that it is always convenient to do so.

Furthermore I don't want a 27" iMac at my beach house. The purpose (for me) of my 27" iMac is to be the repository of 100% of my original data. I do not need two such places. I just need (and want) one. Also... not that it matters to me... but my iMac does not cost $2000. It is closer to $3500.... or over $6000 when you add in the second TBD & Pegasus R4. However... it has NOTHING to do with money. It has to do with having the proper tools for an efficient workflow. For me... that is an iMac and a MBA... both as powerful as possible.

By contrast to my iMac (which is home to 100% of my personal data)... my MBA just has the data that I need and want to have while being mobile. It generally contains any photos that I shoot while on a trip... or some Aperture projects that I might migrate to my MBA to work on while on a trip. I also might be using FCPX or Handbrake. All of those apps will take advantage of the i7. All of them (especially Aperture)... work fantastic in an iMac/MBA combination... the workflow is impeccably efficient.

At the beach house, I use a 27" TBD. That is a better solution while there than having an iMac... because when I show up with my MBA... I can plug it in, use my high performance apps, and have a powerful enough workstation to do my work... with the data that I need to have with me already loaded onto my MBA.

Hence... my MBA gives me all the battery life I can possibly want while being mobile. The battery lasts just as long as an i5 when mobile... it outlasts me 100% of the time. I've never needed more battery in a full work/play day. It also gives me the performance that I want when I want to use high performance apps. It is the perfect machine for my usage.

/Jim

mattferg
Aug 21, 2013, 05:17 PM
Huh? :confused:

Who has to plug in "every" time??? I can play Civ5 for 3 hours before I need to plug in. I don't expect to be able to play Civ5 unplugged for 9-12 hours. It's just not realistic. Nor am I going to give up portability because I want to run a high-performance application.

You can have your cake AND eat it too. Portability AND power. It's called the MBA i7. :cool:

Not that the battery life or performance would be any different running Civ5 on an i5, as it doesn't take advantage of the extra CPU as the game is GPU-limited. I suppose you'd be able to buy/afford other games if you hadn't spent $150 on unused performance.

Portability and power? m8 this is the Macbook Air thread, not the rMBP.

ZBoater
Aug 21, 2013, 06:15 PM
Not that the battery life or performance would be any different running Civ5 on an i5, as it doesn't take advantage of the extra CPU as the game is GPU-limited....

Civ 5? GPU limited? Do you even KNOW what Civ 5 is??? :confused:

Please, at the very least Google something before you type misinformation like this. :rolleyes:

ezekielrage_99
Aug 21, 2013, 07:09 PM
i5/8/256 is the sweet spot for the Air, you should go for that one :)

Spot on, it's both the best price point with the best performance + longevity.

For most users out there they won't notice a difference between i5 and i7.

PDFierro
Aug 21, 2013, 08:44 PM
Spot on, it's both the best price point with the best performance + longevity.

For most users out there they won't notice a difference between i5 and i7.

Exactly. I don't see the point in advocating for someone to get an i7 when they would truly would not benefit from it. Sure if cost is no issue, but for some people it is.

ZBoater
Aug 21, 2013, 08:52 PM
Exactly. I don't see the point in advocating for someone to get an i7 when they would truly would not benefit from it. Sure if cost is no issue, but for some people it is.

But thats the fallacy that every review and benchmark has proven false. If you see the different benchmarks, even the ones that simulate daily office use (not games or encoding or CAD), you will see an advantage in performance of the i7 over the i5.

It's ok to want to save $150. It's not OK to gloss over the performance difference between two different classes of processor that the manufacturer explicitly designed and built to BE different. If the difference is not worth it to some, that's a whole other conversation. But to deny that the difference exists is silly. Especially when there has been numerous people in this forum expressing their observations of the performance difference only to be told it's all in their heads and its psychological.

Most people would benefit from a faster processor. Is it worth $150 to them? well that depends on their specific financial situation, and has NOTHING to do with the simple inescapable fact that the i7 performs better than the i5. Period. No ifs, ands, buts, or imaginations. :cool:

AXs
Aug 21, 2013, 11:53 PM
What's a fallacy? What fallacy is he applying? Seems legit to me.

Please state specifically what fallacy you think it is so I can explain to you why it isn't true ;)

ItHurtsWhenIP
Aug 22, 2013, 12:11 AM
What's a fallacy? What fallacy is he applying? Seems legit to me.

Please state specifically what fallacy you think it is so I can explain to you why it isn't true ;)

Vocabulary lessons aside, how would he know whether someone would truly benefit from it or not?

If it performs better than the i5, which is, I assume, why they call it an i7 instead of an i5, wouldn't everybody benefit from it in some way, shape or form?

mr.bee
Aug 22, 2013, 04:36 AM
But thats the fallacy that every review and benchmark has proven false. If you see the different benchmarks, even the ones that simulate daily office use (not games or encoding or CAD), you will see an advantage in performance of the i7 over the i5.


Yeah, what's the obsession with, "you only notice a slightly difference in CPU intensive tasks."
That kind of oversimplifying is leading to wrong conclusions.

mattferg
Aug 22, 2013, 04:41 AM
But thats the fallacy that every review and benchmark has proven false. If you see the different benchmarks, even the ones that simulate daily office use (not games or encoding or CAD), you will see an advantage in performance of the i7 over the i5.

It's ok to want to save $150. It's not OK to gloss over the performance difference between two different classes of processor that the manufacturer explicitly designed and built to BE different. If the difference is not worth it to some, that's a whole other conversation. But to deny that the difference exists is silly. Especially when there has been numerous people in this forum expressing their observations of the performance difference only to be told it's all in their heads and its psychological.

Most people would benefit from a faster processor. Is it worth $150 to them? well that depends on their specific financial situation, and has NOTHING to do with the simple inescapable fact that the i7 performs better than the i5. Period. No ifs, ands, buts, or imaginations. :cool:

Seriously? Are you still spewing this drivel? Most people would benefit from a faster processor, however in the scenarios they would use their Air in, the i7 is not faster than the i5 especially not for everyday tasks.

Every review of the processors have proved this, and benchmarks?! You mean those things that run the CPU at FULL INTENSITY? You have to be kidding me. Do you even understand how turbo boost works? Until you get to tasks that are 2.8ghz+, the i5 will be just as fast as the i7, FACT. It's not okay to gloss over THIS.

The i5 and the i7 perform identically in everyday scenarios. I've tested this. Period. Now stop whining about how you wasted $150 and stop wasting other people's time and money.

mr.bee
Aug 22, 2013, 04:44 AM
Seriously? Are you still spewing this drivel? Most people would benefit from a faster processor, however in the scenarios they would use their Air in, the i7 is not faster than the i5 especially not for everyday tasks.

Every review of the processors have proved this, and benchmarks?! You mean those things that run the CPU at FULL INTENSITY? You have to be kidding me. Do you even understand how turbo boost works? Until you get to tasks that are 2.8ghz+, the i5 will be just as fast as the i7, FACT. It's not okay to gloss over THIS.

The i5 and the i7 perform identically in everyday scenarios. I've tested this. Period. Now stop whining about how you wasted $150 and stop wasting other people's time and money.

I've seen test results that do state a difference in everyday scenarios.

The i7 is faster than the i5.

stop being rude

DisplacedMic
Aug 22, 2013, 09:15 AM
Seriously? Are you still spewing this drivel? Most people would benefit from a faster processor, however in the scenarios they would use their Air in, the i7 is not faster than the i5 especially not for everyday tasks.

Every review of the processors have proved this, and benchmarks?! You mean those things that run the CPU at FULL INTENSITY? You have to be kidding me. Do you even understand how turbo boost works? Until you get to tasks that are 2.8ghz+, the i5 will be just as fast as the i7, FACT. It's not okay to gloss over THIS.

The i5 and the i7 perform identically in everyday scenarios. I've tested this. Period. Now stop whining about how you wasted $150 and stop wasting other people's time and money.

wow - he's just disagreeing with you and you have matched him post for post with your own "drivel"

there is no reason to be nasty about this issue.

here's the anandtech review's conclusion and i think it sums it up pretty well:

Final Words
Simplicity permeates Apple from design and software all the way down to the purchasing experience. The 2013 MacBook Air offers only two choices of CPUs, and honestly for the vast majority of the population, that's all you really need. The default Core i5 1.3GHz (4250U) delivers the best overall battery life regardless of workload. Its performance is often somewhere in between a 2011 and 2012 MacBook Air depending on workload, although in some cases it's possible to see equivalent performance to an upgraded 2012 MBA. If you need more performance however, the 1.7GHz Core i7 upgrade (4650U) delivers. In most situations you get more than a 20% increase in performance, bringing the platform up to somewhere in between last year's 1.7GHz Core i5 and 2.0GHz Core i7 options. Once again, with the right workload you could even see performance as much as 20% better than a 2GHz Core i7 from last year. Although I didn't publish any results here, GPU performance seemed roughly unchanged compared to the Core i5 option.

so you're both right in the sense that yes, the i5 would be great for most people but the i7 would still give you a 20% boost "in most situations"
so what's the problem? why do you care how other people spend their money?

can we please stop with the personal attacks and threadjacking over minutia?

you post your i5 8gig 256 "sweet-spot" post in every thread asking "i don't know how to use the search feature so what air should i buy?" just like he posts his defense of the i7.

lamboman
Aug 22, 2013, 10:21 AM
I've had a good search around and haven't really found anything conclusive, so I might as well ask here. How have you guys found battery life with the i7 for VMs? Performance on both the i5 and the i7 should be fine, and battery life under light loads should be the same, however my concern with the i7 is that battery life will be considerably shorter than the i5 when running a Windows 7/8 64-bit VM. The i7 may be quicker, but this will be useless to me if the battery life is notably reduced (eg. from 6 to 5 hours or so). Issue with a VM is that it is a mix between a light-medium load, and a medium-heavy load...I haven't really found any test results which cover this type of scenario. Anybody who has had both an i5 and i7 machine that could offer their input?

The i7 would probably be the preferred option for those rare times where I need to run two VMs and plug the machine in, but for a single VM some input would be appreciated. Thanks all :)

TType85
Aug 22, 2013, 12:05 PM
I've had a good search around and haven't really found anything conclusive, so I might as well ask here. How have you guys found battery life with the i7 for VMs? Performance on both the i5 and the i7 should be fine, and battery life under light loads should be the same, however my concern with the i7 is that battery life will be considerably shorter than the i5 when running a Windows 7/8 64-bit VM. The i7 may be quicker, but this will be useless to me if the battery life is notably reduced (eg. from 6 to 5 hours or so). Issue with a VM is that it is a mix between a light-medium load, and a medium-heavy load...I haven't really found any test results which cover this type of scenario. Anybody who has had both an i5 and i7 machine that could offer their input?

The i7 would probably be the preferred option for those rare times where I need to run two VMs and plug the machine in, but for a single VM some input would be appreciated. Thanks all :)

I had the 13" i5/8/256 Air for a few days and my windows VM ran fine through parallels. I was running Visual Studio and SQL Server along with office and a few other programs and it ran smoothly.

I did return the i5 though as I would rather spend the few extra $ on the i7 as I am going to use it to replace my desktop.

One thing no one seemed to have linked here is the actual difference in the processors.

http://ark.intel.com/compare/75114,75028

Not only is there the 400mhz speed bump but the i7 has 1MB more onboard cache should help a small bit in overall performance. The HD5000 graphics also have a small 100mhz bump.

My opinion:
The i5 is a great machine that is plenty fast for most people. I wouldn't hesitate to get one for my wife or recommend one for my boss. Would you really notice an extra minute exporting your home video through iMovie or a few seconds loading a picture? Most people don't push their machines hard and what makes the most difference to them speed wise is the SSD.

If you are a fringe case; using VM software, doing heavy audio, video or photo editing the i7 is a nice bump in power for not a ton of money. I would not order one without the 8GB ram though.

lamboman
Aug 22, 2013, 12:51 PM
I had the 13" i5/8/256 Air for a few days and my windows VM ran fine through parallels. I was running Visual Studio and SQL Server along with office and a few other programs and it ran smoothly.

I did return the i5 though as I would rather spend the few extra $ on the i7 as I am going to use it to replace my desktop.

One thing no one seemed to have linked here is the actual difference in the processors.

http://ark.intel.com/compare/75114,75028

Not only is there the 400mhz speed bump but the i7 has 1MB more onboard cache should help a small bit in overall performance. The HD5000 graphics also have a small 100mhz bump.

My opinion:
The i5 is a great machine that is plenty fast for most people. I wouldn't hesitate to get one for my wife or recommend one for my boss. Would you really notice an extra minute exporting your home video through iMovie or a few seconds loading a picture? Most people don't push their machines hard and what makes the most difference to them speed wise is the SSD.

If you are a fringe case; using VM software, doing heavy audio, video or photo editing the i7 is a nice bump in power for not a ton of money. I would not order one without the 8GB ram though.

Thanks for the reply :) Yeah, as I said the i5 will be fast enough, just that if I can get a bit more performance I might as well, for those rare occasions where I may take advantage of it. Going 8GB and 256GB SSD, as with my previous MBP. I'm clued up but would rather gather some experiences from others before ordering! How have you found battery life with VMs compared to your previous i5? Thanks :)

Saturn1217
Aug 22, 2013, 12:55 PM
Thanks for the reply :) Yeah, as I said the i5 will be fast enough, just that if I can get a bit more performance I might as well, for those rare occasions where I may take advantage of it. How have you found battery life with VMs compared to your previous i5? Thanks :)

I think it depends on what you are doing in the VM. For me personally using virtualbox (the least optimized VM you can use) but only doing light things (excel + macros) in that vm didn't have a major impact on battery. I'm actually still on my first charge. I unplugged around midnight on August 20th and this is my work computer so I've been using it off and on that entire time...So yeah I'd say battery life is ok.

I have the 2013 13" i7 btw.

TType85
Aug 22, 2013, 01:37 PM
Thanks for the reply :) Yeah, as I said the i5 will be fast enough, just that if I can get a bit more performance I might as well, for those rare occasions where I may take advantage of it. Going 8GB and 256GB SSD, as with my previous MBP. I'm clued up but would rather gather some experiences from others before ordering! How have you found battery life with VMs compared to your previous i5? Thanks :)

I don't have the i7 yet, it should be here Monday. I didn't time how long the battery lasted but with the i5 running parallels and lightly using the vm (Coding in VS, outlook open) and using Safari on the mac side I probably used it for 7-8 hours and it wasn't near dead at that time.

mattferg
Aug 22, 2013, 04:03 PM
I've seen test results that do state a difference in everyday scenarios.

The i7 is faster than the i5 in high CPU intensive tasks

stop being rude

Fixed this for you :)

----------

wow - he's just disagreeing with you and you have matched him post for post with your own "drivel"

there is no reason to be nasty about this issue.

here's the anandtech review's conclusion and i think it sums it up pretty well:



so you're both right in the sense that yes, the i5 would be great for most people but the i7 would still give you a 20% boost "in most situations"
so what's the problem? why do you care how other people spend their money?

can we please stop with the personal attacks and threadjacking over minutia?

you post your i5 8gig 256 "sweet-spot" post in every thread asking "i don't know how to use the search feature so what air should i buy?" just like he posts his defense of the i7.

Yes, and if you understand how Intel processors work and benchmarks too (which run at full CPU utilisation or else they'd make no sense), you'll know that with turboboost, anything the i7 can do the i5 can too, up to 2.6ghz+. This means that in everyday scenarios that are not CPU intensive, the i5 will be just as fast as the i7 because it can turboboost up to whatever the i7 is running at to get the task done. Please research "turbo-boost" before you post further, you're showing your ignorance here.

The 20% speed increase comes from the extra clockspeed at the high end. As such, if the CPU isn't running at the high end, you don't get this performance.

Yes, however his defence of the i7 is because he bought it. I don't own the i5/8/256, as such my opinion is not personal.

lamboman
Aug 22, 2013, 04:04 PM
I think it depends on what you are doing in the VM. For me personally using virtualbox (the least optimized VM you can use) but only doing light things (excel + macros) in that vm didn't have a major impact on battery. I'm actually still on my first charge. I unplugged around midnight on August 20th and this is my work computer so I've been using it off and on that entire time...So yeah I'd say battery life is ok.

I have the 2013 13" i7 btw.

I don't have the i7 yet, it should be here Monday. I didn't time how long the battery lasted but with the i5 running parallels and lightly using the vm (Coding in VS, outlook open) and using Safari on the mac side I probably used it for 7-8 hours and it wasn't near dead at that time.

Thanks for the replies guys :) Going to be using VirtualBox, possibly Parallels in the future if need be (so that I can boot from a Boot Camp installation). Mostly going to be coding for learning purposes, so nothing particularly CPU intensive, mainly just typing (hence the 8GB of memory).

Not trying to spark this debate off again, however I went in store earlier and tried various i5 MBAs, all felt a little sluggish across the board compared to my old Early 2011 MBP (with a Crucial m4 128GB) and even the 13" MBP and rMBP. Probably down to the lower base clock speed. The i5 certainly won't be lacking for intensive tasks, however the sluggishness was frustrating. Unfortunately there weren't any i7s on display to play with. I've seen that quite a few who have played with/had both have noted that the i7 is noticeably quicker for basic tasks. Pretty much set on the i7 now, however would those of you who have owned both say that this holds true?

mattferg
Aug 22, 2013, 04:07 PM
Thanks for the replies guys :) Going to be using VirtualBox, possibly Parallels in the future if need be (so that I can boot from a Boot Camp installation). Mostly going to be coding for learning purposes, so nothing particularly CPU intensive, mainly just typing (hence the 8GB of memory).

Not trying to spark this debate off again, however I went in store earlier and tried various i5 MBAs, all felt a little sluggish across the board compared to my old Early 2011 MBP (with a Crucial m4 128GB) and even the 13" MBP and rMBP. Probably down to the lower base clock speed. The i5 certainly won't be lacking for intensive tasks, however the sluggishness was frustrating. Unfortunately there weren't any i7s on display to play with. I've seen that quite a few who have played with/had both have noted that the i7 is noticeably quicker for basic tasks. Pretty much set on the i7 now, however would those of you who have owned both say that this holds true?

I'd say the main appeal of the Air over the base 2011 Pro would be the SSD, as such if you've got an SSD now the main benefit of the Air is the battery, not the performance :) I've used both for long periods of time and only noticed i7 benefits in editing and high intensity CPU tasks. There were no benefits whatsoever to everyday tasks or gaming.

Don't be confused by the lower base clock speed - if the laptop was running sluggishly the processor would boost itself to run faster.

In the same way the MacBook Air i7 can turboboost to run as fast as the rMBP in some cases, the i5 can turboboost to run as fast as the i7 can in some circumstances.

Mike in Kansas
Aug 22, 2013, 04:16 PM
Yes, and if you understand how Intel processors work and benchmarks too (which run at full CPU utilisation or else they'd make no sense), you'll know that with turboboost, anything the i7 can do the i5 can too, up to 2.8ghz+.

I think you meant to say "up to 2.6GHz in single core, 2.3GHz in dual core". The i5 doesn't go to 2.8GHz in turbo mode in single core applications.

mattferg
Aug 22, 2013, 04:17 PM
I think you meant to say "up to 2.6GHz in single core, 2.3GHz in dual core". The i5 doesn't go to 2.8GHz in turbo mode in single core applications.

I corrected myself already to say 2.6ghz in the post, if you check above. My point still remains :)

Mike in Kansas
Aug 22, 2013, 04:22 PM
I corrected myself already to say 2.6ghz in the post, if you check above. My point still remains :)

NP. Nothing wrong with being pedantic every once in a while...

lamboman
Aug 22, 2013, 04:25 PM
I'd say the main appeal of the Air over the base 2011 Pro would be the SSD, as such if you've got an SSD now the main benefit of the Air is the battery, not the performance :) I've used both for long periods of time and only noticed i7 benefits in editing and high intensity CPU tasks. There were no benefits whatsoever to everyday tasks or gaming.

Don't be confused by the lower base clock speed - if the laptop was running sluggishly the processor would boost itself to run faster.

Performance-wise my 13" MBP (Sandy Bridge i5, 2.3GHz) is pretty much on par with the new i5 MBA, hence why I'm not too concerned about the performance of either option. Just one of those things where money isn't a concern, and for the rare occasion where I want to run two VMs (which will likely happen), the i7 will fair a tad better (the old MBP was a bit sluggish there at times).

I've read and read about different reports regarding battery life. The i7 has the same/slightly better battery life at lighter loads, while the i5 is better off as the workload increases. Problem here is that my use of a VM wouldn't fall strictly in any particular category: low-medium during normal use (basic coding as described), where I'd pause the VM if I stopped using it; and medium-high usage when pushing a bit more (at which point I'd probably have the machine plugged in). At the same time, it's unlikely that I'd be using the machine under such workloads for long - after that I'd go back to a light workload. It's a case of finding a balance.

My other perspective is that the i7 will have far greater battery life than my old MBP, and that my previous estimates were overblown and the MBP lasted all day for me...that will likely be the case here!

My gut feeling here is that for my usage, the i7 would be more suitable. Similar/slightly worse battery life when using the VM for a light-medium load (pausing the VM will close the gap between the i5 and i7), and slightly better battery life during the normal light load (which will be far more regular). Biggest thing here is that the VM will be a constant load unless paused, which would equate to slightly more battery usage on the i7. However, having actual input for experiences as opposed to guessing is always best.

Thanks for the reply mattferg. I know you're going to recommend the i5...I've read plenty of your debates over the past couple of months with ZBoater over the matter ;)

SchodMC
Aug 22, 2013, 04:35 PM
Thanks for the replies guys :) Going to be using VirtualBox, possibly Parallels in the future if need be (so that I can boot from a Boot Camp installation). Mostly going to be coding for learning purposes, so nothing particularly CPU intensive, mainly just typing (hence the 8GB of memory).

Not trying to spark this debate off again, however I went in store earlier and tried various i5 MBAs, all felt a little sluggish across the board compared to my old Early 2011 MBP (with a Crucial m4 128GB) and even the 13" MBP and rMBP. Probably down to the lower base clock speed. The i5 certainly won't be lacking for intensive tasks, however the sluggishness was frustrating. Unfortunately there weren't any i7s on display to play with. I've seen that quite a few who have played with/had both have noted that the i7 is noticeably quicker for basic tasks. Pretty much set on the i7 now, however would those of you who have owned both say that this holds true?

I came from the early 2011 13" i5 MBP (with 8GB RAM and Kingston (Intel) 160GB SSD). At first: there will be a speed improvement because of the faster SSD, the faster GPU and the faster RAM the MBA provides. So going for the MBA will be a step forward.

About the CPU I think, the i5 in the current MBA will be a little bit faster then the i5 in the early 2011 MBP. In daly tasks, I think you won't realize the difference. Coming from the MBP, you have to decide whether you want a system that has a nearly the same CPU Power as your MBP or want to pay some $$$ more to get a CPU upgrade that will be noticeable when you use CPU intensive tasks.

What ever CPU you will choose - you will get a speed upgrade with the current MBA, because the speed of a computer is always determined by every component, not just the processor. (A personal note: the i7 is a fine CPU. ;))

cu
SchodMC

w00d
Aug 22, 2013, 05:17 PM
If anyone is interested in seeing the actual speed of their CPU and how it changes while you are using the computer, Intel has this nice little utility for OSX:

http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/intel-power-gadget-20

lamboman
Aug 22, 2013, 05:20 PM
I came from the early 2011 13" i5 MBP (with 8GB RAM and Kingston (Intel) 160GB SSD). At first: there will be a speed improvement because of the faster SSD, the faster GPU and the faster RAM the MBA provides. So going for the MBA will be a step forward.

About the CPU I think, the i5 in the current MBA will be a little bit faster then the i5 in the early 2011 MBP. In daly tasks, I think you won't realize the difference. Coming from the MBP, you have to decide whether you want a system that has a nearly the same CPU Power as your MBP or want to pay some $$$ more to get a CPU upgrade that will be noticeable when you use CPU intensive tasks.

What ever CPU you will choose - you will get a speed upgrade with the current MBA, because the speed of a computer is always determined by every component, not just the processor. (A personal note: the i7 is a fine CPU. ;))

cu
SchodMC

It'll all add up to a negligible difference. The i7 will at least give me a bit of a boost. Performance isn't the concern here. Battery life is really the only thing. Both machines will offer "enough", and I have my iMac if I'm dealing with something that requires more power. If the i7's battery life using a VM as described before won't be a huge amount shorter than the i5, that's the one I'd go for, purely because I'm keeping the machine for around four years, and a little extra, useful performance will always be a plus :) Any further input would be appreciated, thanks :)

mattferg
Aug 22, 2013, 06:23 PM
Performance-wise my 13" MBP (Sandy Bridge i5, 2.3GHz) is pretty much on par with the new i5 MBA, hence why I'm not too concerned about the performance of either option. Just one of those things where money isn't a concern, and for the rare occasion where I want to run two VMs (which will likely happen), the i7 will fair a tad better (the old MBP was a bit sluggish there at times).

I've read and read about different reports regarding battery life. The i7 has the same/slightly better battery life at lighter loads, while the i5 is better off as the workload increases. Problem here is that my use of a VM wouldn't fall strictly in any particular category: low-medium during normal use (basic coding as described), where I'd pause the VM if I stopped using it; and medium-high usage when pushing a bit more (at which point I'd probably have the machine plugged in). At the same time, it's unlikely that I'd be using the machine under such workloads for long - after that I'd go back to a light workload. It's a case of finding a balance.

My other perspective is that the i7 will have far greater battery life than my old MBP, and that my previous estimates were overblown and the MBP lasted all day for me...that will likely be the case here!

My gut feeling here is that for my usage, the i7 would be more suitable. Similar/slightly worse battery life when using the VM for a light-medium load (pausing the VM will close the gap between the i5 and i7), and slightly better battery life during the normal light load (which will be far more regular). Biggest thing here is that the VM will be a constant load unless paused, which would equate to slightly more battery usage on the i7. However, having actual input for experiences as opposed to guessing is always best.

Thanks for the reply mattferg. I know you're going to recommend the i5...I've read plenty of your debates over the past couple of months with ZBoater over the matter ;)

Nope, not at all. I'd say as long as you've gone at least for the 256GB SSD (preferably 512) and have upgraded the RAM, for you personally the i7 is a good choice (if what you are going to be doing is running two VMs alongside OS X). Since the MBA is core-limited compared to it's siblings the extra MHz would come in handy :)

But yeah what you do isn't day-to-day stuff, so my arguments don't really target it :) For you the i7 is a good choice, as long as you've upgraded the SSD and RAM already :) As long as it isn't breaking the bank go for the upgrade, as you'll actually use the performance (unlike some).

Unlike Zboater this isn't personal/I have no stake in this. For me personally, I could afford the i7 but didn't need it, so didn't get it. I don't have to tell everone else to buy an i5 IN EVERY SCENARIO just to make me feel better. If you are going to use it for high intensity CPU stuff I say go for it :) Everyday stuff and gaming, no, it isn't going to be used.

As for battery life, they're on par and pretty much matched until you get to the high end stuff (where the i7 goes faster and uses more power relative to the performance boost).

The trend in the industry seems to be that other factors will be the limiting ones which mean that users replace their MacBooks. It'll probably be SSD size/screen quality/battery life that users want more of, as these seem to be what's improving most atm. Either that or people would've just broken their Airs xD

But yeah, ZBoater likes to paint the picture that I just think the i7 isn't any faster. I know that it's faster IN THE HIGH END, meaning that only users who run high end high intensity CPU tasks will ever see the benefit. He, of course, never argues against or replies to this point...

ezekielrage_99
Aug 22, 2013, 07:14 PM
Seriously? Are you still spewing this drivel? Most people would benefit from a faster processor, however in the scenarios they would use their Air in, the i7 is not faster than the i5 especially not for everyday tasks.

Every review of the processors have proved this, and benchmarks?! You mean those things that run the CPU at FULL INTENSITY? You have to be kidding me. Do you even understand how turbo boost works? Until you get to tasks that are 2.8ghz+, the i5 will be just as fast as the i7, FACT. It's not okay to gloss over THIS.

The i5 and the i7 perform identically in everyday scenarios. I've tested this. Period. Now stop whining about how you wasted $150 and stop wasting other people's time and money.

An i7 is faster than and i5, your argument is spurious, rude and puerile.

You may not notice the difference in performance for the basic tasks but it's there, what you've suggested is nothing more than specious reasoning.

You may not even use the extra grunt but there is a difference is performance even for every day tasks, I's reference this (http://blog.laptopmag.com/core-i7-macbook-air-2013) this, (http://www.anandtech.com/show/7113/2013-macbook-air-core-i5-4250u-vs-core-i7-4650u/2) and this (http://www.anandtech.com/show/7113/2013-macbook-air-core-i5-4250u-vs-core-i7-4650u/4).

You may not notice extra performance however it is there, I have both an i5 for home and i7 for work the i7 is faster though I do get far less battery life. Photoshop is faster, Openoffice is faster to load, anything mildly related to video is faster and game performance is faster on the i7 it is slightly noticeable when you have a few applications open, under load the i7 shines in this department.

Battery life, I get far more life from the i5 around the 1-2 hours mark depending on usage and how I've opitmised the battery (graphics card performance-wise).

I've run both models through Geekbench mark from my home i5 I'm getting 6075 while from the work i7 8698, thus the i7 is a much faster processor.

To make it fair both machines have 8GB RAM and 256GB HDD.

For reference sake and entry level Macbook Air i5/8GBRAM/256GB HDD would be more than enough for most users, is the i7 a waste? Well it depends on both budget and and how long you're intending on keeping the laptop for and if battery life vs performance is more important.

Personally if the budget permits and want to get 3.5+ years out of it then the i7 +8GBRAM would be a better option, though with that said the i5 is still a very snappy build and will last.

ZBoater
Aug 22, 2013, 07:33 PM
...I know that it's faster IN THE HIGH END, meaning that only users who run high end high intensity CPU tasks will ever see the benefit. He, of course, never argues against or replies to this point...

I've already linked to the Openoffice benchmarks, the ones that simulate EVERY DAY USE, not HIGH END, that prove the i7 is faster even on those. You've already read multiple posts of people relaying their experiences which you have dismissed as "in their heads" and "psychological". So yes, I have argued and replied but you just insist on clinging to an obviously proven false point.

This is not personal, at least not for me. Your point is that for every day usage, the i5 is just as fast as the i7. My point is that no, it isn't. Benchmarks and personal experience prove that it isn't. You insist that because you cant see it, it must be in my head. So be it. :rolleyes:

AXs
Aug 22, 2013, 08:00 PM
Nope, not at all. I'd say as long as you've gone at least for the 256GB SSD (preferably 512) and have upgraded the RAM, for you personally the i7 is a good choice (if what you are going to be doing is running two VMs alongside OS X). Since the MBA is core-limited compared to it's siblings the extra MHz would come in handy :)

But yeah what you do isn't day-to-day stuff, so my arguments don't really target it :) For you the i7 is a good choice, as long as you've upgraded the SSD and RAM already :) As long as it isn't breaking the bank go for the upgrade, as you'll actually use the performance (unlike some).

Unlike Zboater this isn't personal/I have no stake in this. For me personally, I could afford the i7 but didn't need it, so didn't get it. I don't have to tell everone else to buy an i5 IN EVERY SCENARIO just to make me feel better. If you are going to use it for high intensity CPU stuff I say go for it :) Everyday stuff and gaming, no, it isn't going to be used.

As for battery life, they're on par and pretty much matched until you get to the high end stuff (where the i7 goes faster and uses more power relative to the performance boost).

The trend in the industry seems to be that other factors will be the limiting ones which mean that users replace their MacBooks. It'll probably be SSD size/screen quality/battery life that users want more of, as these seem to be what's improving most atm. Either that or people would've just broken their Airs xD

But yeah, ZBoater likes to paint the picture that I just think the i7 isn't any faster. I know that it's faster IN THE HIGH END, meaning that only users who run high end high intensity CPU tasks will ever see the benefit. He, of course, never argues against or replies to this point...

I think this post pretty much covers it accurately.

Get the i7 if you need it, but make RAM and SSD a priority. If you can upgrade all 3, go for it... but do note:

The i7 is more powerful - very noticeable in high task events and WILL save you time no matter how much, albeit at the cost of 1-2 hours of battery VS i5.

The important thing is to buy something that YOU will be happy with - whatever RAM/CPU/Storage... just make sure YOU are content with the purchase then no one can tell you made a bad choice.

I think Anand from Anandtech put it best - if the Air is going to be your primary laptop, going with i7 may be a good idea.

I also think the post by ezekielrage_99 cleverly highlights the main points.
Everything else is basically subjective, and pretty much circular reasoning at this point, from what I'm seeing.
Lets give the debate a rest guys.

jadAce
Aug 22, 2013, 08:27 PM
Get the i7 if you need it, but make RAM and SSD a priority. If you can upgrade all 3, go for it... but do note:

The important thing is to buy something that YOU will be happy with - whatever RAM/CPU/Storage... just make sure YOU are content with the purchase then no one can tell you made a bad choice.

+1

At the end of the day, what matters is that you should be happy with what you purchase. Really, only *you* can know if something is too expensive or too cheap for you, or if you need something or don't need it - other opinions have some degree of bias that is simply unavoidable.

Many people are happy with the i5. I found it the most cost effective for my needs. Many people are happy with the i7.

It all depends on what you need.

mattferg
Aug 22, 2013, 09:22 PM
An i7 is faster than and i5, your argument is spurious, rude and puerile.

You may not notice the difference in performance for the basic tasks but it's there, what you've suggested is nothing more than specious reasoning.



Did you even read the sentence before the bit in bold, before resorting to a petty childish comment? I said in everyday scenarios, ie word processing, web browsing, listening to music, the i7 is not faster than the i5. Did you even read any of my other posts?! Out of all of the links you just used, none of them back up your argument, too, as none of them show every day tasks proving the i7 is faster. Why? because it's impossible. None of the tasks you claim are faster are everyday tasks for most users, just for you.

If you take the time to actually read my other posts, and the rest of the one you actually replied to, you'll see I wholeheartedly recommend the i7... to people who will actually use the power (ie for high intensity CPU tasks). For everyone else, the power is a waste, and yes, AS I ORIGINALLY SAID, the i5 is just as fast as the i7 for everyday tasks.


----------

I've already linked to the Openoffice benchmarks, the ones that simulate EVERY DAY USE, not HIGH END, that prove the i7 is faster even on those. You've already read multiple posts of people relaying their experiences which you have dismissed as "in their heads" and "psychological". So yes, I have argued and replied but you just insist on clinging to an obviously proven false point.

This is not personal, at least not for me. Your point is that for every day usage, the i5 is just as fast as the i7. My point is that no, it isn't. Benchmarks and personal experience prove that it isn't. You insist that because you cant see it, it must be in my head. So be it. :rolleyes:

Again fails to target the point at all and just declares it obviously false, wow. Turboboost proves that the i5 is just as fast as the i7 in everyday scenarios, because anything the i7 can do... again I have to remind you that the Ultimate vs base models of the Air have different SSD speeds, sigh.

Yes, multiple posts... from one user, who even said his every day tasks were quite CPU intensive. Yawn. Your wallet must be desperate for that $150. Again with the benchmarks? Benchmarks that run the CPU at full intensity... dude seriously please learn how Intel processors work. The extra speed of the i7 comes from the extra clockspeed at the high end of the processor's operating range. If the processor isn't running there, you don't get the performance. That's it, end, there is no "special magic i7 power"

The Openoffice benchmark on laptopmag.com is defined as "Length of time it takes to perform a complex VLOOKUP operation on 20,000 rows in OpenOffice Calc." because that's an everyday task that every Air user does... I often turn on my Mac, go to facebook, check my emails, perform a complex VLOOKUP on a huge database... do you not even see how this benchmark is CPU intensive? A spreadsheet task that took several minutes to process on both the i5 and i7?

It's all in your head.

DisplacedMic
Aug 23, 2013, 08:40 AM
Fixed this for you :)

----------



Yes, and if you understand how Intel processors work and benchmarks too (which run at full CPU utilisation or else they'd make no sense), you'll know that with turboboost, anything the i7 can do the i5 can too, up to 2.6ghz+. This means that in everyday scenarios that are not CPU intensive, the i5 will be just as fast as the i7 because it can turboboost up to whatever the i7 is running at to get the task done. Please research "turbo-boost" before you post further, you're showing your ignorance here.

The 20% speed increase comes from the extra clockspeed at the high end. As such, if the CPU isn't running at the high end, you don't get this performance.

Yes, however his defence of the i7 is because he bought it. I don't own the i5/8/256, as such my opinion is not personal.

and more condescension and nastiness...over a computer. seriously - how old are you?

CFoss
Aug 23, 2013, 12:00 PM
The SSD is upgradable so I would go with the 128gb and if you need to later, upgrade the SSD and use the one that came with the MBA as an external SSD in a USB 3.0 enclosure.

This is incorrect, as the latest MacBook Airs use a proprietary PCIe interface. While it is true that there might be third party solutions, they will most likely be few and far between (and expensive).

lamboman
Aug 23, 2013, 12:43 PM
Christ, still stuck on my decision!

It comes down to:

The i5 will be powerful enough for my needs. Battery life will be longer under heavier loads, and the same under lighter loads.
However, many have reported that the i5 is a tad laggy during every day usage. I've played with several i5 MBAs, and they certainly did feel rather laggy to the point where this could irritate me if it persists and turns out not to be a mere software problem.
The i7's battery life hit under medium and heavy loads is of concern too. I'm worried that while using a VM (whether this be under VirtualBox, Parallels, or VMWare Fusion) for basic programming (probably Visual Studio), the i7 will take a noticeable hit in battery life. The stuff I'll be doing will likely not be CPU intensive as it is of course mainly typing and I'm not going to be compiling massive projects, but the constant load of the VM does concern me.

Any further advice or experience with regards to VMs and battery life with the i5 or i7? Anybody who has had both? Thanks! :)

PDFierro
Aug 23, 2013, 12:48 PM
Did you even read the sentence before the bit in bold, before resorting to a petty childish comment? I said in everyday scenarios, ie word processing, web browsing, listening to music, the i7 is not faster than the i5. Did you even read any of my other posts?! Out of all of the links you just used, none of them back up your argument, too, as none of them show every day tasks proving the i7 is faster. Why? because it's impossible. None of the tasks you claim are faster are everyday tasks for most users, just for you.

If you take the time to actually read my other posts, and the rest of the one you actually replied to, you'll see I wholeheartedly recommend the i7... to people who will actually use the power (ie for high intensity CPU tasks). For everyone else, the power is a waste, and yes, AS I ORIGINALLY SAID, the i5 is just as fast as the i7 for everyday tasks.

This. Exactly this.

ZBoater keeps trying to claim that the i7 is faster in everyday tasks such as the ones you mentioned -- web browsing, word processing, listening to music, etc. And then provides no evidence to back that up.

Please. In tasks like this, someone is not going to notice a difference from i5 vs. i7. Yet his whole argument/defense is based on the fact that the i7 is indeed faster for tasks like these, when it's not.

w00d
Aug 23, 2013, 01:01 PM
If you take the time to actually read my other posts, and the rest of the one you actually replied to, you'll see I wholeheartedly recommend the i7... to people who will actually use the power (ie for high intensity CPU tasks). For everyone else, the power is a waste, and yes, AS I ORIGINALLY SAID, the i5 is just as fast as the i7 for everyday tasks

....

It's all in your head.


WTF are "everyday tasks"??? That is a bad term. It means something different to everyone. I use VMware, IntelliJ, and Photoshop 5 days a week at minimum. On weekends, for fun, I'm using iMovie and Lightroom.

There's not a single day I want to have a slower computer.

Many of us will absolutely notice a difference using an i7 for everyday tasks.

----------

This. Exactly this.

ZBoater keeps trying to claim that the i7 is faster in everyday tasks such as the ones you mentioned -- web browsing, word processing, listening to music, etc. And then provides no evidence to back that up.

Please. In tasks like this, someone is not going to notice a difference from i5 vs. i7. Yet his whole argument/defense is based on the fact that the i7 is indeed faster for tasks like these, when it's not.

Have you tried them side by side, the i5 and i7? Some of us have, and notice a difference, even for stupid things like web browsing.

PDFierro
Aug 23, 2013, 01:07 PM
WTF are "everyday tasks"??? That is a stupid term. It means something different to everyone. I use VMware, IntelliJ, and Photoshop 5 days a week at minimum. On weekends, for fun, I'm using iMovie and Lightroom.

There's not a single day I want to have a slower computer.

Many of us will absolutely notice a difference using an i7 for everyday tasks.[COLOR="#808080"]

Those are clearly not everyday tasks. It's not hard to grasp what are. Anything non-intensive -- web browsing, listening to music, word processing, etc. Yeah, those are really going to push the CPU.

w00d
Aug 23, 2013, 01:17 PM
Those are clearly not everyday tasks. It's not hard to grasp what are. Anything non-intensive -- web browsing, listening to music, word processing, etc. Yeah, those are really going to push the CPU.

You conveniently forgot to answer my question -- have you tried them both side by side?

Mike in Kansas
Aug 23, 2013, 01:35 PM
Those are clearly not everyday tasks. It's not hard to grasp what are. Anything non-intensive -- web browsing, listening to music, word processing, etc. Yeah, those are really going to push the CPU.

Maybe your everyday tasks are less intense than typical everyday tasks of others. Even my kids are in iPhoto everyday (processing and loading stuff up to Instagram) and iMovie on weekends (creating "nail and hair tutorials" for YouTube). My middle kid runs Parallels every day so he can play some Windows-only games.

Now, for my wife, it's email, Facebook, Pinterest. She would clearly not see the advantages of the i7. But for the other 4 of us, "every day" usage seems to be those things that a faster processor would help (photo editing, movie rendering, VM, etc.) I daresay my household is "extra-ordinary".

m98custom1212
Aug 23, 2013, 02:14 PM
Those are clearly not everyday tasks. It's not hard to grasp what are. Anything non-intensive -- web browsing, listening to music, word processing, etc. Yeah, those are really going to push the CPU.

I'm with everyone else.. "Everyday task" is subjective more and more people are editing music, editing photos, editing videos, and using photo shop etc

Me personally I haven't touch word processing or listening to music since until recently when I started graduate school.

Now, the programs I use everyday are outlook, chrome, NX 8.5 (CAD and CAM Program), Inventor 2014, Heavy Excel use, Mathcad.. I would benefit from the I7 but I choose to save the money because I have desktop at home with a 3930K overclocked to 4.3ghz and my workstation at work to use for anything heavy.

w00d
Aug 23, 2013, 03:04 PM
Those are clearly not everyday tasks. It's not hard to grasp what are. Anything non-intensive -- web browsing, listening to music, word processing, etc. Yeah, those are really going to push the CPU.

If that's all you're gonna do with it, why not just get an iPad with the Bluetooth keyboard and save a ton of money? The only thing clear is that our everyday tasks are much different.

PDFierro
Aug 23, 2013, 03:12 PM
If that's all you're gonna do with it, why not just get an iPad with the Bluetooth keyboard and save a ton of money? The only thing clear is that our everyday tasks are much different.

Those are not my everyday tasks. I'm not even in the market for an Air, I'm waiting the rMBP refresh. I was bringing those up for examples.

mattferg
Aug 23, 2013, 08:03 PM
Maybe your everyday tasks are less intense than typical everyday tasks of others. Even my kids are in iPhoto everyday (processing and loading stuff up to Instagram) and iMovie on weekends (creating "nail and hair tutorials" for YouTube). My middle kid runs Parallels every day so he can play some Windows-only games.

Now, for my wife, it's email, Facebook, Pinterest. She would clearly not see the advantages of the i7. But for the other 4 of us, "every day" usage seems to be those things that a faster processor would help (photo editing, movie rendering, VM, etc.) I daresay my household is "extra-ordinary".

The plural of anecdote is not data. Pivotal rule in statistics. What does this mean? It means just because you've experienced something, does not mean it's the norm. For instance, take my family. Father and mother just use their laptops for browsing the web, word, emails. One brother uses his for internet, email, facebook, word, music. The other video edits. I just use my Air for basic stuff.

Does this mean every family is like this? No. However if you look at the actual statistics, not just assume your family is the norm, they generally match this light usage pattern - hence the sudden increase in popularity of affordable tablets.

Also, who uses Parallels for gaming? That's just strange? ;)

----------

If that's all you're gonna do with it, why not just get an iPad with the Bluetooth keyboard and save a ton of money? The only thing clear is that our everyday tasks are much different.

Because the Air does them better and that's what he prefers. Unfortunately, the i7 Air does his tasks identically to the i5, and that appears to be so for most Air users.

----------

WTF are "everyday tasks"??? That is a bad term. It means something different to everyone. I use VMware, IntelliJ, and Photoshop 5 days a week at minimum. On weekends, for fun, I'm using iMovie and Lightroom.

There's not a single day I want to have a slower computer.

Many of us will absolutely notice a difference using an i7 for everyday tasks.

----------



Have you tried them side by side, the i5 and i7? Some of us have, and notice a difference, even for stupid things like web browsing.

I've tried the i5 and i7 side by side. They're identical for non-CPU intensive tasks. Can you even explain to me where the extra performance of the i7 would come from running these every day tasks? Oh, and sure, plenty of you might find the i7 faster for tasks you do everyday, and in that case, the i7 is great for you, however as I've said above this is not true for the majority of Air users.

w00d
Aug 23, 2013, 11:16 PM
forget it

AXs
Aug 24, 2013, 12:38 AM
you're just equivocating the term 'everyday use'.

When we say 'everyday use' we are talking about most common usage by apple's largest demographic, especially with the air- browsing, flash, other light usage...

Now if you want to play Sherlock and talk about "everyday use is subjective" then yes, you are right... but not only are you missing the point entirely, you're drawing up a strawman. Why argue for the sake of arguing?

Majority of Macbook Air users DO NOT need the i7 processor, nor 8GB of RAM. That's why apple put i5/4 in stores. You think Apple RnD and Marketing teams are duds? They know exactly what they are doing. And they aren't being opinion-based either, they do extensive research for these kind of things. They employ only the best, and hence deliver the best.

But of course, they know there are people that may need a boost in spec- hence they have the build to order option. Because they understand SOME of the users may need i7 and/or 8gb ram.

But don't get it twisted, the i5/4 is still the norm for the air. Apple also does this to prevent an overlapping of product placement/market segmentation - they want to create a clear distinction between the Air and the Pro lines...

Anyways, in short, if you need the i7/8 then yes please do get the upgrade. If you want to do extensive cpu tasks with the Air, no one is going to stop you. Apple just clearly didn't design their Air line of laptops for heavy duty. That much is obvious - whether i5 or i7. They have the Macbook Pro and MacPros for that.

So let us agree that when we speak about 'everyday use' with the air, we are using the term as a label to describe a specific set of tasks, and we are not being literal nor subjective with it.

Good day.

mattferg
Aug 24, 2013, 02:51 AM
forget it

Why does this seem to be the typical i7 user response when faced with the fact that the i7 just isn't worth the money for most people? :P

Dr. McKay
Aug 24, 2013, 03:10 AM
Also torn between i5/8Gb/256 or i7/8Gb/256

I believe in my case, I'd be VERY disappointed with an i5 when finding myself surfing the web, having multiple apps open (itunes, iphoto, pages, numbers, font book, chrome with multiple tabs, app store, mac games store, textwrangler, textedit, activity monitor, terminal, notes, gTAsks - none of these are resource heavy apps but I DO have all these apps open all the time) and then to see my display rendering stutter when using mission control or launchpad or when scrolling through web pages.

If anyone can assure me from HANDS-ON EXPERIENCE that this WILL ABSOLUTELY NOT HAPPEN with an i5 in the situation mentioned above, then I'll take the money I save on the i7 and get Applecare instead.

ZBoater
Aug 24, 2013, 09:29 AM
Also torn between i5/8Gb/256 or i7/8Gb/256...I'd be VERY disappointed with an i5 ...to see my display rendering stutter when using mission control or launchpad or when scrolling through web pages.

If anyone can assure me from HANDS-ON EXPERIENCE that this WILL ABSOLUTELY NOT HAPPEN with an i5 in the situation mentioned above, then I'll take the money I save on the i7 and get Applecare instead.

I don't think anyone can give you that assurance. Not with the i5 OR i7. There are just too many variables with your specific usage pattern. It may depend on how many apps you have open, which ones you have open, and what you are doing in each one.

But your case illustrates the point that with the i5, when it happens, you will always wonder if the i7 could have handled it better. With the i7 you have the top of the line system, so if it happens, then you did everything you could short of getting a quad core MBP. The "coulda shoulda woulda" wondering of whether you got too little computer wouldn't bite you.

Now, if you are asking whether the i7 upgrade is "worth" more than Applecare, that's a whole other discussion. That depends on how much worth you put to Applecare, what your tolerance is for computer failure, how often you upgrade, etc.

You seem to have a low tolerance for poor computer performance. My advice to you - get the i7. Its the top of the line MBA processor option. You will then never be left wondering if you saved $150 but didn't get enough computer. If you find yourself with too many performance issues because of your usage pattern, then you are a candidate for a quad core pro. Good luck.

----------

because you are unwavering, condescending and rude and they give up trying to discuss this issue with you?

Exactly.

Dr. McKay
Aug 24, 2013, 10:21 AM
You seem to have a low tolerance for poor computer performance.

That obvious, huh... :D

mattferg
Aug 24, 2013, 06:16 PM
Also torn between i5/8Gb/256 or i7/8Gb/256

I believe in my case, I'd be VERY disappointed with an i5 when finding myself surfing the web, having multiple apps open (itunes, iphoto, pages, numbers, font book, chrome with multiple tabs, app store, mac games store, textwrangler, textedit, activity monitor, terminal, notes, gTAsks - none of these are resource heavy apps but I DO have all these apps open all the time) and then to see my display rendering stutter when using mission control or launchpad or when scrolling through web pages.

If anyone can assure me from HANDS-ON EXPERIENCE that this WILL ABSOLUTELY NOT HAPPEN with an i5 in the situation mentioned above, then I'll take the money I save on the i7 and get Applecare instead.

I can absolutely assure you from hands on experience that the i5 does not stutter using MC, LP or scrolling through web pages. It's 2013, processors can handle these simple tasks with ease.

Also love how ZBoater implied the i5 was a poor CPU. It isn't. Get AppleCare, not the i7, it's the best choice for you, you won't use or need that performance :)

ZBoater
Aug 24, 2013, 08:27 PM
...Also love how ZBoater implied the i5 was a poor CPU. It isn't. Get AppleCare, not the i7, it's the best choice for you, you won't use or need that performance :)

I am not implying the i5 is a poor CPU. I don't need to imply. I can say what I mean. And what I said was the the i7 is a more powerful CPU than the i5. It is faster, more capable - more CPU. That's what I meant when I used the term "not enough computer".

It's a comparison to a clearly superior CPU, not an indictment of the i5 itself. The i5 is quite a capable little CPU. Just not as capable as the i7. :apple:

ML321
Aug 24, 2013, 11:29 PM
If you want to future proof it and give it better value get the i7. Most applications that are gonna come out are gonna need more CPU and RAM power so it is good to upgrade when you can for a average price.

ezekielrage_99
Aug 25, 2013, 05:13 AM
and more condescension and nastiness...over a computer. seriously - how old are you?

+1 very well put.

I've already linked to the Openoffice benchmarks, the ones that simulate EVERY DAY USE, not HIGH END, that prove the i7 is faster even on those. You've already read multiple posts of people relaying their experiences which you have dismissed as "in their heads" and "psychological". So yes, I have argued and replied but you just insist on clinging to an obviously proven false point.

This is not personal, at least not for me. Your point is that for every day usage, the i5 is just as fast as the i7. My point is that no, it isn't. Benchmarks and personal experience prove that it isn't. You insist that because you cant see it, it must be in my head. So be it. :rolleyes:

Another very good point.

Did you even read the sentence before the bit in bold, before resorting to a petty childish comment? I said in everyday scenarios, ie word processing, web browsing, listening to music, the i7 is not faster than the i5. Did you even read any of my other posts?! Out of all of the links you just used, none of them back up your argument, too, as none of them show every day tasks proving the i7 is faster. Why? because it's impossible. None of the tasks you claim are faster are everyday tasks for most users, just for you.

If you take the time to actually read my other posts, and the rest of the one you actually replied to, you'll see I wholeheartedly recommend the i7... to people who will actually use the power (ie for high intensity CPU tasks). For everyone else, the power is a waste, and yes, AS I ORIGINALLY SAID, the i5 is just as fast as the i7 for everyday tasks.


Again my point, there are plenty in this thread who are constructing well researched ideas validating points for each point of the argument, and are not getting aggressive over it. Yes I had read your previous replies thus the post.

You still are missing the point, your argument though this thread is exerting Hitchen's Razor (or maybe to a lesser extent Reductio ad absurdum) and rather aggressive.

Verisimilitude aside I have stated before the there is a difference with performance with the i5 and i7 processors you may or may not want to openly accept (via external links and personal experience), and from my personal experience it comes down to a bit more grunt or a bit more battery life between and i5 and i7.

I would suggest if you have the budget then the i7 is a better buy for longevity but with that said the i5 isn't a weak performer. If I had my option again I would have upgraded to the i7.


Have you tried them side by side, the i5 and i7? Some of us have, and notice a difference, even for stupid things like web browsing.

I have both, one is my personal home computer while the other is my work machine. Both purchased at the same time the only difference being one is an i5 and the other is an i7. The specs are the same, 8GBRAM and 256GB HDD thus from previous posts I do believe it is a strong example..

In my head or not, there is a difference in h.264 render time, a massive difference with photoshop actions, faster render and overall experience in FCPX/Motion 5 and with a whole heap of browser tabs open the i7 wins.

While with light gaming I do gain a few more frames in D3 and Starcraft (4-9 to be precise).

Again I advocate for most users out there the sweet spot for power/price/performance is still the i5/8GB/256GB, though if budget permits the i7/8GB/256GB/Applecare is the one shoot for.

w00d
Aug 25, 2013, 12:25 PM
I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. You can all buy Dells for all I care.

I'm sharing my experiences. That is all.

Here's something fun that you can try which might illustrate how the i7 can be faster for "everyday tasks".

Install the Intel Power Gadget, it will show you your CPU frequency as it changes:
http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/intel-power-gadget-20

I have my i7 plugged in, only thing running is Chrome.

When I first load Gmail (and a number of other websites that I use "everyday") the CPU will sometimes hit 2.9 Ghz or higher.

Attached is a graph that shows the CPU speed changing as I loaded and clicked through some of my "everyday use" websites.

p.s. Don't forget the i7 also has 25% more onboard cache memory. So even at the same clock speed it is more efficient.

p.s.p.s. I'm sure someone will retort and say this makes no difference and the i5 is just as fast. Ok, fine, you win. You've still got the slowest CPU that Apple sells.

ZBoater
Aug 25, 2013, 12:52 PM
...When I first load Gmail (and a number of other websites that I use "everyday") the CPU will sometimes hit 2.9 Ghz or higher.
...

Yeah, but its all in your head. You are just imagining that. :rolleyes:

Just kidding!!!

w00d
Aug 25, 2013, 12:55 PM
Also torn between i5/8Gb/256 or i7/8Gb/256

I believe in my case, I'd be VERY disappointed with an i5 when finding myself surfing the web, having multiple apps open (itunes, iphoto, pages, numbers, font book, chrome with multiple tabs, app store, mac games store, textwrangler, textedit, activity monitor, terminal, notes, gTAsks - none of these are resource heavy apps but I DO have all these apps open all the time) and then to see my display rendering stutter when using mission control or launchpad or when scrolling through web pages.

If anyone can assure me from HANDS-ON EXPERIENCE that this WILL ABSOLUTELY NOT HAPPEN with an i5 in the situation mentioned above, then I'll take the money I save on the i7 and get Applecare instead.

I can assure you the i5 will never be faster than the i7, and the i7 will never be slower than the i5.

SchodMC
Aug 25, 2013, 12:57 PM
I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. You can all buy Dells for all I care.

I'm sharing my experiences. That is all.

Here's something fun that you can try which might illustrate how the i7 can be faster for "everyday tasks".

Install the Intel Power Gadget, it will show you your CPU frequency as it changes:
http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/intel-power-gadget-20

I have my i7 plugged in, only thing running is Chrome.

When I first load Gmail (and a number of other websites that I use "everyday") the CPU will sometimes hit 2.9 Ghz or higher.

Attached is a graph that shows the CPU speed changing as I loaded and clicked through some of my "everyday use" websites.

p.s. Don't forget the i7 also has 25% more onboard cache memory. So even at the same clock speed it is more efficient.

p.s.p.s. I'm sure someone will retort and say this makes no difference and the i5 is just as fast. Ok, fine, you win. You've still got the slowest CPU that Apple sells.

Although I think the i7 is a fine CPU, I don't think this argument will help a lot. It only shows how often the i7 goes up to 3GHz in your use case, which is the reason why the i7 has less battery life, BTW. So your graph won't show what you're doing to let the CPU jump to that high frequency. I managed to get an other i5 under my fingers and compared both systems using that tool. Both CPUs are jumping between 0,8 and 2,x GHz using the systems to surf the internet, start some apps, using office or iWork, switching spaces, opening Mission Control, using iTunes, etc.

The only thing your graph shows is, that the i7 CPU has a lot to do, but it doesn't say anything about a noticeable speed difference compared to the i5. Only the situations where the i7 CPU jumps above the i5 limit can be taken into account.

So long story short: what have you done while logging the speed?

EDIT: Sorry, I missed out something. I saw that you said you used Chrome. Well - I never got that high CPU usage using Safari for surfing on my i7. It's strange...

cu
SchodMC (have the feeling that I stir up a hornets' nest now. :p)

P.S.: I also realized that the i5, I got my hands on now, seems to be not that laggy my first i5 model was. And comparing both of them showed me, that in situations where I thought the i5 is slow (building up webpages, loading apps, scrolling, ...), and test the same on the i7, I realized that the i7 was not really noticeable faster. A result that was a surprise for me, because I could have make an oath that there will definitely be a noticeable difference in "daly usage". Not tested the behavior on "navy" load, means Photo / Video editing. Be confused... ;)

w00d
Aug 25, 2013, 01:31 PM
EDIT: Sorry, I missed out something. I saw that you said you used Chrome. Well - I never got that high CPU usage using Safari for surfing on my i7. It's strange...

I might be able to partially explain that. Chrome is the faster browser (http://www.zdnet.com/the-big-browser-benchmark-january-2013-edition-7000009776/) with a really high performance javascript engine (http://v8.googlecode.com/svn/data/benchmarks/v3/run.html). How is that done? Probably a combination of algorithms that get more done in less time as well as more effectively loading up the CPU.

Anyways, my use case and my results, this is the best I can do to illustrate the difference is more than just subjective. Whether or not an individual can detect that difference is not my concern. Hell, there is another thread here where people have said they don't notice the difference between Retina and non Retina screens. So I don't expect everyone will notice the difference between i5 and i7 cpu for their everyday tasks.

Michael Goff
Aug 25, 2013, 01:43 PM
I might be able to partially explain that. Chrome is the faster browser (http://www.zdnet.com/the-big-browser-benchmark-january-2013-edition-7000009776/) with a really high performance javascript engine (http://v8.googlecode.com/svn/data/benchmarks/v3/run.html). How is that done? Probably a combination of algorithms that get more done in less time as well as more effectively loading up the CPU.

Anyways, my use case and my results, this is the best I can do to illustrate the difference is more than just subjective. Whether or not an individual can detect that difference is not my concern. Hell, there is another thread here where people have said they don't notice the difference between Retina and non Retina screens. So I don't expect everyone will notice the difference between i5 and i7 cpu for their everyday tasks.

Those tests are of browser on Windows, the ones on ZDnet, and actually not speed tests. :|

w00d
Aug 25, 2013, 01:48 PM
Those tests are of browser on Windows, the ones on ZDnet, and actually not speed tests. :|

Ok, you're right, that's Windows. Chrome is still faster on OSX. Try it.

Browser benchmarks = how fast for rendering page layout and javascript engine performance. How is that not a speed test?

Michael Goff
Aug 25, 2013, 01:59 PM
Ok, you're right, that's Windows. Chrome is still faster on OSX. Try it.

Browser benchmarks = how fast for rendering page layout and javascript engine performance. How is that not a speed test?

Browser benchmarks are not indicative of real world performance. They take a few small things (javascript for example) and make it seem as though those are important things. Then we get to the weird idea that Chrome is the fastest browser on OS X.

Faster doing what? Anything with flash? No. Anything dealing with HTML5? Still no. The entire idea is simply Google fanboyism at work.

So, yes, mostly javascript tests, splashes with a lot of tests that Google themselves are creating, isn't a way to determine anything when it comes to speed. And don't get me started on the love for Pepper Flash to crash every five minutes.

I used Chrome (Dev, Canary, Chromium even) and Safari is better than them. Firefox is better than them.

w00d
Aug 25, 2013, 02:27 PM
[/COLOR]Browser benchmarks are not indicative of real world performance. They take a few small things (javascript for example) and make it seem as though those are important things.

Javascript and page rendering are not indicative of real world performance in a browser... then please tell me what is?

Michael Goff
Aug 25, 2013, 02:34 PM
[/COLOR]

Javascript and page rendering are not indicative of real world performance in a browser... then please tell me what is?
...

Real world performance is a nice indicator. They make these things that help determine how long something takes. Then you can go to pages that normal people go to. You then can record how long it takes for you to get to each of those pages.

Or you could just realize that the speed of the browser isn't going to be the bottleneck that people run into.

One of the two.

w00d
Aug 25, 2013, 02:45 PM
Real world performance is a nice indicator. They make these things that help determine how long something takes.


Yeah, it's called a benchmark.
:)

I'm saying that I believe I feel a difference using the i7 when browsing the web. My data shows that my browser is taking advantage of speeds faster than which the i5 is capable of.

Not sure how much more I can break it down.

Michael Goff
Aug 25, 2013, 02:56 PM
Yeah, it's called a benchmark.
:)

I'm saying that I believe I feel a difference using the i7 when browsing the web. My data shows that my browser is taking advantage of speeds faster than which the i5 is capable of.

Not sure how much more I can break it down.

CPU-bound browsers, ones that take a huge amount of resources, will see a huge speed increase between, an i5 and an i7.

>_>

w00d
Aug 25, 2013, 03:06 PM
CPU-bound browsers, ones that take a huge amount of resources, will see a huge speed increase between, an i5 and an i7.

>_>

Never said it was a huge increase. I said it was perceptible on day to day tasks.

Michael Goff
Aug 25, 2013, 03:13 PM
Never said it was a huge increase. I said it was perceptible on day to day tasks.

Woah dude, I was agreeing with you. When I said huge, it was in reference to the amount of resources used. Chrome is a heavy program in terms of what it uses.

SchodMC
Aug 25, 2013, 03:37 PM
I might be able to partially explain that. Chrome is the faster browser (http://www.zdnet.com/the-big-browser-benchmark-january-2013-edition-7000009776/) with a really high performance javascript engine (http://v8.googlecode.com/svn/data/benchmarks/v3/run.html). How is that done? Probably a combination of algorithms that get more done in less time as well as more effectively loading up the CPU.

Anyways, my use case and my results, this is the best I can do to illustrate the difference is more than just subjective. Whether or not an individual can detect that difference is not my concern. Hell, there is another thread here where people have said they don't notice the difference between Retina and non Retina screens. So I don't expect everyone will notice the difference between i5 and i7 cpu for their everyday tasks.

Hey, it was no personal attack. Don't know that Chrome is that resource-hungry, what leads to a better performance compared to Safari. Don't use Chrome, because I don't like it.

I wonder if the less power of the i5 will really noticeable when using Chrome. If so, then yes - there will be a noticeable difference. Only compared Safari performance on i5 & i7.

cu
SchodMC

Doublea6
Aug 25, 2013, 10:37 PM
I found this super helpful.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7113/2013-macbook-air-core-i5-4250u-vs-core-i7-4650u

entatlrg
Aug 26, 2013, 12:44 PM
I found this super helpful.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7113/2013-macbook-air-core-i5-4250u-vs-core-i7-4650u

After reading the article which one did you buy?

mattferg
Aug 26, 2013, 02:01 PM
I found this super helpful.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7113/2013-macbook-air-core-i5-4250u-vs-core-i7-4650u

I found it really unhelpful, tbh. All it shows is that at full CPU usage, the i7 runs faster than the i5... not really surprising considering it's got 700 more mhz when it does. Also uses the same amount of battery more than it gives performance back, supposedly. In day to day usage the i7 and i5 perform the same.

----------

I am not implying the i5 is a poor CPU. I don't need to imply. I can say what I mean. And what I said was the the i7 is a more powerful CPU than the i5. It is faster, more capable - more CPU. That's what I meant when I used the term "not enough computer".

It's a comparison to a clearly superior CPU, not an indictment of the i5 itself. The i5 is quite a capable little CPU. Just not as capable as the i7. :apple:

Unfortunately this shows a lack of understanding yet again of how Intel processors work. The i7 is only faster than the i5 when running at full utilisation, anything less than that and the i5 can run just as fast. It's more capable at full utilisation, yes, but not faster throughout the performance range, far from it. As such, the i7 is not clearly superior in most usage cases, it's just equal.

----------

If you want to future proof it and give it better value get the i7. Most applications that are gonna come out are gonna need more CPU and RAM power so it is good to upgrade when you can for a average price.

Not really - most applications barely use all the power in the 2010 MBAs, let alone the 2013. As such, the best way to future proof a MBA is to follow industry trends, all of which shows that storage, battery life and RAM are most lacking/most likely to be needed more of in future.

----------

Again my point, there are plenty in this thread who are constructing well researched ideas validating points for each point of the argument, and are not getting aggressive over it. Yes I had read your previous replies thus the post.

You still are missing the point, your argument though this thread is exerting Hitchen's Razor (or maybe to a lesser extent Reductio ad absurdum) and rather aggressive.


Seriously you commend the posts that have terrible points and criticise mine for pointing out how you STILL miss the point?! seriously?! I never said the i7 wasn't faster than the i5 overall, of course it is.

However all of the tasks you claim you notice a difference with the i7 vs the i5 are not everyday tasks for most Air users, MILES from it. Those you 'agree with' are advocating everyone should buy an i7 if they can afford it, which is a terrible notion. Most people will never, ever use the extra power the i7 comes with, as it's high-utilisation extra mhz, and nothing more.

As such, my points are completely valid, and the reason I'm stating them so strongly is because you seem to be missing them. The way Intel processors work is that they turbo boost up when more power is needed. As such, until the i5 hits the max 2.6ghz, it matches the i7. Fact. There is no arguing against that.

And me, arguing aggressively compared to ZBoater, who's accusing me of obscuring facts when he never uses any? Have you actually read any of my posts and seen my well-referenced facts and arguments? I mean, wow, really? Your whole post makes no sense.

----------

I can assure you the i5 will never be faster than the i7, and the i7 will never be slower than the i5.

I can also assure him the i7 will never be faster than the i5 when doing tasks that don't require the CPU to max out.

AXs
Aug 26, 2013, 02:27 PM
I had a brief moment of clarity today. I was on 3G with my Air, and normally I just google but I tried to youtube today... it doesn't load instantaneously.

I finally realized that a lot of people could be complaining about flash being slow, or stuttering a little- when it is directly related to internet speed, and not cpu speed.

Any well Haswell laptop chip is overkill for browsing flash. Wifi speeds and reception surely has something to do with it too, but usually will be faster per second than internet speed.

The bottleneck is most likely internet connection. On my cable internet via wireless n300 router, nothing has ever taken more than a blink to load... especially with chrome.

Over 3G via my phone, it was definitely going slow.

This may have everything to do with people complaining about browsing issues?

or maybe youtube won't load perfectly and some lighter IT users think it is a cpu issue?


I'm on i5/8/256 and I have just ONCE seen the infamous apple beach ball after 1 month of use. Once skype crashed on me and I had to force quit - I saw the beach ball for a couple seconds.

Never seen it on any other occasion even when running DotA 2 (I don't game, I just wanted to test graphics ability first hand), nor when I run Fusion and ubuntu on an external monitor.

I just got logic pro a couple of days ago, and I've had no issues running it while running 10 different other things either... though I'm sure the i7 would show better speeds (though I'm a light user).

The point is I'm a routine medium-power user with my Air, and I've found everything thus far to be lightning speed.
Hell even when I unrar'd a 6GB file today, it took maybe like about 30-40 seconds (I wish mac had winrar so I could see exact time, the dumba$$ rar app I have is weak).

I'm telling you. Haswell Macbook Air is Skynet :p

w00d
Aug 26, 2013, 02:36 PM
As such, my points are completely valid, and the reason I'm stating them so strongly is because you seem to be missing them. The way Intel processors work is that they turbo boost up when more power is needed. As such, until the i5 hits the max 2.6ghz, it matches the i7. Fact. There is no arguing against that.

Actually, technically, that is false. The i7 has more onboard L3 cache, which would make it a faster CPU even if the clock speed is the same.

ZBoater
Aug 26, 2013, 03:54 PM
...As such, my points are completely valid, and the reason I'm stating them so strongly is because you seem to be missi...The way Intel processors work is that they turbo boost up when more power is needed. As such, until the i5 hits the max 2.6ghz, it matches the i7. Fact. There is no arguing against that.....

Ummmmm, what am I missing? :confused: Yes the i5 turbo boosts to a max of 2.6ghz and matches the i7 assuming the i7 doesn't boost itself up to its max of 3.3ghz.

So if you are saying that an i5 boosted matches a non-boosted i7, then yes, you win. :rolleyes:

I find it hard to believe that even you can make such as weak argument.

i5 max boost = 2.6GHz.

i7 max boost = 3.3GHz.

i7 > i5. Any other flawed comparisons you want to make? :confused:

Oh, and BTW,

BASE clock speed of i5 = 1.3GHz.

BASE clock speed of i7 = 1.7GHz.

Just in case you wanted to drop that every day task, non maxed out argument again.... :apple:

w00d
Aug 26, 2013, 04:26 PM
For reference, here is a summary of the differences between the two CPUs:

http://ark.intel.com/compare/75114,75028

Mike in Kansas
Aug 26, 2013, 04:50 PM
I can also assure him the i7 will never be faster than the i5 when doing tasks that don't require the CPU to max out.

Have you downloaded Intel Power Gadget like w00d suggested and actually OBSERVED how the CPU reacts versus just speculating? I did it a week ago and have spent quite a bit of my time looking at how my 2012 i7 MBA performs when doing "everyday" tasks.

The 2012 i7 has a base speed of 2.0GHz, with a turbo of 3.0 in dual core and 3.2 in single core. With all background apps and processes killed, it sits there at 0.8GHz to 1.2GHz. If you launch Safari, it immediately jumps to 3.0GHz for a second and then evens back out at 1.2GHz or so. Start moving the cursor around and it goes to 2.0 to 2.4. Grab a slider on the side of the window, move the window up and down and it again shoots up to 3.0 - 3.1 GHz. Kill Safari and it immediately drops back down to under 2.0GHz and eventually settles down to 0.8GHz.

Similarly, launch iTunes. Again, screams up to 3GHz upon launching and updating Genius, then again settles out. Scroll your albums and it jumps up to 3.0 again. Play a song and it levels back out to 1.0 to 1.2

This is played out time and time and time again. The only app I didn't see this high level of processor speed is when I opened Pages. But when opening a document, it again shoots up over 2.8GHz.

Download it, see for yourself, and report back. After observing this for a week, I am more than convinced that the 2012 (and probably the 2013) processors spend more time at the high end of their turbo range than you would expect. At the very least, i7 doesn't need to be "driven hard" or "maxed out on high demand apps" to really go to high clock speeds; they are consistently running at speeds higher than their i5 counterparts even when doing tasks like mail, Safari, iTunes, etc.

Doublea6
Aug 26, 2013, 05:06 PM
After reading the article which one did you buy?

Well I'll probably go with an i7 because I don't want apples slowest CPU. I also found it annoying that the i5 was about the same speed as last years air. I also want it to be more powerful because I was disappointed that the pro didn't get updated and I was most likely going to get that one. I just don't want to wait for October.

I found it really unhelpful, tbh. All it shows is that at full CPU usage, the i7 runs faster than the i5... not really surprising considering it's got 700 more mhz when it does. Also uses the same amount of battery more than it gives performance back, supposedly. In day to day usage the i7 and i5 perform the same.

Seriously?! Did you even read the whole thing?! It said that even on the same tasks the i7 performed better and more efficiently then the i5. The i7 does everything better. Whatever though.

ezekielrage_99
Aug 26, 2013, 07:27 PM
Seriously you commend the posts that have terrible points and criticise mine for pointing out how you STILL miss the point?! seriously?! I never said the i7 wasn't faster than the i5 overall, of course it is.

And me, arguing aggressively compared to ZBoater, who's accusing me of obscuring facts when he never uses any? Have you actually read any of my posts and seen my well-referenced facts and arguments? I mean, wow, really? Your whole post makes no sense.

Again you are reinforcing my point with that response. Dunning-Kruger effect methinks.

Seriously?! Did you even read the whole thing?! It said that even on the same tasks the i7 performed better and more efficiently then the i5. The i7 does everything better. Whatever though.

I posted the same thing before and the answer was similar, he is not accepting of facts instead clinging to sophistical logic that and i5 = i7 at same clock speed for "average" tasks where it has been proven several times this is not the case. Not even taking into account the L3 cache is very different, this does impact performance...

ezekielrage_99
Aug 26, 2013, 07:44 PM
Have you downloaded Intel Power Gadget like w00d suggested and actually OBSERVED how the CPU reacts versus just speculating? I did it a week ago and have spent quite a bit of my time looking at how my 2012 i7 MBA performs when doing "everyday" tasks.

The 2012 i7 has a base speed of 2.0GHz, with a turbo of 3.0 in dual core and 3.2 in single core. With all background apps and processes killed, it sits there at 0.8GHz to 1.2GHz. If you launch Safari, it immediately jumps to 3.0GHz for a second and then evens back out at 1.2GHz or so. Start moving the cursor around and it goes to 2.0 to 2.4. Grab a slider on the side of the window, move the window up and down and it again shoots up to 3.0 - 3.1 GHz. Kill Safari and it immediately drops back down to under 2.0GHz and eventually settles down to 0.8GHz.

Similarly, launch iTunes. Again, screams up to 3GHz upon launching and updating Genius, then again settles out. Scroll your albums and it jumps up to 3.0 again. Play a song and it levels back out to 1.0 to 1.2

This is played out time and time and time again. The only app I didn't see this high level of processor speed is when I opened Pages. But when opening a document, it again shoots up over 2.8GHz.

Download it, see for yourself, and report back. After observing this for a week, I am more than convinced that the 2012 (and probably the 2013) processors spend more time at the high end of their turbo range than you would expect. At the very least, i7 doesn't need to be "driven hard" or "maxed out on high demand apps" to really go to high clock speeds; they are consistently running at speeds higher than their i5 counterparts even when doing tasks like mail, Safari, iTunes, etc.

This is absolutely spot on, it's how they are fundamentally design to work and do function in an everyday scenario.

Ronnoco
Aug 27, 2013, 02:35 AM
Again you are reinforcing my point with that response. Dunning-Kruger effect methinks.



I posted the same thing before and the answer was similar, he is not accepting of facts instead clinging to sophistical logic that and i5 = i7 at same clock speed for "average" tasks where it has been proven several times this is not the case. Not even taking into account the L3 cache is very different, this does impact performance...

Honestly, I finally had to put that mattferg dude on ignore. I grew weary of his ridiculous non-factual arguments and his bitterly clinging to nonsensical logic.

AXs
Aug 27, 2013, 03:39 AM
you guys are just going in circles at this point.

It's one person's word, against the other. No one is going to win.

Maybe if someone would put up test results related to time/speed it would be more conclusive.

I too would like to see how much the i7 improves my browsing. As it is, my i5/8 on 30mbps cable and wireless n300 loads youtube homepage in about 1 second from clicking the bookmarked tab on chrome.

There's no delay or stutter ever, it takes 1 second to open, load, and play an HD video as well.

Microsoft Word takes 1 second to boot, and 1 second to load templates. Maybe you'll save a tenth of a second with the i7?

I think you guys are missing his point entirely, or at least are not open-minded enough to consider 'alternative perspectives'.
Not saying you should agree with him, but at least try and understand what he's saying.

Because as someone with college level debate experience, you guys are arguing over different points, or are equivocating quite a fair bit.

ezekielrage_99
Aug 27, 2013, 08:01 AM
Honestly, I finally had to put that mattferg dude on ignore. I grew weary of his ridiculous non-factual arguments and his bitterly clinging to nonsensical logic.

LOL that is a good call. :cool:

mr.bee
Aug 27, 2013, 08:54 AM
you guys are just going in circles at this point.

It's one person's word, against the other. No one is going to win.

Maybe if someone would put up test results related to time/speed it would be more conclusive.

I too would like to see how much the i7 improves my browsing. As it is, my i5/8 on 30mbps cable and wireless n300 loads youtube homepage in about 1 second from clicking the bookmarked tab on chrome.

There's no delay or stutter ever, it takes 1 second to open, load, and play an HD video as well.

Microsoft Word takes 1 second to boot, and 1 second to load templates. Maybe you'll save a tenth of a second with the i7?


Why are you extrapolating 'opening one program' with everyday use of a computer given two different processors?

It's much more complex than 'substract [insert your daily task] with 20%' to know if i7 is 'faster' than i5.

AXs
Aug 27, 2013, 09:17 AM
I guess we should first define 'everyday use' with relativity to this discussion, to avoid arguing over cross-purposes right?

Well, we did that.

I'm not going to get into it again. The Air is marketed to a specific segmentation. And just because a few particulars from a different segmentation decide that the Air may be useful to them, it doesn't redefine the Air's placement in the market.

At the end of the day, the real question in 1 month will be - The Air or The Pro.

Let us see how many will pick the Air over the Retina Pro 13". The i5 vs i7 discussion will become obsolete fast.

Btw, Just noticed i3 was edited to the topic title. So hopefully someone will come tell us why i3Y is better than i5u and is the best chip for browsing :p

m98custom1212
Aug 27, 2013, 09:26 AM
you guys are just going in circles at this point.

It's one person's word, against the other. No one is going to win.

Maybe if someone would put up test results related to time/speed it would be more conclusive.

I too would like to see how much the i7 improves my browsing. As it is, my i5/8 on 30mbps cable and wireless n300 loads youtube homepage in about 1 second from clicking the bookmarked tab on chrome.

There's no delay or stutter ever, it takes 1 second to open, load, and play an HD video as well.

Microsoft Word takes 1 second to boot, and 1 second to load templates. Maybe you'll save a tenth of a second with the i7?

I think you guys are missing his point entirely, or at least are not open-minded enough to consider 'alternative perspectives'.
Not saying you should agree with him, but at least try and understand what he's saying.

Because as someone with college level debate experience, you guys are arguing over different points, or are equivocating quite a fair bit.

You chimed in with nothing to support or argue just though out about one second here and there.

Plus, on 30mbps cable your hold up is your internet speed that's only 3.75 Megabytes per second. That's nothing

AXs
Aug 27, 2013, 10:13 AM
You chimed in with nothing to support or argue just though out about one second here and there.

Plus, on 30mbps cable your hold up is your internet speed that's only 3.75 Megabytes per second. That's nothing

I'm sorry that doesn't make any sense. Can you clarify in clarity please. I find it hard to understand some of your posts, so It is hard to respond.

And please, don't make this about my internet speed. red herring 1o1.

I didn't make any assertions, but you highlighted my point exactly. No one has statistical nor illustrated backing to their claims.

I'll tell you now that my 13" Macbook Air runs Chrome for 15 hours. I'll say it's true because you can't disprove it. You'll say prove it or it is false.
Appeal to ignorance 1o1

Okay seriously, i'm out.

mattferg
Aug 27, 2013, 11:11 AM
Well I'll probably go with an i7 because I don't want apples slowest CPU. I also found it annoying that the i5 was about the same speed as last years air. I also want it to be more powerful because I was disappointed that the pro didn't get updated and I was most likely going to get that one. I just don't want to wait for October.



Seriously?! Did you even read the whole thing?! It said that even on the same tasks the i7 performed better and more efficiently then the i5. The i7 does everything better. Whatever though.

The i7 doesn't do everything better, that's physically possible and if you understood turboboost you'd know this. Whatever though.

----------

Again you are reinforcing my point with that response. Dunning-Kruger effect methinks.



I posted the same thing before and the answer was similar, he is not accepting of facts instead clinging to sophistical logic that and i5 = i7 at same clock speed for "average" tasks where it has been proven several times this is not the case. Not even taking into account the L3 cache is very different, this does impact performance...

You are aware you're perfectly exhibiting this effect, right? If you took the time to Google it you'd understand that it's unskilled individuals (which is clearly yourself judging by this thread) arguing that they understand a technology as much as those who do, do.

The i5 pretty much equals the i7 at the same clockspeed. If you can't understand this, you really are perfectly demonstrating the Dunning-Kruger effect. At clockspeeds slower than 2.6ghz this extra increase in cache isn't going to give the clearly superior performance you claim, and that's all it is. Extra cache, nothing more.

----------

Ummmmm, what am I missing? :confused: Yes the i5 turbo boosts to a max of 2.6ghz and matches the i7 assuming the i7 doesn't boost itself up to its max of 3.3ghz.

So if you are saying that an i5 boosted matches a non-boosted i7, then yes, you win. :rolleyes:

I find it hard to believe that even you can make such as weak argument.

i5 max boost = 2.6GHz.

i7 max boost = 3.3GHz.

i7 > i5. Any other flawed comparisons you want to make? :confused:

Oh, and BTW,

BASE clock speed of i5 = 1.3GHz.

BASE clock speed of i7 = 1.7GHz.

Just in case you wanted to drop that every day task, non maxed out argument again.... :apple:

Again, ZBoater showing your misunderstanding of both logic and Intel processors. They don't turboboost up to 3.3ghz, they don't need to. I've run the software on my Mac people keep claiming I haven't, my i5 never goes above 2.3ghz for everyday tasks. A turboboosted i5 at 2.3 will match an i7 at 2.3, and as such spending the $150 is wasted for everyday users. Base clockspeed is irrelevant in Intel's current generation of processors.

----------

Have you downloaded Intel Power Gadget like w00d suggested and actually OBSERVED how the CPU reacts versus just speculating? I did it a week ago and have spent quite a bit of my time looking at how my 2012 i7 MBA performs when doing "everyday" tasks.

The 2012 i7 has a base speed of 2.0GHz, with a turbo of 3.0 in dual core and 3.2 in single core. With all background apps and processes killed, it sits there at 0.8GHz to 1.2GHz. If you launch Safari, it immediately jumps to 3.0GHz for a second and then evens back out at 1.2GHz or so. Start moving the cursor around and it goes to 2.0 to 2.4. Grab a slider on the side of the window, move the window up and down and it again shoots up to 3.0 - 3.1 GHz. Kill Safari and it immediately drops back down to under 2.0GHz and eventually settles down to 0.8GHz.

Similarly, launch iTunes. Again, screams up to 3GHz upon launching and updating Genius, then again settles out. Scroll your albums and it jumps up to 3.0 again. Play a song and it levels back out to 1.0 to 1.2

This is played out time and time and time again. The only app I didn't see this high level of processor speed is when I opened Pages. But when opening a document, it again shoots up over 2.8GHz.

Download it, see for yourself, and report back. After observing this for a week, I am more than convinced that the 2012 (and probably the 2013) processors spend more time at the high end of their turbo range than you would expect. At the very least, i7 doesn't need to be "driven hard" or "maxed out on high demand apps" to really go to high clock speeds; they are consistently running at speeds higher than their i5 counterparts even when doing tasks like mail, Safari, iTunes, etc.

Done this, I don't have the same results (maybe that's because we're running different models... as such your data is irrelevant in this thread)

----------

This is absolutely spot on, it's how they are fundamentally design to work and do function in an everyday scenario.

No, it really isn't. If the processors constantly turboboosted all the way, Intel would just keep the clockspeed higher, as turboboosting takes a lot of power and it'd be a waste for an Intel U chip. If you think it's natural for a processor to go from 0-100-0 all the time with no steps in between, Dunning-Kruger effect for you, again.

----------

Honestly, I finally had to put that mattferg dude on ignore. I grew weary of his consistent logic and arguing of the facts which made me feel bad that I wasted $150.

Fixed this for you.

Literally I'm so done with this thread. I've posted stuff to support my arguments, used consistent logic and facts, and stats, to prove that what you guys are arguing is nonsense. You personally attack me, call me childish and stupid, accuse me of being unskilled, and do the same to anyone who dares to agree with me.

You then bring up irrelevant arguments, refuse to address the points I raise, then when you do, you use ridiculous stuff like the OpenOffice benchmark, arguing that is somehow everyday usage.

For anyone who takes the time to read this whole thread, get the i5 if you don't do anything CPU intensive, including gaming. These guys don't have a clue, and need to justify their purchases to themselves on the internet. I own an i5 and have used an i7 regularly, unless you do lots of editing/coding, you'll never notice the difference.

m98custom1212
Aug 27, 2013, 11:33 AM
I'm sorry that doesn't make any sense. Can you clarify in clarity please. I find it hard to understand some of your posts, so It is hard to respond.

And please, don't make this about my internet speed. red herring 1o1.

I didn't make any assertions, but you highlighted my point exactly. No one has statistical nor illustrated backing to their claims.

I'll tell you now that my 13" Macbook Air runs Chrome for 15 hours. I'll say it's true because you can't disprove it. You'll say prove it or it is false.
Appeal to ignorance 1o1

Okay seriously, i'm out.

You got my point..

You claimed youtube loads in one second.. That has nothing to with the I5 you will be bottlenecked by your internet speed far before the I5..

Mike in Kansas
Aug 27, 2013, 12:03 PM
Done this, I don't have the same results (maybe that's because we're running different models... as such your data is irrelevant in this thread)

It's relevant in the fact that folks need to be aware of this application. That way they can download Power Gadget and see for themselves how the clock speed changes in their 2013 MBAs as various tasks are performed on the machine.

My 2013 MBA comes back from college this weekend; I'll be sure to put Power Gadget on it and see how the 2013 differs from the 2012.

AXs
Aug 27, 2013, 12:16 PM
you got my point..

You claimed youtube loads in one second.. That has nothing to with the i5 you will be bottlenecked by your internet speed far before the i5..

exactly


i finally realized that a lot of people could be complaining about flash being slow, or stuttering a little- when it is directly related to internet speed, and not cpu speed.

Any well haswell laptop chip is overkill for browsing flash. Wifi speeds and reception surely has something to do with it too, but usually will be faster per second than internet speed.

the bottleneck is most likely internet connection.

;)

w00d
Aug 27, 2013, 12:22 PM
For anyone who takes the time to read this whole thread, get the i5 if you don't do anything CPU intensive, including gaming. These guys don't have a clue, and need to justify their purchases to themselves on the internet. I own an i5 and have used an i7 regularly, unless you do lots of editing/coding, you'll never notice the difference.

I don't understand why you're so adamant about pushing your incorrect perception as fact and insulting the rest of us. Why should anyone blindly believe you... because you can use a bold font and call us idiots? You can try to close your eyes and keep talking louder and louder but it doesn't change reality.

The facts here are in plain sight. The i7 is a superior chip in every regard. In addition to the higher clock speeds (both CPU and graphics) it has more cache and additional instruction sets that the i5 does not. It is a mistake to ignore the effectiveness of these features.

How can you explain that under a light workload (which I am assuming loosely translates to your so called "everyday tasks") the i7 has better battery life than the i5? It's not a big difference, but it is there. Essentially, the i7 is a more powerful CPU at any speed compared to the i5. It is able to get more done in less cycles because of the superior performance of the CPU and then spend more time idle conserving the battery (when doing these super minimal tasks you keep talking about).

All the points I am making have been backed up with specs and data.

Bottom line, why should we believe you when you say the rest of us are idiots and don't know what we are talking about? All the data that has been presented suggests the opposite.

AXs
Aug 27, 2013, 01:03 PM
Not EVERY aspect.

Not power efficiency and battery consumption. This has been the whole base argument in this thread - vs loss of batter life vs power gain.

And I think we've concluded that "Whatever makes you happy" is the only right answer.

ZBoater
Aug 27, 2013, 03:39 PM
...And I think we've concluded that "Whatever makes you happy" is the only right answer.

Agreed. I think the continuing issue is the insistence that the i5 and i7 perform the same at "lower" levels of usage, and that the i7 heat and battery usage is "excessive" for what it gives you. I think the Anandtech review provides a well thought out comparison. Yes, it gets hotter. By 4-5 degrees. Yes, it uses up more battery. 52 minutes more over 11-12 hours. Yes, its faster. Up to 28%.

As long as we keep these differences in perspective, we can make educated choices and be "happier". :D

AXs
Aug 27, 2013, 03:46 PM
Agreed. I think the continuing issue is the insistence that the i5 and i7 perform the same at "lower" levels of usage, and that the i7 heat and battery usage is "excessive" for what it gives you. I think the Anandtech review provides a well thought out comparison. Yes, it gets hotter. By 4-5 degrees. Yes, it uses up more battery. 52 minutes more over 11-12 hours. Yes, its faster. Up to 28%.

As long as we keep these differences in perspective, we can make educated choices and be "happier". :D

Exactly. And further more, we should take this time to prepare to battle the oncoming wave for 13" Haswell Retina Pro users.

They will be attacking us soon enough talking about how the Retina is more portable than the Air and is Faster and has same battery life (even if Apple announces 9 hours on the Retina model). Yea, 9 hours will be 'same' as 12 hours.

Brace yourselves. Apple Winter is coming.:apple:

SchodMC
Aug 27, 2013, 04:01 PM
Exactly. And further more, we should take this time to prepare to battle the oncoming wave for 13" Haswell Retina Pro users.

They will be attacking us soon enough talking about how the Retina is more portable than the Air and is Faster and has same battery life (even if Apple announces 9 hours on the Retina model). Yea, 9 hours will be 'same' as 12 hours.

Brace yourselves. Apple Winter is coming.:apple:

The enemy of my enemy is my friend... :p What happened over the time? I mean, where are the times where the "battle" was against Windows / PC user? ;)

cu
SchodMC

PDXPean
Aug 27, 2013, 04:27 PM
Agreed. I think the continuing issue is the insistence that the i5 and i7 perform the same at "lower" levels of usage, and that the i7 heat and battery usage is "excessive" for what it gives you. I think the Anandtech review provides a well thought out comparison. Yes, it gets hotter. By 4-5 degrees. Yes, it uses up more battery. 52 minutes more over 11-12 hours. Yes, its faster. Up to 28%.

As long as we keep these differences in perspective, we can make educated choices and be "happier". :D

I am curious. Do you use yours frequently on your lap? If so, doing intense work? Does it feel hot on your lap at all?

ZBoater
Aug 27, 2013, 04:29 PM
I am curious. Do you use yours frequently on your lap? If so, doing intense work? Does it feel hot on your lap at all?

I do not. Although it is a "lap"top :D I never use it on my lap. I use it 80% on a desk, and 20% on my chest while in bed, but the (very sharp edge) of the bottom half against my chest, not the flat bottom. So "heat" is never an issue for me.

PDFierro
Aug 27, 2013, 10:58 PM
Exactly. And further more, we should take this time to prepare to battle the oncoming wave for 13" Haswell Retina Pro users.

They will be attacking us soon enough talking about how the Retina is more portable than the Air and is Faster and has same battery life (even if Apple announces 9 hours on the Retina model). Yea, 9 hours will be 'same' as 12 hours.

Brace yourselves. Apple Winter is coming.:apple:

If I was getting a MBA, I would definitely max it out and get the i7. But on the rMBP, it's not as much of a clear-cut choice.

sofianito
Aug 28, 2013, 03:32 PM
For anyone who takes the time to read this whole thread, get the i5 if you don't do anything CPU intensive, including gaming. These guys don't have a clue, and need to justify their purchases to themselves on the internet. I own an i5 and have used an i7 regularly, unless you do lots of editing/coding, you'll never notice the difference.

What do you mean by editing/coding? programming & compilation? Single threaded tasks?

----------

I do not. Although it is a "lap"top :D I never use it on my lap. I use it 80% on a desk, and 20% on my chest while in bed, but the (very sharp edge) of the bottom half against my chest, not the flat bottom. So "heat" is never an issue for me.

Do you feel the magnetic field on your chest? Does it turbo-boost your heart?... :D

Scott6666
Aug 29, 2013, 08:23 PM
In all this discussion between them, there is almost nothing mentioned of the fan noise that comes with each.

$150 is a relatively minor sum which I can see paying for the (sometimes) extra power of the i7.

HOWEVER, if the cost of the extra power is fan noise it's better to go with the i5. Can we have 2 pages of back and forth on this please.

I'm ready to buy but still after all this thread, I can't figure out which I should get. I want power but not if it comes with noise.

I know the i7 must be noisy sometimes, say with games or handbrake, but in everyday use (including coding) will I notice extra noise over the i5? I read Anand's review but found his notation on noise to be rather terse and, for me, not so convincing.

ZBoater
Aug 29, 2013, 08:57 PM
If you so a search on "fan noise", you will see that topic has been beaten to death even more so than this one. And that's saying a lot.

So the question is not whether it is noisier, as they have the same fan, but whether one runs the fan more than the other. The problem is "noise" is somewhat subjective. Time with the fan running over 2000rpm is a little more objective. Even when my fan it running I barely hear it. No, I am not hard of hearing. But the fan blowing at 6000 rpm doesn't really bother me nor do I notice it.

Other people are more sensitive to this "noise". Probably the same people who can't live without retina. :rolleyes: If you are noise sensitive, then you want the one that is likely to run the fan less.

I have not seen objective comparisons on fan runtime. The i7 is likely to reach a higher temperature quicker than the i5 because it is working harder/faster. So one can assume the fan will run longer. How much longer or how much harder will be dependent on use, and whether that is enough "noise" to make a difference for you is entirely dependent on your "noise" sensitivity.

When you do your search and read some of the noise threads, you will notice some make it seem like there is a leaf blower inside their systems, or there is a death rattle that will pierce your ear drums. These, of course, are likely exaggerations. Others will dismiss the noise (like me) as nothing to be concerned about as it is just a very low level, barely perceptible woosh sound. Both processors will cause the fans to turn on. I've been sitting at my i7 all day browsing the web and smc Fan Control reports the rpms at 1991-2013, and it has barely moved. When I run Civ5, I can't see it but I can hear it. I turn on the game music volume and the problem is fixed. :D

l.a.rossmann
Aug 30, 2013, 01:33 AM
You'll notice the difference in your wallet MUCH more than the difference in performance.

Dr. McKay
Aug 31, 2013, 10:58 AM
Just ordered my MBA 13/i7/8/256 from an Apple Premium Reseller (closest thing we have to a real Apple Store over here in Belgium.
Oooh, the agony of waiting :D

sofianito
Aug 31, 2013, 12:29 PM
You'll notice the difference in your wallet MUCH more than the difference in performance.

I think you'll notice difference when running single threaded tasks such as compilation, ripping, video encoding,...

Saturn1217
Aug 31, 2013, 02:10 PM
In all this discussion between them, there is almost nothing mentioned of the fan noise that comes with each.

$150 is a relatively minor sum which I can see paying for the (sometimes) extra power of the i7.

HOWEVER, if the cost of the extra power is fan noise it's better to go with the i5. Can we have 2 pages of back and forth on this please.

I'm ready to buy but still after all this thread, I can't figure out which I should get. I want power but not if it comes with noise.

I know the i7 must be noisy sometimes, say with games or handbrake, but in everyday use (including coding) will I notice extra noise over the i5? I read Anand's review but found his notation on noise to be rather terse and, for me, not so convincing.

I wouldn't be worried about fan noise. Apple lowered the default fan speed for the new airs to 1200rpms from the already inaudible 2000rpms and this was likely because the new processors are so much cooler than ivy bridge (even my i7) that 2000rpms isn't necessary the vast majority of the time and would just waste battery life. I use smcfancontrol to monitor my cpu temps and adjust fan speed. Most of the time (unless I'm watching videos - especially netflix) I leave the fans at 1300rpms and don't have any temp issues. For youtube I might raise the fans to 2000rpms but this is still inaudible (remember that this was the base fan speed for 2012 MBAs which were silent unless under stress).

Constantine.T
Sep 11, 2013, 09:28 AM
Good day to every one!

I read all thread and obviously this video might be helpful:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWogWOr07LQ

I am about to buy my air 13 i5 8mb 128 ssd. Hope on your advise, guys.

As far as I've noticed i7 will be pretty useful for those who usually deals with Photoshop, various video editors and so on. But I am going to use air primary for web, video, music editors (cubase, logic), sometimes for gaming. I don't need extreme level of performance but is the difference between i5 and i7 really noticeable in gaming and music editors? Are there any obvious evidences that gaming will be much better on i7? Same question for music editing. If the difference is only about max 10 sec, then it is not an issue for me and I will go for i5.

:confused::confused::confused:

ZBoater
Sep 11, 2013, 10:12 AM
That video is comparing 2011 models, FYI.

If you can afford to get the i7, get that one. If you are so cost constrained that $150 is going to cause you problems, then you will be able to make do with the i5. No issues other than waiting a little longer for some things. My advice to anyone who asks is to buy as much computer as you can afford. No one ever complained about their computer having too much RAM or too much SSD or too fast a CPU.

w00d
Sep 11, 2013, 02:20 PM
If you can afford to get the i7, get that one. If you are so cost constrained that $150 is going to cause you problems, then you will be able to make do with the i5. No issues other than waiting a little longer for some things. My advice to anyone who asks is to buy as much computer as you can afford. No one ever complained about their computer having too much RAM or too much SSD or too fast a CPU.

That is a good summary. If I had to use the i5 instead of i7, it would not prevent me from doing whatever it is I do. Both CPUs are relatively slow. Dropping $150 to make the experience just a little better is worth it to me, but there have been times in my life where that money would have been better spent. The base level MBA is still an amazing machine all things considered.

AXs
Sep 11, 2013, 07:58 PM
Around 20% boost of power at med-high cpu tasks.
VS
Around 1 hour loss of battery at med-high cpu tasks.
(Anandtech)

Miltz
Sep 12, 2013, 01:47 AM
I have a Windows 7 PC that I custom built with 16GB of RAM, i7 2600K CPU and a 256MB Samsung 840PRO SSD. I have the base 2013 Macbook Air and it feels amazing. Actually it feels equally fast as my desktop does. I suspect Mavericks will make it feel even better. Mostly internet browsing and mild work. I paid $850 for the base model, at the price it's really amazing. I almost went all the way... I'm glad I didn't because this is a 11" mobile device not a desktop replacement.

Constantine.T
Sep 12, 2013, 02:25 AM
That video is comparing 2011 models, FYI.

If you can afford to get the i7, get that one. If you are so cost constrained that $150 is going to cause you problems, then you will be able to make do with the i5. No issues other than waiting a little longer for some things. My advice to anyone who asks is to buy as much computer as you can afford. No one ever complained about their computer having too much RAM or too much SSD or too fast a CPU.

Indeed, you are right. Sorry, I missed this fact.

BTW IMO having 8mb for additional 100$ is completely justified. You get 2 x perfomance here and will not suffer from lack of memory in next 2-3 years for sure. But I can't say the same for CPU. For 150$ you will get only 15-20% speed improving in such programs like photoshop, video editors and etc. For me it is not critical to wait for 10 sec more during rendering. My main concern is what would be the best for gaming (and music editing - ~10 sec difference is not an issue here at all)? I assume it depends more on HD5000 but not CPU. Am I right? Please, don't tell me that air is not intended for gaming, I aware of it :) It will be really seldom case for me to play, but I will really suffer if I know that i7 is much better here.

m98custom1212
Sep 12, 2013, 06:32 AM
I have a Windows 7 PC that I custom built with 16GB of RAM, i7 2600K CPU and a 256GB Samsung 840PRO SSD. I have the base 2013 Macbook Air and it feels amazing. Actually it feels equally fast as my desktop does. I suspect Mavericks will make it feel even better. Mostly internet browsing and mild work. I paid $850 for the base model, at the price it's really amazing. I almost went all the way... I'm glad I didn't because this is a 11" mobile device not a desktop replacement.


It will feel "equally as fast" due to the SSD. Now, load an 8gb ram disk on your desktop and the desktop will be faster.

You won't notice a difference unless you load some heavy tasks or do some serious muiltasking. Actually you could sell your I7 2600K and get a I5 2500k + cash and be ahead.

I went from a 2500k to 3770k to a 3930k noticed no difference until I started using what I built it for.

Redbull916
Sep 12, 2013, 07:29 AM
But I am going to use air primary for web, video, music editors (cubase, logic), sometimes for gaming. I don't need extreme level of performance but is the difference between i5 and i7 really noticeable in gaming and music editors?
:confused::confused::confused:

You will see a difference. I use Propellorhead reason and the extra power of the i7 allows more concurrent samples and less latency. I can see the CPU meter in Reason running at near max with the i7, if I had the i5 it would max out sooner and I would have to put up with poor latency.

Ask yourself how many times can you hear yourself saying "I should have got the i7, but it's too late".

Constantine.T
Sep 12, 2013, 08:15 AM
You will see a difference. I use Propellorhead reason and the extra power of the i7 allows more concurrent samples and less latency. I can see the CPU meter in Reason running at near max with the i7, if I had the i5 it would max out sooner and I would have to put up with poor latency.

Ask yourself how many times can you hear yourself saying "I should have got the i7, but it's too late".

Thanks for your contribution to my question. (BTW, I am going to use Logic or studio ONE for my purposes, it is much better optimized than Reason). Ok, there might be insignificant latency delay, but I usually prefer to use less vst instruments and plugins online, thereby I always convert all instruments to samples 24bit 44hz. From that point I doubt to see any significant difference between i5 and i7. I would say there rather can be some issues because of RAM lacking (especially when you use many audio samples), that's why I will go with 8mb RAM. i7 only can help you to make rendering faster. IMO

AXs
Sep 12, 2013, 08:20 AM
The thing is that it's a matter of perspective- how you look at it.

Where I'm from, an i7/8/256GB costs slightly more than a base Pro Retina 13".

It really negates the cost-effectiveness of a buying an Air model when you end spending more than you would for an Air, than you would with a Pro.

I think Pros would see a $100 price drop as well, which would be in line with all apple products price reduction seen in 2013.

Then it's a matter of what you would pick - A macbook Air which has a 3 year old design and screen, but best battery life in the world... or a Pro with a retina display, 1 year old design, Better graphics card, more ports including Hdmi...oh, and of course a more powerful series of cpu.


This only applies to Haswell comparisons though. I think if you HAVE to buy a laptop before Haswell Pros are released, and you need as much power as possible- Get the i7/8 Air. I would recommend it over the Ivy Bridge Pro.

However, if you can indeed wait and the size and weight difference isn't essential then with the same budget, a Retina Pro 13" is definitely going to give more...imo.

Constantine.T
Sep 12, 2013, 08:29 AM
The thing is that it's a matter of perspective- how you look at it.

Where I'm from, an i7/8/256GB costs slightly more than a base Pro Retina 13".

It really negates the cost-effectiveness of a buying an Air model when you end spending more than you would for an Air, than you would with a Pro.

I think Pros would see a $100 price drop as well, which would be in line with all apple products price reduction seen in 2013.

Then it's a matter of what you would pick - A macbook Air which has a 3 year old design and screen, but best battery life in the world... or a Pro with a retina display, 1 year old design, Better graphics card, more ports including Hdmi...oh, and of course a more powerful series of cpu.


This only applies to Haswell comparisons though. I think if you HAVE to buy a laptop before Haswell Pros are released, and you need as much power as possible- Get the i7/8 Air. I would recommend it over the Ivy Bridge Pro.

However, if you can indeed wait and the size and weight difference isn't essential then with the same budget, a Retina Pro 13" is definitely going to give more...imo.

Retina pro 13 is pretty bad choice since there are many issues of interface lagging and so on. I have enough money for retina 15 as well, but I know how hardly money earn, therefore I won't spend it easily for unuseful for me features or technologies becoming obsolete like all macbook pro without haswell. That would be silly to buy new pro before official release scheduled supposedly in October. So the choice is evident - air 13. One year later you can sell it with minimum loss and upgrade yourself to new PRO or new Air.

m98custom1212
Sep 12, 2013, 09:18 AM
The thing is that it's a matter of perspective- how you look at it.

Where I'm from, an i7/8/256GB costs slightly more than a base Pro Retina 13".

It really negates the cost-effectiveness of a buying an Air model when you end spending more than you would for an Air, than you would with a Pro.

I think Pros would see a $100 price drop as well, which would be in line with all apple products price reduction seen in 2013.

Then it's a matter of what you would pick - A macbook Air which has a 3 year old design and screen, but best battery life in the world... or a Pro with a retina display, 1 year old design, Better graphics card, more ports including Hdmi...oh, and of course a more powerful series of cpu.


This only applies to Haswell comparisons though. I think if you HAVE to buy a laptop before Haswell Pros are released, and you need as much power as possible- Get the i7/8 Air. I would recommend it over the Ivy Bridge Pro.

However, if you can indeed wait and the size and weight difference isn't essential then with the same budget, a Retina Pro 13" is definitely going to give more...imo.

Portability cost money... That .5 lb lighter cost.

So if you want the most powerful air it will cost just like anything else

AXs
Sep 12, 2013, 04:18 PM
Retina pro 13 is pretty bad choice since there are many issues of interface lagging and so on. I have enough money for retina 15 as well, but I know how hardly money earn, therefore I won't spend it easily for unuseful for me features or technologies becoming obsolete like all macbook pro without haswell. That would be silly to buy new pro before official release scheduled supposedly in October. So the choice is evident - air 13. One year later you can sell it with minimum loss and upgrade yourself to new PRO or new Air.

Did you even read my post?


And yes, opportunity cost applies to you the way it does everyone else.


@dude above: 'Portability'

Miltz
Sep 12, 2013, 05:45 PM
It will feel "equally as fast" due to the SSD. Now, load an 8gb ram disk on your desktop and the desktop will be faster.

You won't notice a difference unless you load some heavy tasks or do some serious muiltasking. Actually you could sell your I7 2600K and get a I5 2500k + cash and be ahead.

I went from a 2500k to 3770k to a 3930k noticed no difference until I started using what I built it for.

Yeah of course... I'm not going to Edit my Canon RAW files on my Macbook Air. That's what I have my desktop for. :)

m98custom1212
Sep 12, 2013, 08:07 PM
Yeah of course... I'm going going to Edit my Canon RAW files on my Macbook Air. That's what I have my desktop for. :)


?? you just proved my point

Constantine.T
Sep 13, 2013, 01:43 AM
Did you even read my post?


And yes, opportunity cost applies to you the way it does everyone else.


@dude above: 'Portability'

Yes, I read it. It is just an addition to your opinion. We are on the same page up to a point.

I think for average user is rather enough air i5 8mb 128gb. There is no need to take i7 and 256gb (you can buy external, if you have not enough space, or replace it as soon as ssds will become cheaper). 8mb memory is a must because it is not replaceable. i7, judging by the tests and reviews, has not big difference (even more so it has only dual core, not four). Top air significantly cost more, and after 2 years when you will decide to sell it - you will lose more. These days buying top configuration of air or retina is quite silly, much better to buy basic air or wait for pro retina on haswell. IMO

Constantine.T
Sep 13, 2013, 02:36 AM
nevertheless, if you need i7 performance and constantly deal with software requiring CPU performance - just buy it. BTW, I wonder if it's true:

http://blog.laptopmag.com/core-i7-macbook-air-2013

m98custom1212
Sep 13, 2013, 12:21 PM
Yes, I read it. It is just an addition to your opinion. We are on the same page up to a point.

I think for average user is rather enough air i5 8gb 128gb. There is no need to take i7 and 256gb (you can buy external, if you have not enough space, or replace it as soon as ssds will become cheaper). 8gb memory is a must because it is not replaceable. i7, judging by the tests and reviews, has not big difference (even more so it has only dual core, not four). Top air significantly cost more, and after 2 years when you will decide to sell it - you will lose more. These days buying top configuration of air or retina is quite silly, much better to buy basic air or wait for pro retina on haswell. IMO

fixed

ZBoater
Sep 13, 2013, 12:46 PM
nevertheless, if you need i7 performance and constantly deal with software requiring CPU performance - just buy it. BTW, I wonder if it's true:

http://blog.laptopmag.com/core-i7-macbook-air-2013

Why wouldn't it be?

clyde2801
Sep 13, 2013, 04:46 PM
Why wouldn't it be?

Well, it could be that I've heard "you can't tell a difference between high and low end processor options unless you're doing really intensive applications" so long and so often that I've come to regard it as dogma rather than fact.

Maybe the topped out version can be considered the MacBook Air Pro.

Mike in Kansas
Sep 13, 2013, 05:06 PM
Well, it could be that I've heard "you can't tell a difference between high and low end processor options unless you're doing really intensive applications" so long and so often that I've come to regard it as dogma rather than fact.

Maybe the topped out version can be considered the MacBook Air Pro.

I think that's been disproven by now; you can download an app from Intel that monitors and displays your processor speed in real time. It shows that the processor shifts into turbo boost even when performing simple activity such as scrolling through a web page, opening a folder in Finder, doing things in Pages, etc. It's a myth that it only utilizes dynamic over-clocking when doing only processor intensive tasks; it pretty much does it all the time except when you are idling or just streaming music content. Any other time it quickly accelerates, accomplishes the task, then decelerates back down to base clock speed. It's amazing actually - it runs along barely consuming energy when you are idle, when you aren't moving on the screen, when you are static. As soon as you begin doing things with the cursor and opening apps, it quickly speeds up. I don't think many people appreciate just how powerful that can be.