PDA

View Full Version : 11" i7 vs i5 Test(s)




Jazwire
Jun 26, 2013, 02:04 AM
Streaming a HD Netflix (The Lorax) movie test.
====================
Right now I have my MBA 11" i7/8/256 vs my wife's 11" i5/4/128.


I made sure every program was shut down, checked activity monitors to make sure they were exactly the same before I started. Turned off Time Machine.

Both charged to 100% Let them even charge for 30 min after they reached 100% to make sure they were maximum charged.

Both set to 8 brightness ticks and 1 keyboard brightness tick.

I am streaming both in full screen using Safari simultaneously side by side.

Results as I have them below:
===================================

22 min into movie:

i5 - 92%
i7 - 97%

i7 is actually cooler on the bottom, neither are really warm, but the i7 heat is actually almost undetectable. Was not expecting these results so far.

(Double checked activity monitor, nothing different running on the i5, no fans on either machine)

**
45 min into movie:
i5 - 70%
i7 - 84%

Here is something interesting I observed, higher cpu usage on the i5 for Safari and silverlight (netflix player plugin.)
i5 is definitely "warm"
i7 is very slightly "warm"

If I were to give a value 1-10 on heat/warmth.
i5 - 4.5
i7 - 3

**
70 min into movie:
i5 - 54%
i7 - 76%

Heat is the same as earlier with the i5 actually running a little warmer.
No fans running on either machine at any point thus far either.

**
End of movie 1hour 25 min:

i5 - 42% (1:04 Remaining)
i7 - 70% ( 3:24 Remaining)

---------------------------------------------------------
Ending thoughts: Was totally blown away, I was expecting the i7 do do slightly worse than the i5 for both heat and battery.


Possible Conclusion: I did check activity monitor on both machines around the 45 minute mark and watched it for a min or two.
I noticed the i5 cpu load mainly between 45-70 it bounced around a lot in that range.
The i7 cpu load stayed in a much tighter range of 39-45. Did not bounce around like the i5 did.

The cpu load was nearly completely on both machines Safari & Silverlight (Plug-in), the i5 wasn't using CPU cycles on anything else.

So my thoughts are in this test the i7 just handled the job more efficiently, the i5 was throttling up and down a lot and that caused heat and greater battery loss, the i7 was able to maintain a consistant threshold and didn't suffer from having to "turbo boost" as much because the base speed was sufficient.

Thoughts??


(More tests coming, Next, League of Legends (Game) heat, battery & FPS test, side by side... tomorrow night. )



Jazwire
Jun 26, 2013, 03:33 AM
** League of Legends Test**

Setting on both machines.
Resolution - 1368x768
Character Quality - High
Effect Quality - Medium
Environment Quality - High
Shadows - Off

i5 results:
Avg FPS:41
FPS Range:37-50
Heat: Warm, maybe slightly less warm than i7 , fans running fairly loud

i7 results:
Avg FPS: 48
FPS Range:44-58
Heat: Warm - No Fans (Actually ran i7 test twice, because thought maybe I didn't hear fan on 1st run.)

I did not test batter drain on this test. Ill save that for the next text. I just wanted to compared performance and heat.

I was surprised the i5 fans spun up and the i7 did not. Heat was about even, maybe slightly cooler on i5, but it had the fans running where the i7 did not.
***********************************************************


More test tomorrow. (General Usage Test) *Details later* (Sorry tired tonight)

Kevbodian
Jun 26, 2013, 03:35 AM
Nice Jazwire. Probably not the case, but I wonder if the 4GB device had to use swap for the stream more often than the 8GB device... may explain the extra CPU usage.

Playing a video is a matter of loading the video into memory and decoding whereas streaming is using wifi, downloading, placing portions into memory, decoding, rinse repeat.

Can you do a CSGO test? I believe the game is natively supported on OS X. I know it may be hard to do a similar test as it's different every time.

kodeman53
Jun 26, 2013, 03:38 AM
At the end of all these tests the conclusion is, "So what?" and "Who cares?".

Ifti
Jun 26, 2013, 03:44 AM
At the end of all these tests the conclusion is, "So what?" and "Who cares?".

You dont find it useful, but others do.

Unexpected results, but truely positive...............for me anyways! ;)

Leikocyte
Jun 26, 2013, 04:21 AM
You dont find it useful, but others do.

Unexpected results, but truely positive...............for me anyways! ;)

This

----------

Nice Jazwire. Probably not the case, but I wonder if the 4GB device had to use swap for the stream more often than the 8GB device... may explain the extra CPU usage.

Playing a video is a matter of loading the video into memory and decoding whereas streaming is using wifi, downloading, placing portions into memory, decoding, rinse repeat.

Can you do a CSGO test? I believe the game is natively supported on OS X. I know it may be hard to do a similar test as it's different every time.

In that case I still think i7 is going to come out on top.

I'm fairly surprised by the battery results. One would think video decoding is a piece of cake for both current gen i5 and i7, and the battery usage shouldn't really differ much.
However the base clock speed is pretty low for the i5. 1.3 is probably sufficient for web surfing and PDF/office work, anything higher than that would need turbo boost. If I want to squeeze out extra Battery life, utilities like ThrottleStop or any equivalents in OS X might help.

Kevbodian
Jun 26, 2013, 04:27 AM
This

----------



In that case I still think i7 is going to come out on top.

I'm fairly surprised by the battery results. One would think video decoding is a piece of cake for both current gen i5 and i7, and the battery usage shouldn't really differ much.
However the base clock speed is pretty low for the i5. 1.3 is probably sufficient for web surfing and PDF/office work, anything higher than that would need turbo boost. If I want to squeeze out extra Battery life, utilities like ThrottleStop or any equivalents in OS X might help.

I bought an i7/8/128 and it was delivered the day after I went to Japan for 2 weeks (still there now). For the last week or so I've been thinking long and hard whether I should return the i7 and get an i5/8/256. I'm beginning to think I'm alright with the i7.

For me battery life is important as most of the work I do on the laptop will be while on battery. It's just nice to be able to play a game or two once in a while when I'm away from home (I have a nice gaming PC..). Lol, I love when people like kodeman come in and say nothing productive... or come in with "if you want to game, why'd you buy an air"? haha

mayuka
Jun 26, 2013, 05:31 AM
@Jazwire: Could you test idling performance? :confused: At least, that's what's most important for students that are writing during courses or in the library.

Kevbodian
Jun 26, 2013, 05:42 AM
@Jazwire: Could you test idling performance? :confused: At least, that's what's most important for students that are writing during courses or in the library.

Yes, please test sleep while you're at it ;)

HiDEF
Jun 26, 2013, 08:03 AM
Nice post, Jazwire.

paeza
Jun 26, 2013, 08:23 AM
Thank you so much.
Please keep posting more tests.

johnjey
Jun 26, 2013, 08:23 AM
Before jumping on to the bandwagon of how awesome i7 is - let it go through some more practical real world usage of:

1. Heavy surfing - atleast 3 different browsers and 12 different tabs in them
2. Heavy word processing - 20 files open at once
3. Heavy PDF processing - 10 files open
4. 3 hour video - 4 hour audio
5. Flash videos (the xxx sites) - let them run in background :)

& then do the same on i7

I am not a graphic designer & video encoding isn't something I will ever do ..: max - I am going to use adobe products on it like Lightroom - photoshop & some other word/PDF programs & it's mostly will be a business laptop (NO gaming) - so I think my 11" 15/8/512 should be good enough to handle it all nice and cool ...

DoctorK4
Jun 26, 2013, 08:28 AM
Before jumping on to the bandwagon of how awesome i7 is - let it go through some more practical real world usage of:

1. Heavy surfing - atleast 3 different browsers and 12 different tabs in them
2. Heavy word processing - 20 files open at once
3. Heavy PDF processing - 10 files open
4. 3 hour video - 4 hour audio
5. Flash videos (the xxx sites) - let them run in background :)


Is this really practical? How many people have 36 tabs or 20 word docs open simultaneously?

sholzer
Jun 26, 2013, 08:34 AM
Is this really practical? How many people have 36 tabs or 20 word docs open simultaneously?

+1 that would drive me crazy having that many things open at once

musika
Jun 26, 2013, 08:35 AM
Is this really practical? How many people have 36 tabs or 20 word docs open simultaneously?

Sometimes when johnjey is viewing his 36 different "xxx sites", he likes to knock out a few word documents and a spreadsheet or two. Is that really so wrong!?

mattferg
Jun 26, 2013, 08:38 AM
Unless the two models were identical apart from the processor change, you can't draw any conclusions from this test. It could be the extra RAM/SSD benefitted the i7, and there also could be software conflicts that the OP isn't listing. Not really a true test at all.

trondah
Jun 26, 2013, 09:08 AM
Your results does not make sense. Obviously the i5 was doing something in the background, spotlight indexing perhaps? You certainly won't have better battery life with the i7 and definitely not that much.

falconeight
Jun 26, 2013, 10:03 AM
Streaming a netflix movie isn't a CPU intensive test. Its an easier task for a more powerful machine.

Kevbodian
Jun 26, 2013, 10:19 AM
Before jumping on to the bandwagon of how awesome i7 is - let it go through some more practical real world usage of:

1. Heavy surfing - atleast 3 different browsers and 12 different tabs in them
2. Heavy word processing - 20 files open at once
3. Heavy PDF processing - 10 files open
4. 3 hour video - 4 hour audio
5. Flash videos (the xxx sites) - let them run in background :)

& then do the same on i7

I am not a graphic designer & video encoding isn't something I will ever do ..: max - I am going to use adobe products on it like Lightroom - photoshop & some other word/PDF programs & it's mostly will be a business laptop (NO gaming) - so I think my 11" 15/8/512 should be good enough to handle it all nice and cool ...

John, don't turn this into another of your flame threads. The point of this thread is to provide insight into the differences in performance between the i5 and i7. It's really just to let people make up their own minds as to what's important for their computer. It's not about bandwagons or super thorough benchmarks -- none of 1-5 actually mean anything.

Jazwire is using his personal time to do some basic comparisons so that the rest of us have some idea.

----------

Streaming a netflix movie isn't a CPU intensive test. Its an easier task for a more powerful machine.

It wasn't really supposed to be CPU intensive. It was just a simple way to run down the batteries of each machine.

For the sake of the world, maybe thread title should be changed from "test" to "ramblings" so that people don't take it so f'n seriously. :P

Jazwire
Jun 26, 2013, 10:20 AM
Yes, please test sleep while you're at it ;)

Sure I can do that.
It will have to be later, wife took her i5 to work. :/

Kevbodian
Jun 26, 2013, 10:21 AM
Your results does not make sense. Obviously the i5 was doing something in the background, spotlight indexing perhaps? You certainly won't have better battery life with the i7 and definitely not that much.

The cpu load was nearly completely on both machines Safari & Silverlight (Plug-in), the i5 wasn't using CPU cycles on anything else.

Lol, the proof is in the pudding.

----------

Sure I can do that.
It will have to be later, wife took her i5 to work. :/

Lol no don't! Haha I was being sarcastic to the poster above. :) Wait... I see what you did..

Jazwire
Jun 26, 2013, 10:28 AM
Before jumping on to the bandwagon of how awesome i7 is - let it go through some more practical real world usage of:

1. Heavy surfing - atleast 3 different browsers and 12 different tabs in them
2. Heavy word processing - 20 files open at once
3. Heavy PDF processing - 10 files open
4. 3 hour video - 4 hour audio
5. Flash videos (the xxx sites) - let them run in background :)

& then do the same on i7

I am not a graphic designer & video encoding isn't something I will ever do ..: max - I am going to use adobe products on it like Lightroom - photoshop & some other word/PDF programs & it's mostly will be a business laptop (NO gaming) - so I think my 11" 15/8/512 should be good enough to handle it all nice and cool ...

I should be able to accommodate some of these tests to some degree.
I'll come up with a stress test that I run on both machines side by side.
Once again it will have to be several hours from now, wife has her i5 at work.

----------

Unless the two models were identical apart from the processor change, you can't draw any conclusions from this test. It could be the extra RAM/SSD benefitted the i7, and there also could be software conflicts that the OP isn't listing. Not really a true test at all.

I'd agree with you if the tests were reversed.

The i7 SSD should and likely does actually draw more power. Each machine had 0 page outs, and were only using around 1 GB of active ram.

Also there was NO software conflict, I opened up activity monitor an triple checked nothing was running that was not running on either machine. I looked before I started the test and look while I was running the tests.

Jazwire
Jun 26, 2013, 10:40 AM
Your results does not make sense. Obviously the i5 was doing something in the background, spotlight indexing perhaps? You certainly won't have better battery life with the i7 and definitely not that much.

It was not, i checked Activity Monitor prior to starting the test nothing else was running that was not on both machines. I checked the Activity Monitor at 45 min into the movie again. Nothing different was running, (though like i said earlier, the i5 was working harder on the safari and silverlight process than the i7).

It does not make sense which is why I checked the Activity monitor 45 min into the movie.

Also my wife got her i5 the day after launch, she hardly has anything on it about 25 gb, everything on her end was indexed by spotlight last week and I had time machine turned off on both units.

Jazwire
Jun 26, 2013, 10:52 AM
Streaming a netflix movie isn't a CPU intensive test. Its an easier task for a more powerful machine.

Never was meant to be a CPU intensive test, more a real world test.
People do stream a lot, this was more for heat and battery.

And if you read my entire post, I came to the same conclusion , basically you did. i7 is the more powerful machine and did not have to "turbo boost" as much.

I do plan on doing a more CPU intensive test, which logically the i7 should not win in battery time and most likely heat. (Of course I didn't expect it to win this test either)

However, what ever I do to do that test, its far more likely people are going to stream video than run their cpu at 100% until it dies.

I am doing some practical and willing to do some impractical tests on both machines. But I am just doing these on the side on my time. And I am doing a thorough job making sure the conditions are exactly the same. Heck, I even ran them side by side at the same time, so that they would have matching room temperatures and same amount of air circulation in the room.

Do not shoot the messenger with the results.

Leikocyte
Jun 26, 2013, 11:01 AM
For me battery life is important as most of the work I do on the laptop will be while on battery. It's just nice to be able to play a game or two once in a while when I'm away from home (I have a nice gaming PC..).

I don't think you need i7 to run the games. From what I read about gaming performances, i5 or i7 doesn't really make much of a difference. I'll expect i5 to give more loading time but frame rate-wise you probably won't be able to distinguish between them.

What I concluded from all these i5/i7 hassle is what some people have always been saying: if you're not absolutely sure what you need the i7 for, you probably don't need it.

sjinsjca
Jun 26, 2013, 11:18 AM
+1 that would drive me crazy having that many things open at once

Try Spaces. Great for having a clean screen even when there's lots open.

scaredpoet
Jun 26, 2013, 11:19 AM
Unless the two models were identical apart from the processor change, you can't draw any conclusions from this test. It could be the extra RAM/SSD benefitted the i7, and there also could be software conflicts that the OP isn't listing. Not really a true test at all.

Actually, I think we CAN draw conclusions. Even if the i7 is benefitting from the extra RAM/SSD, that's very useful information to know, and further dispels the myth that the higher hardware configurations automatically hurt battery life in all use cases. Evidently, it isn't so cut and dry.

Your results does not make sense. Obviously the i5 was doing something in the background, spotlight indexing perhaps? You certainly won't have better battery life with the i7 and definitely not that much.

It actually does make sense, if you cast aside assumptions that because a processor is the "upscale" model, it must by definition absolutely use more power, in all cases. The higher L3 cache and enhancements over the i5 might make it capable of performing certain tasks (like sustained video decoding) while using less power overall, whereas the i5 might have to work harder at these tasks, be less efficient, and waste more energy doing them.

Before jumping on to the bandwagon of how awesome i7 is - let it go through some more practical real world usage of:

Netflix IS pretty practical real-world usage for some people. Your scenario is real-world usage for others too, so that would also be a good test.

Keep in mind that the websites you visit are also going to have a huge impact on what happens. If they're Flash or video heavy, there's going to be a lot more going on than a bunch of static pages.

sjinsjca
Jun 26, 2013, 11:20 AM
i7 is the more powerful machine and did not have to "turbo boost" as much.


i7 has more cache and, as you say, is more powerful. It gets more work done per electron "consumed".

Nice test, thanks.

Jazwire
Jun 26, 2013, 11:41 AM
i7 has more cache and, as you say, is more powerful. It gets more work done per electron "consumed".

Nice test, thanks.

Thanks, someone else bought up the cache issue, I was not thinking about that originally.

My thoughts on this is leading me to believe.

If you are sipping CPU cycles, using very little CPU, the i5 will likely win by a tiny margin in a battery test.
If you are maxing out your CPU 100% the i5 is very likely to win by a larger margin.

But in that 15%-90% CPU range, I am thinking, "possibly" the i7 is actually better for battery life. (Note: this is more of a hypothesis, than a conclusion at this point.)

If thats the case, the next question is, where do you spend most of your time CPU usage wise?

falconeight
Jun 26, 2013, 12:17 PM
Never was meant to be a CPU intensive test, more a real world test.
People do stream a lot, this was more for heat and battery.

And if you read my entire post, I came to the same conclusion , basically you did. i7 is the more powerful machine and did not have to "turbo boost" as much.

I do plan on doing a more CPU intensive test, which logically the i7 should not win in battery time and most likely heat. (Of course I didn't expect it to win this test either)

However, what ever I do to do that test, its far more likely people are going to stream video than run their cpu at 100% until it dies.

I am doing some practical and willing to do some impractical tests on both machines. But I am just doing these on the side on my time. And I am doing a thorough job making sure the conditions are exactly the same. Heck, I even ran them side by side at the same time, so that they would have matching room temperatures and same amount of air circulation in the room.

Do not shoot the messenger with the results.


I was wondering if you could convert a video on both with tune4mac or handbrake. I wonder what the time and power difference would be.

mayuka
Jun 26, 2013, 12:49 PM
i7 has more cache and, as you say, is more powerful. It gets more work done per electron "consumed".

Actually, this statement is wrong when seen from a certain point. More cache just means that the probability is higher that the data is already there (cached) and does not need to be processed (again). This saves processing power. You can not generalise this to "electrons" per se.

I, too, find the results very intriguing. That's the reason why I'm so interested in idle performance, because most of it's lifetime the cpu spends idling.

catalyst07
Jun 26, 2013, 03:02 PM
Is this really practical? How many people have 36 tabs or 20 word docs open simultaneously?

I routinely keep more than 40 tabs open... 41 right now :) Only one browser though

DoctorK4
Jun 26, 2013, 03:06 PM
I routinely keep more than 40 tabs open... 41 right now :) Only one browser though

How is that practical? Especially on an 11 or 13 inch screen?

HiDEF
Jun 26, 2013, 03:10 PM
I routinely keep more than 40 tabs open... 41 right now :) Only one browser though

Is this for work purposes or pleasure??? 40 seems like a lot if you're casually surfing the web.

mac82
Jun 26, 2013, 03:15 PM
Here's a thought. Rather than all the bickering over the results, why not have someone else, or several other people, repeat the experiment with the i5 Air and see if they get the same results. All that is required is that someone with an i5 MBA stream the same movie and take note of the battery level at the same intervals as the original poster. If you get the same numbers, the test is legitimate; if not, there is probably a defect in the original poster's MBA.

Diversion
Jun 26, 2013, 03:30 PM
I think something's wrong with that i5 rig.

If this makes you i7 owners happy about your purchase.. Good.

Wait for Anandtech's i7 vs i5 battery test comparison though. There's just no physical way the i7 can outlast the i5 setup when all things are equal. The i7 will pull more wattage after idle than the i5 will.

Jazwire
Jun 26, 2013, 03:51 PM
I think something's wrong with that i5 rig.

If this makes you i7 owners happy about your purchase.. Good.

Wait for Anandtech's i7 vs i5 battery test comparison though. There's just no physical way the i7 can outlast the i5 setup when all things are equal. The i7 will pull more wattage after idle than the i5 will.

Possibly always a chance there is a problem with my wife's i5.

How about a handful of you guys with i5's stream a 90 min movie (pick The Lorax (HD), if we want to keep everything the same), try to use the same settings as I did (stated in the original post).

I'd even be happy to post your results in the 1st thread.

I don't care which unit is better, I own both, I am not trying to "prove" anything, no agenda, if something is wrong with my wife's i5 I would appreciate very much the info myself so I can exchange it.


I do disagree there is no possible for the i7 to outlast the i5, the CPU% for the Safari and SilverLight processes were noticeably higher on the i5.
The i5 was working harder, going into "turbo boost" than the i7 (my theory) which therefore generated more heat and more battery drain. The i7 pulls more wattage at idle and and max cpu (at or near 100%), but in between 15-80% usage, I am having my doubts based on what I've seen so far.

bp1000
Jun 26, 2013, 05:06 PM
Thanks for running these measured tests

Look forward to the next round of heavy usage / video encoding, light loading, mixed loading and sleep tests :)

revisionA
Jun 26, 2013, 05:31 PM
Streaming Avengers from full charge over Netflix in HD. I'll report back at 45 minutes.

revisionA
Jun 26, 2013, 06:15 PM
Just dropped from 91 to 90 percent as I went to post this. Bottom of MBA barely got warm to the touch after 45 minutes of streaming HD.

tann
Jun 26, 2013, 06:16 PM
Is this for work purposes or pleasure??? 40 seems like a lot if you're casually surfing the web.

I'm casually surfing the web with 27 lol.

I have a problem where I open something, think to myself "I might need this in the near future" so I'll leave it open until I eventually clean up my tabs.

entatlrg
Jun 26, 2013, 06:20 PM
And the conclusion is?

From my testing them side by side I feel the battery in the i5 lasts noticeably longer and runs cooler and quieter than the i7. I'm keeping the i5 .... I think, I've got until Monday to decide.

I use my 11" Air for web, email, autocad and concept drawing, some video, photo editing and boot into windows via fusion to run some apps. My i7 gets pretty loud and toasty doing that. The i5 not so much.

People seem to be getting mixed results, all along I thought the i5 was the keeper for best battery life and least noise and heat.

Interested to hear the conclusion from the others testing them side by side. My configurations are with 8gb RAM and 512 SSD.

HiDEF
Jun 26, 2013, 06:49 PM
I'm casually surfing the web with 27 lol.

I have a problem where I open something, think to myself "I might need this in the near future" so I'll leave it open until I eventually clean up my tabs.

touche; I do the same thing.

Kevbodian
Jun 26, 2013, 06:55 PM
I don't think you need i7 to run the games. From what I read about gaming performances, i5 or i7 doesn't really make much of a difference. I'll expect i5 to give more loading time but frame rate-wise you probably won't be able to distinguish between them.

What I concluded from all these i5/i7 hassle is what some people have always been saying: if you're not absolutely sure what you need the i7 for, you probably don't need it.

Of course I don't *need* it. However, any gain in FPS for an IGP is definitely desirable. I forget that on forums, you have to use words carefully or people pick them apart.

To say "if you're not entirely sure... you dont need it" is just ignorance. It's people who don't know coming to the conclusion they ... don't know.

You want me to elaborate? The i7 in this case is nearly identical except for the L3 cache, minor GPU difference and a small clock speed difference. Let's not forget that the processor is ULT as well: ie, they're not powerhouses.

While I said that most of my work is on battery but I'd like to play some games once in a while doesn't mean I don't care about FPS. However, in a ultra small notebook such as this where performance for portability is sacrificed, beggers CAN be choosers (at least to some degree).

Now if I was playing minesweeper, I'd agree with you...

Kevbodian
Jun 26, 2013, 07:24 PM
Here's a thought. Rather than all the bickering over the results, why not have someone else, or several other people, repeat the experiment with the i5 Air and see if they get the same results. All that is required is that someone with an i5 MBA stream the same movie and take note of the battery level at the same intervals as the original poster. If you get the same numbers, the test is legitimate; if not, there is probably a defect in the original poster's MBA.

It's probably this defect and not likely to be one of a hundred other things.

The problem with this is it's impossible to assume that everyone is running the test under the same conditions. It also will inevitably lead to a thread ripe with people's valid results based on 11", 13" or even other notebooks. Also, we will inevitably get tons of people who report either fallacy or with pertinent information left out.

These tests just provide a general insight. We'll never get 100% accurate results as so many factors can vary. On the other hand, we can get close to 100% (the limit of perhaps) but it would take hundreds of posts and then someone with the time to compile the data (if you want to get that complicated over something as minor as this).

----------

Streaming Avengers from full charge over Netflix in HD. I'll report back at 45 minutes.

Case in point. (I know, his next post oddly has a signature with his specs... not obvious however)

----------

And the conclusion is?

From my testing them side by side I feel the battery in the i5 lasts noticeably longer and runs cooler and quieter than the i7. I'm keeping the i5 .... I think, I've got until Monday to decide.

I use my 11" Air for web, email, autocad and concept drawing, some video, photo editing and boot into windows via fusion to run some apps. My i7 gets pretty loud and toasty doing that. The i5 not so much.

People seem to be getting mixed results, all along I thought the i5 was the keeper for best battery life and least noise and heat.

Interested to hear the conclusion from the others testing them side by side. My configurations are with 8gb RAM and 512 SSD.

Nice post. Thank you. It's nice to see another user able to compare and report.

----------

I think something's wrong with that i5 rig.

If this makes you i7 owners happy about your purchase.. Good.

Wait for Anandtech's i7 vs i5 battery test comparison though. There's just no physical way the i7 can outlast the i5 setup when all things are equal. The i7 will pull more wattage after idle than the i5 will.

Except when the task would require the i5 to run at a higher power state than the i7. :)

----------



Hey Jaz, for your next test, maybe include some software that can show power draw and possibly even CPU usage in the (don't know what it's called on a mac and I don't want to say taskbar).. menu bar? Your last test may have benefited if you could see what was drawing more power during the stream. And perhaps, when the i5 drew more, then compare the CPU cycles (to see if some other process was consuming the power)... although it would be difficult to watch power draw and not the media content (don't get distracted! the world depends on these results).

----------

...electron "consumed".

Good god! Is something going around consuming our electrons?! What happens when we run out of electrons? :eek:

HiDEF
Jun 26, 2013, 07:58 PM
Just dropped from 91 to 90 percent as I went to post this. Bottom of MBA barely got warm to the touch after 45 minutes of streaming HD.

Curious, whats your configuration?

leslie11
Jun 26, 2013, 07:59 PM
I'm running a comparison test for the 11", I5/8/256 and I7/8/256. I was trying to determine which of the machines produced more heat as it makes it more difficult to work if the keyboard is so damn hot.

Both MBAs were freshly started before loading them with the apps in this order.
Brightness for the screen and keyboard were identical.

Apps:
Dropbox running in the background, nothing being downloaded
Safari with 8 tabs of Apple.com
PPT, Word & Excel with a blank doc
Playing 3 movies, 1 on VLC, 2 on QT
Handbrake encoding the same movie

Findings:
Heat: The I7 heated up much faster.
ON THE AVERAGE,
iStat Pro showed the enclosure base 1/2/3 at 40/40/36deg celsius vs 37/37/36 on the I5. I5 was consistently cooler by 3deg c throughout for the enclosure & heatsink B. HD temp was 78 vs 62 (I7/I5). The Airport card, Mem Bank & Controller were largely similar on both machines.

The I7 fans kicked in at 2min and got to 6500rpm within another 2min compared to the I5 kicked in after 6min and took about 15min to reach 6500rpm.

The area around the function keys was burning on the I7 and noticeably less hot on the I5.

Comfort: Running at full blast, the I7 is definitely hotter to the touch than the I5. The palm area flanking the trackpad is hotter on the I7, enough to make me want to not use the cmptr.

Misc performance:
Starting at the same time, the Handbrake encode initially showed a 10% difference in progress (i.e I5 at 5%, I7 at 15%). But when the I5 was at 50% done, the I7 showed 55%, ie the gap got smaller.

The I5 consistently showed that it has 30min more juice than the I7, though I never ran the test that far. Everything starting at the same time, there was a 10% diff in the battery readout (which slowly grew to 15% diff), though the I7 had 5 charge cycles vs 2 cycles on the I5. Not a really exact test but that wasn't the obj of my comparison.

There were 0 page outs despite all the action going on.


Cooling down:
All the apps were closed at the same time, save for one page in Safari.

The I5 fans slowed down first, 1min later the I7 slowed too. Oddly, the I7 dropped sharply to idle fan speed after 2min whereas the I5 took another 3min to do so.

I let both systems idle for 20min and then took these readings.

Enclosure temp were 34/34/33 on the I7, 35/35/34 on the I5.
HD temp was 36/50, heatsink 32/35 (I7/I5).

Even though the insides of the MBA cooled down, the palm area was initially warmer on the I7 than on the I5 and then it reversed, odd huh? I really didn't expect that.

The whole test took 1hr 15 min, final batt remaining is 44%, 5h 46min on the I7 remaining, and 53%, 5hr 43min on the I5 (I5 had 3 fewer charge cycles, prob not calibrated yet).

I'll be using the I5 more over the next few days, I'll post if I have anything to add.

Make of this what you will, hope it'll help some of you come to a decision.

revisionA
Jun 26, 2013, 10:20 PM
Curious, whats your configuration?

13 inch - see my sig.

I just can't kill this thing... watched two hd movies and browsed the web all night... 18% left... est. 1:26 remaining.

entatlrg
Jun 26, 2013, 10:31 PM
I'm running a comparison test for the 11", I5/8/256 and I7/8/256. I was trying to determine which of the machines produced more heat as it makes it more difficult to work if the keyboard is so damn hot.

Both MBAs were freshly started before loading them with the apps in this order.
Brightness for the screen and keyboard were identical.

Apps:
Dropbox running in the background, nothing being downloaded
Safari with 8 tabs of Apple.com
PPT, Word & Excel with a blank doc
Playing 3 movies, 1 on VLC, 2 on QT
Handbrake encoding the same movie

Findings:
Heat: The I7 heated up much faster.
ON THE AVERAGE,
iStat Pro showed the enclosure base 1/2/3 at 40/40/36deg celsius vs 37/37/36 on the I5. I5 was consistently cooler by 3deg c throughout for the enclosure & heatsink B. HD temp was 78 vs 62 (I7/I5). The Airport card, Mem Bank & Controller were largely similar on both machines.

The I7 fans kicked in at 2min and got to 6500rpm within another 2min compared to the I5 kicked in after 6min and took about 15min to reach 6500rpm.

The area around the function keys was burning on the I7 and noticeably less hot on the I5.

Comfort: Running at full blast, the I7 is definitely hotter to the touch than the I5. The palm area flanking the trackpad is hotter on the I7, enough to make me want to not use the cmptr.

Misc performance:
Starting at the same time, the Handbrake encode initially showed a 10% difference in progress (i.e I5 at 5%, I7 at 15%). But when the I5 was at 50% done, the I7 showed 55%, ie the gap got smaller.

The I5 consistently showed that it has 30min more juice than the I7, though I never ran the test that far. Everything starting at the same time, there was a 10% diff in the battery readout (which slowly grew to 15% diff), though the I7 had 5 charge cycles vs 2 cycles on the I5. Not a really exact test but that wasn't the obj of my comparison.

There were 0 page outs despite all the action going on.


Cooling down:
All the apps were closed at the same time, save for one page in Safari.

The I5 fans slowed down first, 1min later the I7 slowed too. Oddly, the I7 dropped sharply to idle fan speed after 2min whereas the I5 took another 3min to do so.

I let both systems idle for 20min and then took these readings.

Enclosure temp were 34/34/33 on the I7, 35/35/34 on the I5.
HD temp was 36/50, heatsink 32/35 (I7/I5).

Even though the insides of the MBA cooled down, the palm area was initially warmer on the I7 than on the I5 and then it reversed, odd huh? I really didn't expect that.

The whole test took 1hr 15 min, final batt remaining is 44%, 5h 46min on the I7 remaining, and 53%, 5hr 43min on the I5 (I5 had 3 fewer charge cycles, prob not calibrated yet).

I'll be using the I5 more over the next few days, I'll post if I have anything to add.

Make of this what you will, hope it'll help some of you come to a decision.

Which one do you expect you'll end up keeping?

catalyst07
Jun 26, 2013, 10:47 PM
Is this for work purposes or pleasure??? 40 seems like a lot if you're casually surfing the web.

I'm a software engineer, so both. It's nice for quick reference. Many of my friends also do this.

11" Macbook Air 2012 i7 8gb, but right now I'm outputting to my thunderbolt monitor.

mayuka
Jun 26, 2013, 11:38 PM
Make of this what you will, hope it'll help some of you come to a decision. [/B]

Thanks for this extended test. The i7 performs as suspected and quite similar to the 2012 i5 vs. i7.

Have you had a chance testing idle performance of both?

solmaker
Jun 27, 2013, 01:14 AM
>leslie11 ...
>Playing 3 movies, 1 on VLC, 2 on QT
>Handbrake encoding the same movie

Kudos for your careful test, but IMO your battery life and average temperature results are really distorted by including an unfinished task-oriented job like encoding a movie. A more realistic test would be to wait until the i5 finished encoding the movie (during the last period of which Handbrake would be inactive on the i7), then compare battery percentages. Also the temperatures should be averaged over the full time period of the test (including the final inactive Handbrake time on the i7). Otherwise you are comparing different amounts of total work on the two devices. Or simply omit Handbrake encoding from this particular battery test.

>Starting at the same time, the Handbrake encode initially
>showed a 10% difference in progress (i.e I5 at 5%, I7 at 15%).
>But when the I5 was at 50% done, the I7 showed 55%,
>ie the gap got smaller.

That surprises me, because the i7 should be about 30% faster than the i5 for CPU-bound tasks. My guess is that the 3 movies playing in the background drove up the temperature, so the i7 couldn't rev up to full Handbrake capacity without exceeding the 15W TDP cap. I'd be curious to see Handbrake performance compared between the i5 and i7 with the rest of the system mostly idle.

Thanks again for reporting your test... all these data points are interesting.

leslie11
Jun 27, 2013, 01:36 AM
Which one do you expect you'll end up keeping?

I'll be using the I5 for the next few days, then back to the I7. Currently your guess is as good as mine!

Thanks for this extended test. The i7 performs as suspected and quite similar to the 2012 i5 vs. i7.

Have you had a chance testing idle performance of both?

Glad to help, it might save some of you the time and effort. I'll test idle perf if I have the time, maybe someone else can chip in here?

>leslie11 ...
>Playing 3 movies, 1 on VLC, 2 on QT
>Handbrake encoding the same movie

Kudos for your careful test, but IMO your battery life and average temperature results are really distorted by including an unfinished task-oriented job like encoding a movie. A more realistic test would be to wait until the i5 finished encoding the movie (during the last period of which Handbrake would be inactive on the i7), then compare battery percentages. Also the temperatures should be averaged over the full time period of the test (including the final inactive Handbrake time on the i7). Otherwise you are comparing different amounts of total work on the two devices. Or simply omit Handbrake encoding from this particular battery test.

>Starting at the same time, the Handbrake encode initially
>showed a 10% difference in progress (i.e I5 at 5%, I7 at 15%).
>But when the I5 was at 50% done, the I7 showed 55%,
>ie the gap got smaller.

That surprises me, because the i7 should be about 30% faster than the i5 for CPU-bound tasks. My guess is that the 3 movies playing in the background drove up the temperature, so the i7 couldn't rev up to full Handbrake capacity without exceeding the 15W TDP cap. I'd be curious to see Handbrake performance compared between the i5 and i7 with the rest of the system mostly idle.

Thanks again for reporting your test... all these data points are interesting.

Yep I agree, the batteries weren't identical to begin with so it's already a biased test. My main gripe when using my old 2010 MBA was the heat, battery life was seldom an issue for me so forgive the less than perfect test scenarios, I was trying to push the machines beyond the limit to see what the worst case scenario was for heat generated.

The Handbrake test on idle machines are easy enough, I just need to find the time to run it. Honestly, if it's only 10min between encodes, I'll save the $$$ and go I5. I hardly encode stuff so it's no biggie to me.

Jazwire
Jun 27, 2013, 02:13 AM
Posted "League of Legends" test. (On 1st page.)


I will do a general usage test tomorrow.

I plan on the following:

I am going to pick 10-15 websites to browse (all tabs open, same sites on each machine.)

Do some Spotify streaming, (same amount of time)
Watch 5-10 Youtube Videos (Same Videos)


While having Word, Excel,Mail, Evernote,Text Edit, Skype,Acrobat Reader all open in the background.
Using each program for 5 minutes each.

For primarily a battery/heat test.


And if i have time i'll do a handbrake or video encode test as well.

Good night!

Diversion
Jun 27, 2013, 06:57 AM
Possibly always a chance there is a problem with my wife's i5.

How about a handful of you guys with i5's stream a 90 min movie (pick The Lorax (HD), if we want to keep everything the same), try to use the same settings as I did (stated in the original post).

I'd even be happy to post your results in the 1st thread.

I don't care which unit is better, I own both, I am not trying to "prove" anything, no agenda, if something is wrong with my wife's i5 I would appreciate very much the info myself so I can exchange it.


I do disagree there is no possible for the i7 to outlast the i5, the CPU% for the Safari and SilverLight processes were noticeably higher on the i5.
The i5 was working harder, going into "turbo boost" than the i7 (my theory) which therefore generated more heat and more battery drain. The i7 pulls more wattage at idle and and max cpu (at or near 100%), but in between 15-80% usage, I am having my doubts based on what I've seen so far.

If both the i5 and i7 both ran at a base clock of 1.3ghz then yes you'd be right. But both CPUs idle at the same clock speed but under use, the i5 has a base of 1.3ghz and the i7 is a base of 1.7ghz... When they are running their base speeds, the i7 draws more power, period. You think the i7 pulls more at idle? I doubt it, they should both run the same idle MHZ and pull the same amount of power. Its when the cpus run their base clocks when the power changes since they are different.

It may be true that the 1.3ghz base close (not talking about the CPU's ability to downclock for power) is not high enough for Silverlight to run at 100% normalization and the i7 could very well be more efficient in certain tests when comparing power draw but I doubt Silverlight requires either of these CPUs to run into turboboost speed to keep up.

I'm not defending my i5 in anyway, i'd rather have the i7 because for CPU intensive games it seems to fair much better as pointed out in your LoL test..

hakr100
Jun 27, 2013, 07:15 AM
Whew...all that heat!

Fortunately, I doubt if I will be running more than one or two "intensive" tasks at a time. It's been many years since I have been able to watch and follow three movies at a time while doing other stuff, too.

Interesting results, but I'd be more interested in real world testing and analysis, such as encoding a movie in the background while perhaps working on writing and editing a manuscript and occasionally checking email.

Jazwire
Jun 27, 2013, 10:03 AM
If both the i5 and i7 both ran at a base clock of 1.3ghz then yes you'd be right. But both CPUs idle at the same clock speed but under use, the i5 has a base of 1.3ghz and the i7 is a base of 1.7ghz... When they are running their base speeds, the i7 draws more power, period. You think the i7 pulls more at idle? I doubt it, they should both run the same idle MHZ and pull the same amount of power. Its when the cpus run their base clocks when the power changes since they are different.

It may be true that the 1.3ghz base close (not talking about the CPU's ability to downclock for power) is not high enough for Silverlight to run at 100% normalization and the i7 could very well be more efficient in certain tests when comparing power draw but I doubt Silverlight requires either of these CPUs to run into turboboost speed to keep up.

I'm not defending my i5 in anyway, i'd rather have the i7 because for CPU intensive games it seems to fair much better as pointed out in your LoL test..

Ya, I am not sure what is going on for sure, it was just a hypothesis.

I have now ran 2 tests that have required medium CPU power, and in those tests the i7 both times has ran cooler.

Now it is totally possible there is something wrong with my wife's i5, maybe it has 3 inches of thermal paste on the CPU. I don't know for sure.

But also for the people saying their i7's run hot, I would have to assume the same for them.
My i7 under low & medium CPU tasks does not get hot, nor have I had the fans kick in.

I don't think I have proven that the i5 is inferior (though my i5 may be inferior).
But that people claiming the i7 gets burning hot (under low/medium usage), is completely not always the case.

In a way I wish my i7 was this hot useable beast, I send it back get the i5 version and have an extra $150 in my pocket. My i7 stays cool to the touch when I am just doing normal usage. And even if i was to do some gaming LoL, it really would not be uncomfortable to have on my lap.

Honestly at this point I am keeping my i7, however , I do want to determine if I need to return my wife's i5 (for another i5).

Diversion
Jun 27, 2013, 11:09 AM
Ya, I am not sure what is going on for sure, it was just a hypothesis.

I have now ran 2 tests that have required medium CPU power, and in those tests the i7 both times has ran cooler.

Now it is totally possible there is something wrong with my wife's i5, maybe it has 3 inches of thermal paste on the CPU. I don't know for sure.

But also for the people saying their i7's run hot, I would have to assume the same for them.
My i7 under low & medium CPU tasks does not get hot, nor have I had the fans kick in.

I don't think I have proven that the i5 is inferior (though my i5 may be inferior).
But that people claiming the i7 gets burning hot (under low/medium usage), is completely not always the case.

In a way I wish my i7 was this hot useable beast, I send it back get the i5 version and have an extra $150 in my pocket. My i7 stays cool to the touch when I am just doing normal usage. And even if i was to do some gaming LoL, it really would not be uncomfortable to have on my lap.

Honestly at this point I am keeping my i7, however , I do want to determine if I need to return my wife's i5 (for another i5).

To do this test a great service you should indeed return the wife's i5 and try another and re-test... If it acts the same way then we at least know there's a tipping point where the i7 models begin to be more efficient and that would make for great conversation indeed.

kap09
Jun 27, 2013, 11:52 AM
Thanks for the info! Definitely no regrets on my i7 purchase. Battery has been great but it's nice to have side by side results.

zirition
Jun 27, 2013, 01:06 PM
New in forum and waiting for my Air, hope having it tomorrow...

First of all, great tests, thank you!

As a suggestion, if I remember correctly, Coconut Battery tells the wattage used by the battery in real time, maybe could help to confirm the difference in consumption in idle, mid-CPU and full CPU usage.

The link:

http://www.coconut-flavour.com/coconutbattery/

leslie11
Jun 27, 2013, 06:30 PM
Just a minor update, I've just been doing light word processing for 2hrs, split equally between both machines.

There's really nothing in it, both performed the same and got slightly hot after a while. I was using my palms as a thermometer so don't put too much thought into this.

cake1
Jun 27, 2013, 06:30 PM
New in forum and waiting for my Air, hope having it tomorrow...

First of all, great tests, thank you!

As a suggestion, if I remember correctly, Coconut Battery tells the wattage used by the battery in real time, maybe could help to confirm the difference in consumption in idle, mid-CPU and full CPU usage.

The link:

http://www.coconut-flavour.com/coconutbattery/

That seems like a cool application. According to it, right now my computer draws around 3.5 - 4.5 watts from the battery. Thats truly impressive considering that I have my intelliJ, browser windows, spottily etc running.

No wonder this thing doesnt get hot. Machine is 13/i5/8/256

entatlrg
Jun 27, 2013, 07:01 PM
Just a minor update, I've just been doing light word processing for 2hrs, split equally between both machines.

There's really nothing in it, both performed the same and got slightly hot after a while. I was using my palms as a thermometer so don't put too much thought into this.

How is the battery life comparing?

zirition
Jun 28, 2013, 05:48 AM
That seems like a cool application. According to it, right now my computer draws around 3.5 - 4.5 watts from the battery. Thats truly impressive considering that I have my intelliJ, browser windows, spottily etc running.

No wonder this thing doesnt get hot. Machine is 13/i5/8/256

Wow, I have devices that consumes more on stand-by! :eek:

Is the screen on or do you have an external monitor?

Mr. Retrofire
Jun 28, 2013, 06:03 AM
...
iThinkô that the i7 has more transistors and can do therefore more in less time.

----------

Is this really practical? How many people have 36 tabs or 20 word docs open simultaneously?
Many.

cake1
Jun 28, 2013, 08:26 AM
Wow, I have devices that consumes more on stand-by! :eek:

Is the screen on or do you have an external monitor?

Screen was on (50% brightness), even the keyboard backlighting was on (lowest brightness setting)

@Mr. Retrofire, the i7 doesnt have more transistors.
http://ark.intel.com/compare/75114,75028

Its pretty much the same chip, operating at a higher frequency.
33% more L2 cache. And the i5 has some features disabled (not ones that we should care about anyways).

Mr. Retrofire
Jun 28, 2013, 09:01 AM
@Mr. Retrofire, the i7 doesnt have more transistors.
http://ark.intel.com/compare/75114,75028
Either i'm blind or i do not see the number of transistors (http://www.anandtech.com/show/7003/the-haswell-review-intel-core-i74770k-i54560k-tested/5).

cake1
Jun 28, 2013, 09:24 AM
Either i'm blind or i do not see the number of transistors (http://www.anandtech.com/show/7003/the-haswell-review-intel-core-i74770k-i54560k-tested/5).

From the article:
Haswell ULT GT3 2C 22nm 2 GT3 1.3B 181mm2
Both the i5 and i7 found in the 2013 macbook airs are GT3 2C
Meaning 1.3B transistors in the i7 and i5

leslie11
Jun 28, 2013, 10:36 AM
I just ran a simple Handbrake encode on both machines, side by side with nothing running in the background except Coconut battery.

Here are a few observations:
- a 10min encode on the I5 took 8min on the I7
- the I7 fan spun up to 6.5k rpm within 2min, the I5 kept at 1.2k rpm till the 5min mark then slowly increased to 1.6k rpm by the end of the test
- Coconut batt consistently showed the draw for the I7 at 22.5w and the I5 at 14.5w

Guess the I7 is going back to Apple then.

entatlrg
Jun 28, 2013, 10:47 AM
My experience has been similar. Keeping the i5/8/512. Main reason - better battery life.

Still wish anandtech would do a formal i5 / i7 comparison, maybe it's coming?

leslie11
Jun 28, 2013, 10:59 AM
How is the battery life comparing?

Sorry for not responding earlier, I haven't had full batt-depleting runs on both machines yet.

But I charged both MBAs to capacity and ran the latest Handbrake test, the higher draw on the I7 + fans at full blast resulted in the additional drain on a 8min encode.

It reasons that the I5 will last longer than the I7 at full speed, not taking into account the amount of work each computer produces when the batt is finally depleted.

----------

My experience has been similar. Keeping the i5/8/512. Main reason - better battery life.

Still wish anandtech would do a formal i5 / i7 comparison, maybe it's coming?

My main reason - less heat!

Yep I can only hope that Anandtech does one, those guys are certainly more accurate than most of us.

mayuka
Jun 28, 2013, 11:21 AM
- Coconut batt consistently showed the draw for the I7 at 22.5w and the I5 at 14.5w

That seems fishy to me. Both cpu are designed to draw a max of 15 W (excluding the gpu).

zirition
Jun 28, 2013, 11:42 AM
That seems fishy to me. Both cpu are designed to draw a max of 15 W (excluding the gpu).

Take into account memory, screen,etc. Coconut doesn't measure CPU power consumption, but instant battery usage.

For me, it seems that i7 uses the full 15Watt, but i5 don't, at least for the most part of the time.

Edit: thanks for the test leslie, I forgot to mention!

warriorz
Jun 28, 2013, 11:44 AM
My experience has been similar. Keeping the i5/8/512. Main reason - better battery life.

Still wish anandtech would do a formal i5 / i7 comparison, maybe it's coming?

Yup it's coming: from his twitter:
@anandshimpi: Finally back home, running some Haswell ULT experiments, working on MBA13 i5 vs i7 data...

Jazwire
Jun 28, 2013, 11:59 AM
For me, it seems that i7 uses the full 15Watt, but i5 don't, at least for the most part of the time.
When you said, "For me, it seems that i7 uses the full 15Watt, but i5 don't,at least for the most part of the time"

Or you saying your i7 uses the full 15w, almost all the time? like even web browsing / light work?

If so your i7 is messed up, right now i have about 7 browser tabs open, my email,Skype, which I would consider very light and Coconut reports I am using 3.3 watts.

Also opened up, Youtube, made it spike to 6w, and then settle in at 5.5 while playing.

If you are getting 15w on light stuff, there is something wrong with your i7.

zirition
Jun 28, 2013, 12:16 PM
When you said, "For me, it seems that i7 uses the full 15Watt, but i5 don't,at least for the most part of the time"

Or you saying your i7 uses the full 15w, almost all the time? like even web browsing / light work?


I was commenting the results of leslie11.

My 13/i7/8g/256g will arrive in Monday, it will be a long weekend...

DoctorK4
Jun 28, 2013, 12:23 PM
If you are getting 15w on light stuff, there is something wrong with your i7.

I think the test was just an 8 minute Handbrake encode on the i7 (which took 10 minutes on the i5), which is an extremely processor-dependent task and essentially simulates the different effect of running each machine at pretty close to full CPU. I'm not sure what can really be concluded beyond the obvious that when ramped up near or at 100% the i7 will work harder than the i5, generating more heat, but will finish faster.

Jazwire
Jun 28, 2013, 12:53 PM
I think the test was just an 8 minute Handbrake encode on the i7 (which took 10 minutes on the i5), which is an extremely processor-dependent task and essentially simulates the different effect of running each machine at pretty close to full CPU. I'm not sure what can really be concluded beyond the obvious that when ramped up near or at 100% the i7 will work harder than the i5, generating more heat, but will finish faster.

I was just unclear when the OP said "most of the time", meaning "most of the time" as in always" or "most of the time" during the test.


That was cleared up though.

mayuka
Jun 28, 2013, 01:03 PM
If so your i7 is messed up, right now i have about 7 browser tabs open, my email,Skype, which I would consider very light and Coconut reports I am using 3.3 watts.

This sounds extremely unrealistic. Considering that the display and other components draw power too. coconutBattery is measuring all power including cpu, display, keyboard lighting, ... They are using the built-in measurement to OS X, which is calculating the wattage over the last 30 minutes from the last charge or so.

Jazwire
Jun 28, 2013, 01:19 PM
This sounds extremely unrealistic. Considering that the display and other components draw power too. coconutBattery is measuring all power including cpu, display, keyboard lighting, ... They are using the built-in measurement to OS X, which is calculating the wattage over the last 30 minutes from the last charge or so.

Screenshot of coconut battery next to your post.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/fzoy0o91x18qgbi/screenshot.png
(Actually it was at 2.9 watts at the time when i took the screen shot.)

Mr. Retrofire
Jun 28, 2013, 01:50 PM
From the article:
Haswell ULT GT3 2C 22nm 2 GT3 1.3B 181mm2
Both the i5 and i7 found in the 2013 macbook airs are GT3 2C
Meaning 1.3B transistors in the i7 and i5
You said
@Mr. Retrofire, the i7 doesnt have more transistors.
http://ark.intel.com/compare/75114,75028

Where do you see the number of transistors in:
http://ark.intel.com/compare/75114,75028
?

bp1000
Jun 28, 2013, 02:18 PM
I know people are eager to see comparisons between each CPU option, myself included...

But from what I've seen so far with peoples tests the i7 is simply 20% faster as the paper figures suggest only when performing tasks that max out both cores eg video encoding.

The i7 draws more power and therefore runs hotter during these tasks. I think idle temps would be very similar.

I think the difference in normal usage battery life is also similar.

Anandtech review of the i7 will be interesting but I expect it to show more of the same.

In a nutshell 99% of the time the i7 gives no advantage runs perhaps 1-2c hotter, draws less than 5% more power but will compute slightly quickly when doing really heavy duty stuff.

As this is a portable thoroughbred I believe the i5 is the best bet.

Do a lot of video or graphics work, the rMBP quad i7 is your best bet. Or iMac plus MBA is unbeatable.

Scott6666
Jun 28, 2013, 02:33 PM
I just ran a simple Handbrake encode on both machines, side by side with nothing running in the background except Coconut battery.

Here are a few observations:
- a 10min encode on the I5 took 8min on the I7
- the I7 fan spun up to 6.5k rpm within 2min, the I5 kept at 1.2k rpm till the 5min mark then slowly increased to 1.6k rpm by the end of the test
- Coconut batt consistently showed the draw for the I7 at 22.5w and the I5 at 14.5w

Guess the I7 is going back to Apple then.

GREAT Test. Real data. Explains what's really happening rather than trying to guess by circumstantial evidence!

I'm persuaded to get the i5 (hate fans). I want the 8GB/512GB model and was hoping to have instant store pickup and was trying to avoid the BTO route. That was pushing me toward the i7. But now I have direction. Thanks.

leslie11
Jun 28, 2013, 07:19 PM
No prob folks, glad that my simple test helped some of you with your decision.

I must stress that my main aim was to see the extent of heat generation, batt life and performance are secondary, so please factor that in.

Your usage pattern might be different from mine, I'm on my MBA for hours at a stretch but I'm usually plugged in and don't run CPU intensive tasks, mostly word processing n surfing. In this case, both machines performed about the same, performance and heat-wise.

----------

I forgot to add, I really didn't want to buy both machines at first but the I7 which I first ordered was running kinda hot so I decided to get the I5 and then return the one I felt was better for me.

I really didn't want to waste Apple's money for the shipping, restocking etc. and by posting here in MR, I guess I'm trying to make up for the extra unit I ordered.

Scott6666
Jun 30, 2013, 07:39 AM
Why is it that iStat does not show CPU temps in people's tests? Just things like enclosure or memory temp.

IStat on my 2011 shows both the CPU and the CPU heat sink? No sensor for Haswell CPU or does iStat need to be updated to read the CPU?

solmaker
Jun 30, 2013, 09:30 PM
>>a 10min encode on the I5 took 8min on the I7
>...from what I've seen so far with peoples tests the i7 is simply 20% faster
>as the paper figures suggest only when performing tasks that max out both
>cores eg video encoding.

Actually that's 25% faster (not 20% faster) from this test:
i5 speed = 1/10 video/minute
i7 speed = 1/8 video/minute
i7/i5 speed = (1/8)/(1/10)=10/8=1.25=125% (so 25% faster)

entatlrg
Jun 30, 2013, 09:40 PM
Fair to say the i5 runs a little quieter and cooler with 5 to 15% better battery life depending on what tasks you're doing and 25% slower when maxing out both cores?

That sums up my experience. Since the i5 is quiter and cooler doing everyday type tasks where the i7 isn't noticeably faster and I think I'm able to get 30-60 minutes more on the battery the i5 was my choice.

sofianito
Jul 1, 2013, 04:49 AM
Thanks Jazwire. Really useful and interesting tests.

Just a couple of suggestions:) : There are tools that allow you to monitor and measure more precisely CPU temperature and fans RPM.

It would be also nice if could do the tests on Mavericks DP2.

Ifti
Jul 1, 2013, 06:31 AM
That sums up my experience. Since the i5 is quiter and cooler doing everyday type tasks where the i7 isn't noticeably faster and I think I'm able to get 30-60 minutes more on the battery the i5 was my choice.

No. During everyday tasks where both i5 or i7 arent really pushed very much, the power draw is around the same, hence battery life will only differ by minutes. The reviews of the 13" model prove this.

You will only notice a larger battery life difference when pushing both CPUs to their turbo boost levels, where the i7 will finish the task sooner, but will draw more power then the i5.

Porkaysi
Jul 1, 2013, 07:44 AM
I know this mite not be the most exact comparison. I5 is definetly cooler and has no fan noise that I herd while I had it for 2 weeks. The I7 on the other hand has a very slight fan noise that I can hear, and it does get warm. I have 2 fans in my room and sometimes I second guess it's my air making the noise it is that faint, and the warmth is far from hot but my I5 never ever felt warm while I had it.

osofast240sx
Jul 1, 2013, 09:46 AM
I'm going to pull the trigger on a MBA i5, 8g, 512, apple care, MS office 2011 home/business. This Is for the wife. I don't want to risk lower battery life with the i7. Buying from macmall to avoid the $189 in tax.

entatlrg
Jul 1, 2013, 12:40 PM
I know this mite not be the most exact comparison. I5 is definetly cooler and has no fan noise that I herd while I had it for 2 weeks. The I7 on the other hand has a very slight fan noise that I can hear, and it does get warm. I have 2 fans in my room and sometimes I second guess it's my air making the noise it is that faint, and the warmth is far from hot but my I5 never ever felt warm while I had it.

Why did you change from the i5 to the i7?

Porkaysi
Jul 1, 2013, 02:51 PM
Why did you change from the i5 to the i7?

I wanted the I7 but I had a huge bb gift card and an old gaming desktop/ heavy duty tasks. Used the gift card got the I5 sold it and my desktop. I consolidated to an ultimate air that's the only reason really.

Saturn1217
Jul 1, 2013, 05:34 PM
I wanted the I7 but I had a huge bb gift card and an old gaming desktop/ heavy duty tasks. Used the gift card got the I5 sold it and my desktop. I consolidated to an ultimate air that's the only reason really.

Do you notice a difference in performance between the two? Would you recommend the i7 to others who usually do basic tasks but occasionally do more demanding tasks? Thanks for your input!

Porkaysi
Jul 1, 2013, 08:09 PM
Do you notice a difference in performance between the two? Would you recommend the i7 to others who usually do basic tasks but occasionally do more demanding tasks? Thanks for your input!

Honestly I never did anything to crazy with my I5, one thing I can test is making a hierarchy chart on word. That made my I5 lag 2 seconds a key stroke, so when I get home il try the same thing again.battery wise they are similar I have not noticed any difference. The I7 is warmer then the I5 on the top by the hinge but the I7 does not even get that warm after 2 games of LoL running bootcamp.

willgreene99
Jul 24, 2013, 10:51 AM
Really appreciate your time on this Jazwire. I know you may have more important things to do, like earn a living, but your efforts on this endeavor do help me in deciding the version I want to get.