PDA

View Full Version : Which is faster - 2011 1.7 GHz Core i5 or 2013 1.3 GHz Core i5?




Akuratyde
Sep 26, 2013, 10:49 AM
I have the 2011 Air with the 1.7 GHz Core i5 processor and I'm thinking about getting the new 2013 Air with 1.3 GHz Core i5. I'm concerned about the processor speed as I use a lot of resource intensive programs. I'm assuming the new processors are somehow faster, but the 1.3 vs. 1.7 seems like a big difference so I want to make sure I wouldn't be taking a step-down as far as processing speed.



Mafamaticks
Sep 26, 2013, 11:03 AM
When you say resource heavy, is it processor heavy (encoding video or something)?

A .4 difference in speed may or may not matter depending on what you are doing.

magbarn
Sep 26, 2013, 11:10 AM
I have the 2011 Air with the 1.7 GHz Core i5 processor and I'm thinking about getting the new 2013 Air with 1.3 GHz Core i5. I'm concerned about the processor speed as I use a lot of resource intensive programs. I'm assuming the new processors are somehow faster, but the 1.3 vs. 1.7 seems like a big difference so I want to make sure I wouldn't be taking a step-down as far as processing speed.

You're looking at a 2 generation improvement. That said, the 1.3 looks like a major downgrade, but it's actually about on par with last years i5 1.7/1.8 Ivy Bridge which is already faster than your Sandy Bridge CPU. In other words you're looking at a performance increase along with crazy battery life.

Look here: Anandtech 2013 MBA Review (http://www.anandtech.com/show/7180/apple-macbook-air-11-2013-review/3)

jg321
Sep 26, 2013, 11:19 AM
According to Geekbench:

MacBook Air (11-inch Mid 2012) = 1762
Intel Core i5-3317U 1700 MHz (2 cores)

MacBook Air (11-inch Mid 2013) = 2368
Intel Core i5-4250U 1300 MHz (2 cores)

Not sure how much is the CPU, but overall the 2013 seems quicker. Also, couldn't find a 2011 1.7Ghz - but didn't look too far!

Y So Jelly
Sep 26, 2013, 11:44 AM
You're looking at a 2 generation improvement. That said, the 1.3 looks like a major downgrade, but it's actually about on par with last years i5 1.7/1.8 Ivy Bridge which is already faster than your Sandy Bridge CPU. In other words you're looking at a performance increase along with crazy battery life.

Look here: Anandtech 2013 MBA Review (http://www.anandtech.com/show/7180/apple-macbook-air-11-2013-review/3)

Actually the processor is slower than last years but opening programs is faster because of the SSD upgrade.

Akuratyde
Sep 26, 2013, 02:11 PM
When you say resource heavy, is it processor heavy (encoding video or something)?

A .4 difference in speed may or may not matter depending on what you are doing.

Yes, processor heavy. Photoshop and Logic Pro X. Certain files in both programs are already maxing out the CPU so I need to make sure it wouldn't be a downgrade.


According to Geekbench:

MacBook Air (11-inch Mid 2012) = 1762
Intel Core i5-3317U 1700 MHz (2 cores)

MacBook Air (11-inch Mid 2013) = 2368
Intel Core i5-4250U 1300 MHz (2 cores)


So it seems like a safe bet that the 2013 1.3 GHz i5 is faster than the 2011 1.7 GHz i5 since it's already faster than the 2012 1.7 GHz i5.

tann
Sep 27, 2013, 04:32 AM
Good amount faster considering the two year gap.

robvas
Sep 27, 2013, 08:10 AM
Depends on what you're doing - Haswell is a battery life improver, and not much of an actual speed boost. In most benchmarks you are going to see similar (and sometimes less) CPU performance than the 2012 model. But it will be a noticeable improvement over your 2011.

http://i.imgur.com/RcW5Kal.png

http://i.imgur.com/1722ZsW.png

http://i.imgur.com/1F9imc7.png

If you need more speed, get the i7 - the 2013 i7 is about 20% faster than the i5.

Akuratyde
Sep 27, 2013, 01:57 PM
Depends on what you're doing - Haswell is a battery life improver, and not much of an actual speed boost. In most benchmarks you are going to see similar (and sometimes less) CPU performance than the 2012 model. But it will be a noticeable improvement over your 2011.

Good to know, thanks for providing the benchmarks.

robvas
Sep 27, 2013, 02:14 PM
Remember the turbo boost feature makes the advertised base clockspeed very, very misleading.