PDA

View Full Version : mba 1.6 ghz or 1.8 ghz?




azngamer808
Jan 24, 2008, 01:19 PM
i'm sure this has been asked before but i couldn't find it in the first few pages of the messege board. what does the 0.2 ghz difference mean to a consumer who is only looking to use the mba for internet, documents, store a lot of photos in iphoto, and occasional uses in idvd? I'm guessing that there's really not much diffence, but i just wanted to check with the experts in here if it was worth spending the extra $300. thanks a lot!



psychofreak
Jan 24, 2008, 01:20 PM
I've never used a MBA, but the difference between 2 and 2.16 is noticeable on the Macbook, I recommend the higher speed :)

heatmiser
Jan 24, 2008, 01:21 PM
Zero. Consider it the difference between buying a car with a top speed of 80mph and one with a top speed of 90mph. Either way, you probably aren't going to be driving past 65.

phungy
Jan 24, 2008, 01:22 PM
Based on the activities you listed, I'd go with the 1.6 but with SSD.

jmoney30
Jan 24, 2008, 01:32 PM
I am 100% going to buy a Macbook Air. The way in which it will be used is:

80% Internet browsing/checking email
5% Playing music thru iTunes
5% Microsoft Word/Excel 2008
5% Viewing/Editing photos in iPhoto
5% Downloading music/videos (up to 400mb a file)

It sounds like 1.6 ghz will do the job (let me know if Im wrong), but I really am interested in how much the SSD will improve the performance of the MBA. I have the money to buy the 1.8 ghz/64 gb SSD, so being strapped for the extra $1300 isn't the issue, but really what type of user needs the 64 gb SSD? Would I? It sounds cool but if it wont be noticeable in my daily use then ill just use that cash to buy some additional shares of AAPL while their (relatively) cheap.

bogman12
Jan 24, 2008, 01:49 PM
neither, as both are too slow for a modern computer

phungy
Jan 24, 2008, 01:54 PM
neither, as both are too slow for a modern computer

Note that these C2D processors are not the ULV processors found in other ultraportables. The 1.8 C2D should be just as fast (if not faster) than a MBP with 1.83 CD.

eddietr
Jan 24, 2008, 01:58 PM
neither, as both are too slow for a modern computer

Really what would be "barely" a modern computer in your estimation? And does your laptop run at all full throttle (maximum clock) all day?

My MBP doesn't very often at all.

Screwball
Jan 24, 2008, 02:19 PM
I always look stunned whenever i see a comment saying " MBA is slow ".
In one corner we've got the 1.8 800 FSB 4 MB L2-cache, in the other corner we've got for instance a 1.83 CD 667 FSB 2 MB L2-cache from a MBP! Let's say both machines sport 2 Gb of memory! I doubt we'll find a user with those MBP specs saying " Hell...this is slow "...add to that, the processor in the MBA is faster than that of the upper mentioned MBP! If the MBA even has a SSD to go with, then we're talking miles of difference...so this goes to the people yelling the MBA is slow..: The MBA might be "underfeatured", but no way slow.

Catch
Jan 24, 2008, 03:11 PM
neither, as both are too slow for a modern computer

I agree. I think you would be far better off with a MacPro and a few car batteries. Just get a few guys to help you carry it around... :rolleyes:

I think you will be doing very well with the 1.6. There are allot of professionals out there running those kinds of apps on far slower processors. For your uses both processors will be very speedy...

Regards,

C

Edit: For your information, my MBP sits around 1-1.3Ghz with CoolBooks most of the day running those kinds of apps...

MacsAttack
Jan 24, 2008, 03:15 PM
neither, as both are too slow for a modern computer

Male Highland Cattle Output!

For most applications except high end graphics/video/sound (in which case you don't look at a MBA anyway) you don't need much over 1Ghz. Simple fact is the hardware has long outstripped the requirements of most users.

Airforce
Jan 24, 2008, 03:25 PM
Go with 1.8Ghz if you can afford it. More CPU, the better. You never know what you might need in the future. When you are already spending so much money on what is basically macbook with less features in a nice, "macbook pro priced" package, what's the reasoning to not waste more money? ;)

MacsAttack
Jan 24, 2008, 03:25 PM
i'm sure this has been asked before but i couldn't find it in the first few pages of the messege board. what does the 0.2 ghz difference mean to a consumer who is only looking to use the mba for internet, documents, store a lot of photos in iphoto, and occasional uses in idvd? I'm guessing that there's really not much diffence, but i just wanted to check with the experts in here if it was worth spending the extra $300. thanks a lot!

While there will be a performance difference, its not going to have a big hit for the "average consumer". iDVD will probably be where you see the most difference, but even then the bottleneck may be the hard disk rather than the processor. We need more data on MBA drive performance that just is not available at the moment. Running off into the realms of speculation though...

The 1.8 inch drive in the 1.6 may give disappointing performance - especially with iDVD or a very large photo collection.

On the other hand, the SSD will give much better over all performance (but at a price), but its write performance many not be any better then the 1.8 inch disk - which will again be a potential issue with iDVD. And it has a lower capacity.

In either case, when working with iDVD it may be an idea to use a nice big external USB drive.

SSDs are the future - especially for notebook. But they only now are getting to the almost affordable point. By the end of the year I fully expect to see the MBA to be SSD across the range. This 1.8 inch drive is just a stopgap until the prices come down (and capacity goes up).

Jeremy1026
Jan 24, 2008, 03:29 PM
Quick question, if you're using iDVD, what computer are you going to burn on? And if that other computer is another Mac, why not just use iDVD on that Mac?

bogman12
Jan 24, 2008, 05:10 PM
Really what would be "barely" a modern computer in your estimation? And does your laptop run at all full throttle (maximum clock) all day?

My MBP doesn't very often at all.

Your MBP doesn't run full throttle at all because it has a huge ceiling of performance potential.. The MacBook Air is slooowwwww... Read n' weep.. $1800 for a machine that has previous generation performance? Hells no.

http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/24/first-benchmarks-macbook-air-is-the-slowest-apple-machine-on-th/

eddietr
Jan 24, 2008, 05:22 PM
Your MBP doesn't run full throttle at all because it has a huge ceiling of performance potential.. The MacBook Air is slooowwwww... Read n' weep.. $1800 for a machine that has previous generation performance? Hells no.

http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/24/first-benchmarks-macbook-air-is-the-slowest-apple-machine-on-th/

So previous generation Macs were slooooowwwww? Didn't realize that.

Were they sloooooowwwwwwww two years ago also? Or have they slowed down since then?

Airforce
Jan 24, 2008, 05:25 PM
Quick question, if you're using iDVD, what computer are you going to burn on? And if that other computer is another Mac, why not just use iDVD on that Mac?

You can't burn DVDs or even watch them with remote disc. Wow....

http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/24/remote-disc-no-movie-playback-no-hd-support-and-everything-el/

Catch
Jan 24, 2008, 05:36 PM
Your MBP doesn't run full throttle at all because it has a huge ceiling of performance potential.. The MacBook Air is slooowwwww... Read n' weep.. $1800 for a machine that has previous generation performance? Hells no.

http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/24/first-benchmarks-macbook-air-is-the-slowest-apple-machine-on-th/

:D:D:D:rolleyes:

By the way, that endgaget test really shows how great the MBA really is in my opinion. Thats far more than I was expecting... and thats testing the 1.6 without SSD. Thanks for posting those tests... Its even giving the MBP 2.16 a run for its money!

C

Jiddick ExRex
Jan 24, 2008, 06:23 PM
I've never used a MBA, but the difference between 2 and 2.16 is noticeable on the Macbook, I recommend the higher speed :)

Seriously if you can feel the difference in .16 Mhz you're some kind of superusermacghzmythlegend!

Are you sure the so called 'difference' in clock speeds weren't because you measured between different spec'ed macbooks?

bogman12
Jan 24, 2008, 07:28 PM
So previous generation Macs were slooooowwwww? Didn't realize that.

Were they sloooooowwwwwwww two years ago also? Or have they slowed down since then?

Such messed up logic.. why would you pay $1800 or $3000 for last generation performance, for a notebook not so much more "compact" - just shedding 3lbs.. The 3lbs is welcoming you say? then go and work out for an hour or two or skip that Weekly Big Mac meal. And yes, relative to today's machines, the previous generations are slooowwww..

Now, if it was a small footprint MacBook Air with a high res 10" screen, then I'd be more interested.. But then again, we already have the Asus EePC so why would anyone need an overpriced Apple ultra portable to browse macrumors.com?

Although, I'll admit this MBA is a fanboi's wet dream.. heck anything from Apple is fanboi's wet dream. They should auction off a dinner+movie night with Steve Jobs, imagine all the fanbois that would give a kidney for that prize..

psychofreak
Jan 24, 2008, 07:31 PM
Seriously if you can feel the difference in .16 Mhz you're some kind of superusermacghzmythlegend!

Are you sure the so called 'difference' in clock speeds weren't because you measured between different spec'ed macbooks?
Yep, there was a noticeable difference in the speed of large apps including Office, NeoOffice Presentation and to an extent PS Filters the small amounts I used them.

Anderson3133
Jan 24, 2008, 08:44 PM
Zero. Consider it the difference between buying a car with a top speed of 80mph and one with a top speed of 90mph. Either way, you probably aren't going to be driving past 65.

Great analogy. I couldn't have said it better myself. You will be using this laptop for very basic things, and the difference between 1.6 and 1.83 is not even noticeable with the stuff you intend on using it for.:apple:

tveric
Jan 24, 2008, 11:29 PM
1.6 all the way. Also think re-sale value. The diff in CPU won't mean nearly as much as the other options that you configure now if you try to sell in a year or 4

ricowatatsu
Jan 25, 2008, 03:29 AM
what is this new generation you speak of bogman? 1.6 or 1.8 is plenty fast for almost anything. seems like more cores makes a bigger difference than a few extra mhz.

bogman12
Jan 25, 2008, 08:59 AM
what is this new generation you speak of bogman? 1.6 or 1.8 is plenty fast for almost anything. seems like more cores makes a bigger difference than a few extra mhz.

Not just the CPU, but also the paltry 4200RPM hard drive.