Is the Rev. B WAY better?

[twist2b]

So I have done some research. The SSD is WAY nicer and more GB which might increase performance ALOT.
I forgot, whats the diff in speed in SSD and HDD? I saw a huge diff I was just not sure.
Also,
http://www.macrumors.com/2008/10/18/apple-enabled-gpu-hardware-decoding-of-h-264-on-new-macbooks-pros-and-airs/
Seems that the new graphics card is WAY better for modern tech.

But seriously, anyone with a Rev. B. What are your impressions?
I did not see a thread of people talking about the new version so I didn't know. Let me know guys :)

[NT1440]

More GB in a drive =/= better performance, if the new SSD's are better its simply because the technology has grown up a little.

[twist2b]

More GB in a drive =/= better performance, if the new SSD's are better its simply because the technology has grown up a little.

What I meant was Not enough free drive space will hamper performance, a larger drive will not necessarily improve performance but it can help.


With basic tasks though, I see no need for more then 2GB of ram. But 4 would be nice for other functions.

[glitch44]

you don't see a lot of people talking about the new revisions yet because they haven't arrived. many have gotten shipping notices but no one's received yet. you will see many more reviews in the next week.

[twist2b]

you don't see a lot of people talking about the new revisions yet because they haven't arrived. many have gotten shipping notices but no one's received yet. you will see many more reviews in the next week.

Oh, really? See I thought it had been long enough by now, like almost a month. I guess I missed something. Thanks. I shall wait.

[O. Frabjous-Dey]

Yeah, the MB and MBP were available pretty much right after the conference, but the MBAs needed longer to start shipping. Nobody knows why.

I'm looking forward to hearing the reports this week though.

[twist2b]

Yeah, the MB and MBP were available pretty much right after the conference, but the MBAs needed longer to start shipping. Nobody knows why.

I'm looking forward to hearing the reports this week though.

Nice, thanks for the help guys! I am excited. I am buying one for college, I just don't know if I should wait for an update. Does anyone have a guess when the next revision/update will be. I still have a year before college.

[sangosimo]

with the new revision the MBA should now be equivalent to the the MB now and not slower.

[CoreyMac]

with the new revision the MBA should now be equivalent to the the MB now and not slower.

What MacBook might that be? Because surely not the 2.4GHz Aluminum one....and its still a bit behind the 2.0Ghz too (4200rpm is gonna kill you)

[sangosimo]

with ssd it should match the 2.0ghz macbook is pretty much everything.

[rittchard]

Yeah, the MB and MBP were available pretty much right after the conference, but the MBAs needed longer to start shipping. Nobody knows why.

At this point, I think it's a pretty good guess that the delay has something to do with the new 4200rpm 120GB hard drive. Thus far no one with that configuration has said they have shipping confirmation (only SSD versions to my knowledge). Plus it is the one major piece of hardware that is significantly different, and not shared among the MB or MBP.

Either way, back to the original question, is the new revision "WAY" better? Obviously depends on your definition of "WAY" :-) For a big gamer fan like myself, the major improvement in the graphics is enough to warrant an upgrade. Usually when gamers are upgrading they often look for graphics/performance improvements in the 50% and above range - in this case we are talking close to 500%!! This change should make the MBA a legitimate portable gaming computer on top of all the other great stuff it's already capable of.

Now add to that additional hard drive capacity and more efficient processor/mainboard/memory, and I'd say that yes - it is way way better!!

[CoreyMac]

with ssd it should match the 2.0ghz macbook is pretty much everything.

To an extent.....2.0 still has roughly a 10% increase in speed, the SSD still has slower write times than a 5400rpm HD, and the 9400M is still clocked lower (4x) thann the MacBooks (5x)

but yeah its not TOO far behind the 2.0 MacBook.......with that being said its still $1,200 more than the 2.0 MacBook (With SSD as you said) =\ Im so torn....I want a 3lb laptop that runs OSX why must it be so much!!!!

[O. Frabjous-Dey]

Thanks for the clarification, rittchard.

[six.four]

I agree that the definition of "way" better is relative. Since I don't game or run extensive rendering on my MBA, even though the graphics may be 5x what it was before - it makes little difference to me.

I'll also add that the 9400m upgrade is still just a midrange card. A benchmark of the 9400m in the Aluminum MB 3dMark06 score was ~2300. You can bet that score will be less in the MBA. For comparison, my single desktop 8800gt 512mb card on my quad core desktop scores over 14k on 3dmark06.

I'll wait on reviews and benchmarks before I decide if it is "way" better.

[MontrealMonger]

[QUOTE=six.four;6529402]I agree that the definition of "way" better is relative. Since I don't game or run extensive rendering on my MBA, even though the graphics may be 5x what it was before - it makes little difference to me.
QUOTE]

Gaming aside, wouldn't the 9400 also bring better performance for Quicktime and Youtube video?

[six.four]

Gaming aside, wouldn't the 9400 also bring better performance for Quicktime and Youtube video?

Somebody correct me if I am wrong here, but I am fairly certain that at the current time, the Mac OS does not support GPU decoding for h.264 videos - all of them are still processed by the CPU.

There is no support for GPU decoding for compressed .x264 files in VLC anyway.

Youtube videos are dependant on CPU, not GPU - and well... your internet connection.

So.. to answer your question - not yet and no.

Even with GPU support, the only files you would see a noticeable difference are HD h.264 files - and at way over 10gb per movie in 1080p, there is little reason why you would need it anyway.

The current MBA line has no problem playing 720p/1080p x264 files with the CPU independently anyway.

[nufanec]

More GB in a drive =/= better performance, if the new SSD's are better its simply because the technology has grown up a little.

Actually in traditional drives, yes it does. Say, for example's sake you have 2 2.5" hard drives. Both 2 platter, 5400RPM, and from the same model range by the same manufacturer. Only difference between the drives is that one is 100Gb and the other is 200Gb. Because the higher volume drive has double the density of information store on it, it can read more information than the smaller drive in exactly the same time. You won't get double the performance, but it is a boost none the less.

Now, I known this has nothing to do with the SSD side of the equation, but it does mean that your read speeds from the 120Gb traditional drive should be slightly better :)

[lamadude]

I agree that the definition of "way" better is relative. Since I don't game or run extensive rendering on my MBA, even though the graphics may be 5x what it was before - it makes little difference to me.

I'll also add that the 9400m upgrade is still just a midrange card. A benchmark of the 9400m in the Aluminum MB 3dMark06 score was ~2300. You can bet that score will be less in the MBA. For comparison, my single desktop 8800gt 512mb card on my quad core desktop scores over 14k on 3dmark06.

I'll wait on reviews and benchmarks before I decide if it is "way" better.

Well it's not really a midrange card since it's still integrated.

[rittchard]

I'll also add that the 9400m upgrade is still just a midrange card. A benchmark of the 9400m in the Aluminum MB 3dMark06 score was ~2300. You can bet that score will be less in the MBA. For comparison, my single desktop 8800gt 512mb card on my quad core desktop scores over 14k on 3dmark06.

Agreed on this point, until we get real gaming data it will be tough to tell. I'm expecting something like 2000 for the 3DMark06. However, a more important data point for myself was seeing the video of the guy running Warhammer Online on a new Macbook, that is really the standard I've set for my personal gaming. I'm not going to compare performance to my desktop, which like yours is running a much more substantial video card. To have a complex game like WAR running on a netbook-weight-like portable computer... I just wouldn't have thought it possible a year or 2 ago.

I do like to think of it like this: if there was a game I was barely able to get running on the original MBA's X3100, at say, 5-10fps (like Warhammer for instance) - I now expect it to be 100% fully playable at 20-40fps. Or a game that I could run in the worst settings before, would likely run in highest settings or a higher resolution. To me that's a very substantial improvement.

[twist2b]

Yeah, the SSD is deff AWESOME and very fast. I am sure you CAN compare a 128 GB SSD MBA to a 160 GB HDD MB

But remember that the MB and the MBP are BOTH capable of the SSD upgrade... so it depends.
If I get an air I WILL get the SSD upgrade... its totally worth it!

obviously excluding gamming :P

Oh and the graphics card, BOOOOOOSTS performance ALOT.
The 9400 has some extra in it that works really well video.... here is proof:
http://www.macrumors.com/2008/10/18/apple-enabled-gpu-hardware-decoding-of-h-264-on-new-macbooks-pros-and-airs/

[iDave]

In addition to the graphics boost, the new 45nm processor has a bit more L2 cache and runs cooler; 17 watts vs. 20 watts for the old rev-A 65nm processor. This should make it a touch faster and cooler on your lap. For the first time, I'm considering an Air. Since the new MacBook doesn't come with Firewire either, in my mind it's now much less attractive than the Air.

Perhaps that's part of Apple's intention by dumping Firewire on the MacBook. Those like me who might not have considered an Air because of the lack of Firewire, now consider it because the low end doesn't have it either. (I don't want a MBP because it's larger, heavier and costlier; even though I would really like Firewire on my new portable.)

[six.four]

Yeah, the SSD is deff AWESOME and very fast. I am sure you CAN compare a 128 GB SSD MBA to a 160 GB HDD MB

But remember that the MB and the MBP are BOTH capable of the SSD upgrade... so it depends.
If I get an air I WILL get the SSD upgrade... its totally worth it!

obviously excluding gamming :P

Oh and the graphics card, BOOOOOOSTS performance ALOT.
The 9400 has some extra in it that works really well video.... here is proof:
http://www.macrumors.com/2008/10/18/apple-enabled-gpu-hardware-decoding-of-h-264-on-new-macbooks-pros-and-airs/

Please don't take offense to this, but it is hard to read your post and believe you share an objective viewpoint.

While SSD has faster read times, the write times have been reported to be slower. From the the Ars review of the SSD vs HDD:


The overall disk test scores aren't much different—29.37 on the HDD and 34.30 on the Air. But the SSD performs a fair amount worse than the HDD model when it comes to sequential read and write tests. The SSD was able to write sequentially between 14.67 and 13.86MB/sec, and sequentially read between 7.29 and 49.59MB/sec (the first and second numbers are differentiated by the size of the blocks being written). Comparatively, the HDD model sequentially writes between 31.35 and 33.33MB/sec, and reads between 6.32 and 32.74MB/sec for the same-sized blocks.

But the random disk test is where the SSD model outpaces the HDD. The SSD's overall random read/write score was more than 40 percent higher than that of the HDD. While the HDD model was writing 256k blocks at 22.95MB/sec, the SSD Air was writing at 19.04MB/sec. But read speeds are significantly faster, and the HDD model read the 256k blocks at 14.37MB/sec while the SSD read at 47.61MB/sec.

For those of you who skimmed that last couple of paragraphs, the summary is: the SSD does worse in sequential disk tests and writing in general, but spanks the HDD in random disk tests and reading from the disk.

Does Ars think SSD is worth the premium?


The $1,300 question is whether the SSD is worth the extra cash. The answer seems to be no. I experienced only moderate gains in battery life and not very noticeable speed differences. The one major benefit of the SSD model is that it doesn't cause the same types of slowdowns as the HDD model during times of high disk activity, and that's certainly a huge plus. Speedy read times are great, too, but they are balanced out by pokey write times.


Even with the faster read times, raw computing power of a 2.0ghz or 2.4ghz macbook will still trump the macbook air.

Regarding your "proof" that the 9400m "works really well":
Your proof has never been substantiated and is just a rumor. In fact, a follow up from arstechnica says:



But perhaps Apple is toying with releasing this tech a little early. In that same aforelinked Ars forum thread, astute readers noticed that Mac OS X on the new MacBooks includes a "QuickTime/AppleVAH264HW.component" file that isn't in the most current builds for other machines. The most current public version of Mac OS X Leopard is 10.5, build 9F33, but the new MacBooks are sporting 9F2114. While some of our readers have tried using this component on other Macs with video cards that support GPU acceleration, it's had no noticeable effect on QuickTime decoding performance.


Before you get everybody's hopes up, I think everybody should wait until benchmarks and reviews are released to objectively judge the differences.

[twist2b]

Yeah your right... and NO I did not take offense. You gave alot of good points. Just a thought I was conveying. I was talking about read times, not write times. But you all have to agree that SSD is better.
Still, for basic use, I think the Air can almost compare.

[iDave]

...But you all have to agree that SSD is better.

I'm not sure I'd agree that SSD is better. Perhaps you mean compared to the tiny hard drive in the Air.

I don't pretend to be an expert but what I've been reading would lead me to believe the long-term dependability of SSDs is in question. Will they wear out before a hard drive will? I don't know, but I'm more inclined to go with a hard drive any day, than an expensive unproven SSD, which is only marginally faster.

[twist2b]

I'm not sure I'd agree that SSD is better. Perhaps you mean compared to the tiny hard drive in the Air.

I don't pretend to be an expert but what I've been reading would lead me to believe the long-term dependability of SSDs is in question. Will they wear out before a hard drive will? I don't know, but I'm more inclined to go with a hard drive any day, than an expensive unproven SSD, which is only marginally faster.

Its new tech, so it hasn't been proven bad yet. The only problem that COULD happen is the reader dies out. You could write and delete info in the same place a million times without problems, but how long will the reader last?

Yeah, What I am saying is, SSD is going to be our future. Just needs to come down in price :P

[iDave]

Yeah, What I am saying is, SSD is going to be our future. Just needs to come down in price :P
I'm in total agreement there. I'll save my $700, thanks. I could buy an Air, then buy another Air when they're upgraded next year, sell the first one on eBay and still come out ahead compared to buying one with a SSD now. ;)

But I'm usually one to buy the lower end anyway. I've never been able to justify the cost of the top of the line. Next year's low end usually exceeds today's top of the line. :)

[ppc750fx]

Is it way better? I'd say it is, for two reasons:


SATA drives. The original had PITA... uh... PATA drives. The new SATA drives support higher throughput. This probably won't be too noticable with the magnetic drive models, but users with an SSD will notice the increase transfer speeds. Things like... uh... Safari will be snappier :D
45nm chips. The Rev. As used a cut-down C2D that Intel based on an old shelved design. The Rev. Bs should use chips made with Intel's new 45nm process, resulting in cooler operation.
NVIDIA GeForce 9400M. The X3100 in the Rev. A is fine for Core Image and Quartz Extreme -- but any gaming will be disappointing to say the least. The 9400M, while still an integrated chip, is (according to the benchmarks) a far better-performing graphics processor.


So yeah, I'd say that Rev. B is likely to be far better.

[epicycle]

I did a comparison between the 17" MBP and the MBA rev 2 ( tinyurl.com/5rnlsl ) ... one has the SSD 128 GB and the other a 160GB SATA HDD. I'll give in to the "unknown" long term effects of the SDD but to be honest most people have a computer for what 3 years, 5 at most now days? I'm sure it'll last that ... at least the 3 year applecare ;) ... anyhow, the real world use of the new SSD in the MBA R2 is in my opinion faster than the SATA in my general usage. It launches apps really fast, boots amazingly fast, and overall is a very snappy drive. Is it worth the upgrade costs ... I guess it depends. I for one always like the best that is out now in order to get the most out of my hardware so it's totally worth it. Not everyone can say that is a requirement so the answer may be no for you.

Did I mention it's fast? 95 second boot for the 17" MBP, 25 second boot for the MBA. How's that for fast?

[duffyanneal]

Is it way better? I'd say it is, for two reasons:
(Unconfirmed) 45nm chips. The Rev. As used a cut-down C2D that Intel based on an old shelved design. The Rev. Bs should use chips made with Intel's new 45nm process, resulting in cooler operation.

This has been confirmed. That one change is probably more responsible for the cooler temps than anything else. When the mainstream notebooks went to the newer Penryn core system temps dropped considerably. This is the CPU that should have shipped with the first rev.

[jackfrost123]

Is it way better? I'd say it is, for two reasons:
[LIST=1]
SATA drives. The original had PITA... uh... PATA drives. The new SATA drives support higher throughput. This probably won't be too noticable with the magnetic drive models, but users with an SSD will notice the increase transfer speeds. Things like... uh... Safari will be snappier :D

This is not the case, pata had a high enough throttle for a single ssd, it's just that the ssd is in itself better in rev. b. And of course where SATA IS indeed better is in terms of compatibility and future upgrades, while with rev. a your hands were pretty much tied. That said, you can read elsewhere in this forum that (and someone please correct me here If i am wrong) mba rev. b is not exactly sata but a subtype of sata, that I can't recall it's name, that they use.

[jackfrost123]

This has been confirmed. That one change is probably more responsible for the cooler temps than anything else. When the mainstream notebooks went to the newer Penryn core system temps dropped considerably. This is the CPU that should have shipped with the first rev.

Well said, the penryn's are supposed to be a whooping 10 Watt tdp cooler than the previous cheap, 25 Watt tdp that is.

[chocolaterabbit]

Please don't take offense to this, but it is hard to read your post and believe you share an objective viewpoint.

While SSD has faster read times, the write times have been reported to be slower. From the the Ars review of the SSD vs HDD:



Does Ars think SSD is worth the premium?



Even with the faster read times, raw computing power of a 2.0ghz or 2.4ghz macbook will still trump the macbook air.

Regarding your "proof" that the 9400m "works really well":
Your proof has never been substantiated and is just a rumor. In fact, a follow up from arstechnica says:



Before you get everybody's hopes up, I think everybody should wait until benchmarks and reviews are released to objectively judge the differences.

There's a few things wrong with your argument.
Firstly, the SSD in the new macbook air is a lot faster than the first MBA's SSD, and Ars may not recommend the first SSD, but it's likely they will recommend this one.
Secondly, you misquoted the no improvement line. They did not see an improvement when they copied the drivers for the new macbooks to the old ones, not they didn't see an improvement when they played video on the new ones. The 9400 is definitely a lot better than anything else before it.
Thirdly, a faster processor is only useful in heavy computation. You would not need a faster processor browsing the net or writing documents. You would need to write and read from disk constantly though, so SSD would be more useful than a faster processor.

[Maxx Power]

Well said, the penryn's are supposed to be a whooping 10 Watt tdp cooler than the previous cheap, 25 Watt tdp that is.

From what I remember, the old C2D chips in Rev.A were all 20 watt custom parts based on the L7700 and the L7500 which are both low voltage chips to run cool. The L7700 and L7500 are both 17 watt TDP parts but due to the smaller form factor and what Anandtech concluded was the electrical problems, the TDP for the smaller form factor equivalent L7500 and L7700 used in the Rev.A's were not as low as their traditional socket counterparts.

In the new Rev.B, I remember reading that the chips used are the SL9300 (1.6ghz) and SL9400 (1.86ghz) small form factor chips. The S denotes small form factor and L denotes low voltage. These are supposedly 17 watt TDP parts, about 3 watts less than the Rev.A's.

The 25 watt penryn's you mentioned are "standard voltage" parts, they are used in the macbook and pro's except the fastest one. They are not used in the Rev.B air, the Rev.B air's cooling subsystem probably can't handle that additional heat production...

[dubhe]

These new specs make me think my next MB will be an Air, and that will be May or June next year. My BlackBook was an upgrade from my 12" PB but just doesn't have the quality as far as I am concerned.

Any ideas when Rev C will be out? Which processor will that be sporting? Can't believe I am looking to Rev C when B isn't even shipping yet!

[fyrefly]

These new specs make me think my next MB will be an Air, and that will be May or June next year. My BlackBook was an upgrade from my 12" PB but just doesn't have the quality as far as I am concerned.

Any ideas when Rev C will be out? Which processor will that be sporting? Can't believe I am looking to Rev C when B isn't even shipping yet!

It took Apple 10 months to update the air from revA to RevB. Expect it to take just as long to get RevC. There wont be any/many portable updates till the mobile versions of Nehalem aka Core i7 ship in late 09.

http://www.macworld.com/article/136223/nehalem.html

[Molopo]

I don't see why anyone would buy a higher end MBA with an SSD when they can wait like 1-2 months and get an SSD with the same capacity + speed for half the price you'd pay buying from apple.

[mac jones]

I don't see why anyone would buy a higher end MBA with an SSD when they can wait like 1-2 months and get an SSD with the same capacity + speed for half the price you'd pay buying from apple.

Someone dismantled this new Air on this forum and said that it has a ZIFF connector (SATA) Ziff

If this is true you would probably have a very hard time getting an aftermarket SSD for this new version. The drives have the Apple brand on them and Samsung is not even mentioned (except fot the original Samsung part number)

very odd if true about the sata ziff.

[netdog]

The current MBA line has no problem playing 720p/1080p x264 files with the CPU independently anyway.

The Rev A MBAs stutter with SD iTunes videos.

As for the drive, isn't it now SATA? That should make it a lot faster.

[botkiller]

Best Buy is selling the Rev. A Macbook Air for $1299.

Apple's education store is selling the Rev. B Macbook Air for $1699.

I'm struggling between paying less or getting the new features. So, for those who have experience with both, are the improvements in the 2nd gen worth the $400 increase?

[amsukalski]

I can't find anything about the ZIFF connection. NC MacGuy was the one who dismantled his Rev. B Air... maybe he could confirm it? I actually can't find much of anything about Ziff SATA connectors in general.

Someone dismantled this new Air on this forum and said that it has a ZIFF connector (SATA) Ziff

If this is true you would probably have a very hard time getting an aftermarket SSD for this new version. The drives have the Apple brand on them and Samsung is not even mentioned (except fot the original Samsung part number)

very odd if true about the sata ziff.

[mac jones]

I can't find anything about the ZIFF connection. NC MacGuy was the one who dismantled his Rev. B Air... maybe he could confirm it? I actually can't find much of anything about Ziff SATA connectors in general.

Actually, it's a LIF connector (says right on it in the pict in the thread above)

LIF is a like a ZIFF (zero insertion force-but the LIF is probably 'low' insertion force :) ) I'm guessing. This must be a first-SATA LIF.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Lif_connector_toshiba_mk4009gal.jpg

So if you want a SSD in this model your going to have to get it like that cuz it's probably gonna be a while before you see these things on ebay.

[mlemonds]

Best Buy is selling the Rev. A Macbook Air for $1299.

Apple's education store is selling the Rev. B Macbook Air for $1699.

I'm struggling between paying less or getting the new features. So, for those who have experience with both, are the improvements in the 2nd gen worth the $400 increase?

yes, but if you cant afford the extra $400 just get the 2.4 GlassBook.

[dudup]

yes, but if you cant afford the extra $400 just get the 2.4 GlassBook.

I completely agree. But go for the MBA rev B f you can. It's worth it.

[rittchard]

Best Buy is selling the Rev. A Macbook Air for $1299.

Apple's education store is selling the Rev. B Macbook Air for $1699.

I'm struggling between paying less or getting the new features. So, for those who have experience with both, are the improvements in the 2nd gen worth the $400 increase?

It really depends on what your intended long-term intended use for the machine is. If you are satisfied with the hard drive size (80GB) and graphics capabilities (X3100), the Rev A is an awesome machine on its own.

If you are looking toward the future for graphics and other capabilities, or have aspirations of playing the latest game releases, you will want to pay the extra for the new chipset. Take a look not just at Apple's site but also nVidia:

http://www.nvidia.com/object/product_geforce_9400m_g_us.html

Things like PureVideo and CUDA/PhysX have yet to be fully taken advantage of (for Mac OR PC), so having the 9400m has big potential upside for the future (on top of just enhancing gaming performance ~300-400%).