1.4 4GB or 1.6 4GB. Any info from users appreciated.

I have now owned both with 4GB or RAM and can tell you from experience that I noticed no performance increase from the 1.4 to the 1.6 in my usage pattern. I use the 11in air to surf the web, write code, build websites, blog, email, and play some games (WoW, Emulation stuff).

The extra harddrive space of the 1.6 was worth the price for my wife when we bought the second 11in air and I agree with her.

Here is a pretty good article on this topic from AnandTech.

Apple's 11-inch Upgraded MacBook Air: Do 1.6GHz and 4GB Make a Difference?

Everything I had read about the 1.4GHz 11" was that the ONE drawback was the very weak processor...I figured that I would upgrade to the highest I could to try and counter that weakness as much as possible...I do a lot of Handbrake converting and it is reasonable on the 1.6GHz...I'm glad I did the upgrade...After reading the AnandTech article that BlackMax so kindly posted, I see that it isn't just my imagination

BlackMax said:

Here is a pretty good article on this topic from AnandTech.

Apple's 11-inch Upgraded MacBook Air: Do 1.6GHz and 4GB Make a Difference?

Click to expand...

This article recommended the CPU and Memory upgrades.
However, it had the opposite effect on me.
It confirmed that my decision to buy the 11" base model (1.4 / 2Gig ) was the correct one.

The upgraded cpu and memory resulted in a measly 15% increase in speed at best.
So a task that took 100 seconds, now took 115 seconds with the base model.

Who can't wait 15 more seconds for a 300+ dollar savings?
Or better yet, a task that takes 30 seconds would take 34.5 seconds on the base model.
Not to mention I'll get sightly better battery life.
I'm so glad I read this article.. you guys all had be convinced I needed the upgrades, but I found a 920.00 deal on a base model and bought it because it was cheap. I had some doubts and remorse today, but those are now gone.
SWEET!!!

This is usually a secondary device anyway, so it doesn't need to be lightning quick.. Difference is negligible for me.. Glad I saved the money.. And, look on the bright side. I'll be quicker to upgrade next refresh since I saved 400 bucks this time around.

You're over thinking this, so I'll make it easy: Max it out and don't look back. This device will be a relatively long-term work horse for you; don't leave any performance on the table. There. No regrets. Done.

Enjoy!

macproguy77 said:

This article recommended the CPU and Memory upgrades.
However, it had the opposite effect on me.
It confirmed that my decision to buy the 11" base model (1.4 / 2Gig ) was the correct one.

The upgraded cpu and memory resulted in a measly 15% increase in speed at best.
So a task that took 100 seconds, now took 115 seconds with the base model.

Who can't wait 15 more seconds for a 300+ dollar savings?
Or better yet, a task that takes 30 seconds would take 34.5 seconds on the base model.
Not to mention I'll get sightly better battery life.

Click to expand...

The faster CPU would result in more battery life if both of them are based on same architecture. While in idle state, the 1.4GHz and 1.6GHz CULV have the same power consumption. But if computer deals with heavy task, faster CPU would finish the task and go back to idle state more quickly, hence consumes less power

rrl said:

You're over thinking this, so I'll make it easy: Max it out and don't look back. This device will be a relatively long-term work horse for you; don't leave any performance on the table. There. No regrets. Done.

Enjoy!

Click to expand...

This was my thinking...I had the extra money to spend, I wanted the best possible performance in the 11.6" form factor...I went for the 1.6GHz, 4GB RAM, 128GB SSD version...couldn't be happier...

I have a 11.6 ultimate, and my wife has a 11.6 1.4 with 4GB RAM. I've noticed no difference between using her computer versus mine.

I was debating between the 1.86GHz 4GB and 2.13GHz 4GB version and went with the 2.13GHz primarily for psychological reasons (I already had a 1.86GHz Rev B). I'm happy with my purchase and would probably do it again. That said, I'd readily advise others to stick with the "base" configuration if that's all they need. The difference is not likely to be that noticeable.

Since it's not a "workhorse" I'd suggest the 4GB 1.4GHz model. Put the rest toward your next MacBook Air. I'm likely to skip the Rev E, but will seriously look at the Rev F assuming it has the Ivy Bridge chip and its IGP represents a step up from the NVIDIA 320M (the move to Sandy Bridge is looking more lateral since the CPU is a boost, but the IGP is a slight downgrade).

Ronnoco said:

This was my thinking...I had the extra money to spend, I wanted the best possible performance in the 11.6" form factor...I went for the 1.6GHz, 4GB RAM, 128GB SSD version...couldn't be happier...

Click to expand...

I agree 100%! Upgrade to the maximum unless you are really strapped for cash. You will never have the someday question "I wonder if I should have upgraded the...". It is such an awesome computer!

Here is a suggestion.

1. If you planning to keep it long period of time like 3 years or more, go for max. Don't look back.

2. If you are not, then go for slower processor. However, everything gets outdated these days as soon as you buy them.


Also, I don't understand why it's such a big deal to spend extra 100 dollars on a laptop. The processor upgrade is just merely 100 dollars. If you are worrying about cashing out 100 dollars more on a laptop that costs 1000. Then, perhaps, you are so cheap and you shouldn't even get this laptop.

hummmm

merely my opinion:

if you plan a "short" usage for the machine (e.g. 1,2 years) get the base model. Otherwise... get the ultimate model.

ditosou said:

merely my opinion:

if you plan a "short" usage for the machine (e.g. 1,2 years) get the base model. Otherwise... get the ultimate model.

Click to expand...

I think, though, that it also depends on what you are planning on using it for during the period of time you plan on keeping it. I would pay the extra $100 for a 14% increase in speed for processor intensive things because some of my programs do some heavy number crunching (yet I still wanted the 11.6" form factor).

hcho3 said:

Also, I don't understand why it's such a big deal to spend extra 100 dollars on a laptop. The processor upgrade is just merely 100 dollars. If you are worrying about cashing out 100 dollars more on a laptop that costs 1000. Then, perhaps, you are so cheap and you shouldn't even get this laptop.

Click to expand...

In the OP's case, since the 64GB SSD is sufficient, going up to the 1.6GHz model would also require purchasing a bigger SSD than what he or she needs.

ccsicecoke said:

The faster CPU would result in more battery life if both of them are based on same architecture. While in idle state, the 1.4GHz and 1.6GHz CULV have the same power consumption. But if computer deals with heavy task, faster CPU would finish the task and go back to idle state more quickly, hence consumes less power

Click to expand...

While I agree, that what you said * theoretically* makes sense, which it does, it is incorrect.

Even though the SU9400 and SU9600 draw the same amount of volts, that extra 200mhz in clock speed results in more energy being used, which in-turn results in a slightly less battery life.

This anandtech article explains it: http://www.anandtech.com/show/4000/...air-review-do-16ghz-and-4gb-make-a-difference

iRun26.2 said:

I think, though, that it also depends on what you are planning on using it for during the period of time you plan on keeping it. I would pay the extra $100 for a 14% increase in speed for processor intensive things because some of my programs do some heavy number crunching (yet I still wanted the 11.6" form factor).

Click to expand...

We must be of "The Borg"...

Ronnoco said:

We must be of "The Borg"...

Click to expand...

Those were my favorite few episodes!

KPOM said:

In the OP's case, since the 64GB SSD is sufficient, going up to the 1.6GHz model would also require purchasing a bigger SSD than what he or she needs.

Click to expand...

Please save me from that 64GB storage story. If you buying a laptop and if you have any serious intent to use it, anyone would know that 64GB storage is a joke. How much space will it be left after Snow leopard has been installed, hmmmm?

People complain the storage on 64GB iPad is too small.

If you are worried about 200-300 dollars, then perhaps, this laptop is too much for the OP, period. Go buy yourself a refurbished unit.

hcho3 said:

Please save me from that 64GB storage story. If you buying a laptop and if you have any serious intent to use it, anyone would know that 64GB storage is a joke. How much space will it be left after Snow leopard has been installed, hmmmm?

People complain the storage on 64GB iPad is too small.

If you are worried about 200-300 dollars, then perhaps, this laptop is too much for the OP, period. Go buy yourself a refurbished unit.

Click to expand...

Indeed. A refurbished machine could be a great way to go.

Jaro65 said:

Indeed. A refurbished machine could be a great way to go.

Click to expand...

From reading these forums early on, it sure sounded like a lot of people bought one version and them changed their mind and got a different one. I'm sure there are plenty of refurbed units that are in pretty good shape. (Although I'm pretty happy to have gotten a brand spanking new one).

impulse462 said:

While I agree, that what you said * theoretically* makes sense, which it does, it is incorrect.

Even though the SU9400 and SU9600 draw the same amount of volts, that extra 200mhz in clock speed results in more energy being used, which in-turn results in a slightly less battery life.

This anandtech article explains it: http://www.anandtech.com/show/4000/...air-review-do-16ghz-and-4gb-make-a-difference

Click to expand...

I believe the battery shortage is mainly caused by extra 2GB ram. No evidence though. To be fair, Anandtech should compare between 1.4/4GB and 1.6/4GB, not 1.4/2GB and 1.6/4GB