Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Apple Hardware > Notebooks > MacBook Air

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Sep 14, 2012, 09:50 AM   #1
PostHate
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Switching to Mac Book Air, better performance?

Hello everyone.

I currently have a 3+ year old iMac 24" that I use. I need a portable device to work on when in the field, originally I was planning on just getting an iPad, but for not too much more money I could get a Mac Book Air and have a lot more options.

I think I would like to get a Mac Book Air for use in the field and that nice 27" monitor to connect to it while at home, and sell my current iMac altogether.

My concern is if the Mac Book Air would have similar or better performance than my current iMac. I know the specs look better, but I'm not sure if there is more to it.

The specs:

Current 24" iMac
2.66 Ghz Intel Core 2 Duo
4 GB 1067 MHz DDR3
NVIDIA GeForce 9400 256 MB
I installed Lion on it.

Base Mac Book Air
1.7GHz dual-core Intel Core i5 (Turbo Boost up to 2.6GHz) with 3MB shared L3 cache
4GB of 1600MHz DDR3L onboard memory
Intel HD Graphics 4000


So would the Mac Book Air be at least as good as far as performance as my iMac?

FWIW, I do not game or do any type of heavy graphic or video work. Just general computing.

Thanks for your help.
PostHate is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 14, 2012, 10:22 AM   #2
wditters
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by PostHate View Post
Hello everyone.
The specs:

Current 24" iMac
2.66 Ghz Intel Core 2 Duo
4 GB 1067 MHz DDR3
NVIDIA GeForce 9400 256 MB
I installed Lion on it.

Base Mac Book Air
1.7GHz dual-core Intel Core i5 (Turbo Boost up to 2.6GHz) with 3MB shared L3 cache
4GB of 1600MHz DDR3L onboard memory
Intel HD Graphics 4000
First off, the Passmark scores (www.cpubenchmark.net) for the CPU's are 1810 for the Core2Duo 2.66 compared to 3009 for the Ivy Bridge i5 1.7, roughly a 50% performance increase.

That alone already is a significant performance boost. You will certainly notice that. In addition to that however, the fact that the 2012 Air has a Sata3 solid state is going to make an even bigger difference. Your disk performance is going to increase more than 400%

The HD 4000 graphics are fine as long as you do not play GPU-intensive games, you should be fine there. The GPU however is integrated with the CPU so for day to day work also expect a nice performance increase.

So in short, get ready for a world of (positive) difference :-)
__________________
Microsoft Surface Pro 3 Haswell i7, 8Gb 512Gb
Macbook Pro Retina 13 Haswell i7, 16Gb, 512Gb
wditters is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 14, 2012, 10:32 AM   #3
PostHate
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Excellent, thanks for the reply.

Quick question: with integrated graphics, when I connect it to the large monitor with high resolution, will I see any noticeable decrease in performance?
PostHate is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 14, 2012, 12:05 PM   #4
Wokis
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Quote:
Originally Posted by wditters View Post
The GPU however is integrated with the CPU so for day to day work also expect a nice performance increase.
The GPU being a part of the CPU die is not going to yield any acceleration in day to day tasks. Not for that particular reason. It's in there doing graphics and OpenCL/GL like any discrete GPU would do as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PostHate View Post
Quick question: with integrated graphics, when I connect it to the large monitor with high resolution, will I see any noticeable decrease in performance?
If you decide to play a game on say a 1920x1080 monitor then yes it's going to be noticeably slower. But I wouldn't worry about day to day desktop usage.
__________________
13" Macbook Air 2012, i5-3427U, Intel HD 4000, 8GB RAM, 128GB SSD | iPad Mini 16GB White | iPhone 5 32GB Black
Wokis is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 14, 2012, 12:37 PM   #5
tiwizard
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wokis View Post
The GPU being a part of the CPU die is not going to yield any acceleration in day to day tasks. Not for that particular reason. It's in there doing graphics and OpenCL/GL like any discrete GPU would do as well.
Actually, any GPU accelerated tasks (especially Chrome/Safari CSS animations, which is a part of web browsing) will be more fluid due to the GPU, despite it being integrated. Also, video playback is GPU accelerated, as well as Core Animation, which is used in almost all animated transitions in the core operating system. There will probably be a noticeable increase in fluidity in these animations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PostHate View Post
Excellent, thanks for the reply.
Quick question: with integrated graphics, when I connect it to the large monitor with high resolution, will I see any noticeable decrease in performance?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wokis View Post
If you decide to play a game on say a 1920x1080 monitor then yes it's going to be noticeably slower. But I wouldn't worry about day to day desktop usage.
This is very true. Some window animations get a little bit choppy (ie. press the green plus in the top left to expand a window), but it is very usable and not even noticeable unless you look for it. Otherwise, scrolling through web pages is just fine as is using the computer for other tasks (that aren't gaming).

Though it is worth noting that the new Airs have pretty decent GPU performance and can even play games (such as Counter Strike: GO) at 60 fps on the built in display, high quality, full resolution. It won't be quite as fast on an external 1080p display, however.
tiwizard is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 14, 2012, 01:29 PM   #6
Dark Void
macrumors 68000
 
Dark Void's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by PostHate View Post
Excellent, thanks for the reply.

Quick question: with integrated graphics, when I connect it to the large monitor with high resolution, will I see any noticeable decrease in performance?
It should be fine handling everyday tasks.

As far as performance in compared to the iMac, you will definitely see improvements - especially considering the SSD.
__________________
`
MacBook Pro 2.4 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo 8GB 1067 MHz 256GB SSD NVIDIA GeForce 320M
Desktop 3.4 GHz Intel Core i5-3570K 8GB 1600 MHz 2TB 7200 RPM HDD AMD Radeon HD 7700 1GB
Dark Void is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 14, 2012, 02:56 PM   #7
halledise
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Hamilton Island, Whitsundays, QLD Australia
you'd be better served buying a rMBPro and forgetting the idea of an external display.
cheaper option than an Air + ext Display and also they are fast, clear, have a dedicated GPU and can handle anything you throw at it.

and at a snip over 2kg, they're very portable too

my $2 worth.
halledise is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 14, 2012, 03:09 PM   #8
PostHate
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by halledise View Post
you'd be better served buying a rMBPro and forgetting the idea of an external display.
cheaper option than an Air + ext Display and also they are fast, clear, have a dedicated GPU and can handle anything you throw at it.

and at a snip over 2kg, they're very portable too

my $2 worth.
A 15" display is way too small for me. I currently use a 24" and have been wanting bigger since the 27" iMacs came out

Since my current iMac gives me the performance that I need and the Mac Book Air is even better, I'm sure I will be fine. The added performance of the MBP would not be necessary for me and what I do (web surfing, running Quick Books, Flat Rate pricing software {what I need to do in the field}, printing invoices, viewing PDFs, etc).

BTW, the base MBP with Retina is $2,200. The MBAir is $1,000 and the 27" Thunderbolt display is $1,000, totaling $2,000.

Last edited by PostHate; Sep 14, 2012 at 03:17 PM.
PostHate is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 14, 2012, 03:53 PM   #9
Bilalo
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Oxford, England
Quote:
Originally Posted by PostHate View Post
Hello everyone.

I currently have a 3+ year old iMac 24" that I use. I need a portable device to work on when in the field, originally I was planning on just getting an iPad, but for not too much more money I could get a Mac Book Air and have a lot more options.

I think I would like to get a Mac Book Air for use in the field and that nice 27" monitor to connect to it while at home, and sell my current iMac altogether.

My concern is if the Mac Book Air would have similar or better performance than my current iMac. I know the specs look better, but I'm not sure if there is more to it.

The specs:

Current 24" iMac
2.66 Ghz Intel Core 2 Duo
4 GB 1067 MHz DDR3
NVIDIA GeForce 9400 256 MB
I installed Lion on it.

Base Mac Book Air
1.7GHz dual-core Intel Core i5 (Turbo Boost up to 2.6GHz) with 3MB shared L3 cache
4GB of 1600MHz DDR3L onboard memory
Intel HD Graphics 4000


So would the Mac Book Air be at least as good as far as performance as my iMac?

FWIW, I do not game or do any type of heavy graphic or video work. Just general computing.

Thanks for your help.
Get 8 GB Ram
Bilalo is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 14, 2012, 03:55 PM   #10
rdas7
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: London, England
Quote:
Originally Posted by PostHate View Post
A 15" display is way too small for me. I currently use a 24" and have been wanting bigger since the 27" iMacs came out
For what it's worth, I "upgraded" from a 2008 MacBook Pro 15" with similar specs of your iMac, to a 2011 13" MacBook Air. I would strongly recommend the upgrade.

Day-to-day performance wise, for "general computing" as you call it, the MacBook Air is *noticeably* more responsive. The system rarely, if ever locks up.

It's worth noting that the 13" Air has the same screen resolution as a 15" MacBook Pro (1440x900) despite the slightly smaller screen size, which is razor sharp (around 220PPI vs. the Retina MacBook Pro which is about 320PPI)

At home, I use it to drive a 24" monitor, with a usb keyboard and mouse with no problem. In fact, because the screen is so large, and since I don't really use the 13" screen when it's docked, I simply close the lid on the Air. This has the added benefit of dedicating 100% of the integrated GPU to the single, larger screen (instead of trying to drive 2).

If your budget allows, I would seriously consider the 27" Apple Thunderbolt Display as your second monitor.

First of all, it offers the same screen size as your iMac, but most importantly it has integrated speakers, iSight camera, microphone, power charger and USB/Firewire hub that if you were to purchase separately would amount to a lot of wiring and roughly the same cost.

This results in the ideal road-warrior setup. A powerful desktop computer at home when docked, and a featherweight portable to take on the road, without the need to ever transfer or synchronize documents .
rdas7 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 14, 2012, 07:56 PM   #11
fleawannabe
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by PostHate View Post
Hello everyone.

I currently have a 3+ year old iMac 24" that I use. I need a portable device to work on when in the field, originally I was planning on just getting an iPad, but for not too much more money I could get a Mac Book Air and have a lot more options.

I think I would like to get a Mac Book Air for use in the field and that nice 27" monitor to connect to it while at home, and sell my current iMac altogether.

My concern is if the Mac Book Air would have similar or better performance than my current iMac. I know the specs look better, but I'm not sure if there is more to it.

The specs:

Current 24" iMac
2.66 Ghz Intel Core 2 Duo
4 GB 1067 MHz DDR3
NVIDIA GeForce 9400 256 MB
I installed Lion on it.

Base Mac Book Air
1.7GHz dual-core Intel Core i5 (Turbo Boost up to 2.6GHz) with 3MB shared L3 cache
4GB of 1600MHz DDR3L onboard memory
Intel HD Graphics 4000


So would the Mac Book Air be at least as good as far as performance as my iMac?

FWIW, I do not game or do any type of heavy graphic or video work. Just general computing.

Thanks for your help.
Definitely get the 8GB of RAM, you can not do it in the future.
fleawannabe is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 14, 2012, 09:05 PM   #12
Mike in Kansas
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Metro Kansas City
I'll mention it too - get the 8GB of RAM. Not only does it add to your RAM, but it also takes the vRAM that gets assigned to the HD4000 graphics from 384MB in the case of 4GB RAM to 512MB.
__________________
13" 2012 MBA/i7/8GB/256GB
24" 2008 iMac/2.8GHz/6GB/240GB SSD & 2TB FW800 HDD "Fused"
2GB TC; ATV 3; 32GB iPad 4; iPhone 5
Left Nikon for Fuji X-E1, Fujinon 18-55mm OIS, 55-200mm OIS, 27mm f/2.8
Mike in Kansas is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 15, 2012, 02:13 AM   #13
Wokis
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Quote:
Originally Posted by tiwizard View Post
Actually, any GPU accelerated tasks (especially Chrome/Safari CSS animations, which is a part of web browsing) will be more fluid due to the GPU, despite it being integrated. Also, video playback is GPU accelerated, as well as Core Animation, which is used in almost all animated transitions in the core operating system. There will probably be a noticeable increase in fluidity in these animations.
But this is not due to the IGP being where it is. A discrete GPU can do this as well. It's the "because it's integrated" in that response I was objecting to
__________________
13" Macbook Air 2012, i5-3427U, Intel HD 4000, 8GB RAM, 128GB SSD | iPad Mini 16GB White | iPhone 5 32GB Black
Wokis is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 15, 2012, 11:53 AM   #14
tiwizard
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wokis View Post
But this is not due to the IGP being where it is. A discrete GPU can do this as well. It's the "because it's integrated" in that response I was objecting to
Where a GPU is has no effect on whether it can perform a task or not. It's simply how much power the GPU has. (As long as there are appropriate drivers, etc)

The integrated GPU works fine for accelerating tasks such as video and the user interface, despite not being "super powerful". It's leaps and bounds faster and any graphics task than a CPU. Where it *doesn't* excel is at high performance 3D rendering or demanding accelerated applications such as After Effects.

See this article:
http://blog.stuffedcow.net/2012/07/i...-acceleration/

The most important line is the very first one: "Graphics acceleration (Core Image, Quartz Extreme) for Intel HD Graphics 4000 (on Ivy Bridge processors) works in Mac OS X! The drivers are included in the MacBook Pro (Mid 2012) Software Update 1.0, Lion 10.7.5, or Mountain Lion 10.8. (Also found in BridgeHelper 5.0)."

Last edited by tiwizard; Sep 15, 2012 at 11:58 AM.
tiwizard is offline   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > Apple Hardware > Notebooks > MacBook Air

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
last plastic Mac Book vs new Mac Book Air APPLeFRo MacBook Air 12 Dec 23, 2013 12:55 PM
Mac book Pro i5 or i7 ? Performance difference major or minor ? conversationsan MacBook Pro 5 Jun 4, 2013 06:52 PM
Mac book pro or air? Gumbys69 MacBook Pro 2 Nov 16, 2012 10:28 AM
Mac Book Air on sale tomwvr MacBook Air 0 Jul 19, 2012 05:18 AM
Mac Book Air (13 retina) Vs Mac Book Pro (13 retina) leehong888222 MacBook Pro 16 Jul 1, 2012 12:00 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:30 AM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC