Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Apple Hardware > Notebooks > MacBook Air

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Jun 10, 2013, 05:54 PM   #1
GoPro
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Are the 2012 MacBook Air's more powerful than the ones just released?

Is it me or are the new macbook air's slower than the last generation?

i.e. 1.8GHz (up to 2.8GHz with turbo boost) of 2012 vs the 1.3GHz (2.4GHz with turbo boost) of the 2013 models.

Could it be that the macbook air's were getting too powerful, so powerful that they were matching macbook pro's for performance?

For example, my i7 2.0GHz outperforms the base macbook pro retina 13" (with turbo mode on both models active) and is on par with the higher spec one (again, with turbo mode active on both models).

Did apple reduce the speed of these processor's to save battery life and market it as an ideal laptop for somebody who is constantly on-the-go?
GoPro is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 10, 2013, 06:05 PM   #2
technowar
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Cebu, Philippines
You can't compare both processors with its clock frequency alone. 2012 is an Ivy Bridge [tick] processor and is one year old. 2013 on the other hand uses Haswell [tock] processor. Tick is shrinking of process technology of the previous microarchitecture, while Tock is a new microarchitecture. This would mean another level higher than the previous one.
__________________
Trigger Happy
technowar is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 10, 2013, 06:07 PM   #3
TechZeke
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
There is more to processor speed than just clock speed. With a more efficient processor, you can do more things with less energy. There also other variables such as the cache, architecture, etc.

If clock speed was the only thing that determined performance, we would have had 9Ghz processors years ago.
TechZeke is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 10, 2013, 06:09 PM   #4
Uliman
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
I am interested in the answer to this question as well. I have the 2012 2.0 I7 with 8gb RAM and was looking to upgrade but after the very disappointing WWDC offerings I probably will have to wait until the Retina MBP gets slimmed down and gets Haswell.

Will the i7 1.7 Haswell generally be faster than my i7 2.0 Ivy? Looking forward to tests of course that will give real world results.
__________________
2010 MBP, 2.4 CD2, 8gb, 500gb 7200
2012 MBA, i7 2.0, 8gb, 256
Iphone5, black, 16gb
Uliman is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 10, 2013, 06:19 PM   #5
GoPro
Thread Starter
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by TechZeke View Post
There is more to processor speed than just clock speed. With a more efficient processor, you can do more things with less energy. There also other variables such as the cache, architecture, etc.

If clock speed was the only thing that determined performance, we would have had 9Ghz processors years ago.
Normally I would agree. However up until now the largest decrease in clock speed has been the transition from late 2010 models (1.83GHz) to 2011 models (1.6GHz) which is a difference of less than 2Ghz. This time it's a huge 5ghz difference in clock speed.

IMO apple have limited the processor's so that they offer a great battery life, at the expense of performance. OR, the performance is the same (not inferior) while offering much greater battery life.
GoPro is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 10, 2013, 06:23 PM   #6
Mr. RPG
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Since the Airs will ship immediately we should know by the end of the week if they are indeed faster through benchmarks.
__________________
Verizon iPhone 5 16 GB Black & Slate
15.4" Macbook Pro with Retina Display (mid-2012) model
Mr. RPG is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 10, 2013, 06:33 PM   #7
mattferg
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: May 2013
There are some serious misunderstandings of how a processor works going on in this thread.

For a start, turbo boost means that even if the BASE clock speed is lower, the current processors can just amp up the clock speed to match the 2012 models and be as powerful that way. Kinda how turbo boost works, and means judging a processor by it's base clock speed isn't really the way to go any more.

Secondly, much like how an i5 outperforms a Core 2 Duo at the same clock speeds even without HT, the Has well processor is faster than the Ivy at matched clock speeds, and even still faster at lower ones.

Another factor is the graphics boost - HD5000 is far more powerful than 4000.

So yes, the new MacBook Air is more powerful than the last one. To believe anything else is just ignorant.
mattferg is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 10, 2013, 06:36 PM   #8
fyrefly
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
It appears that in raw Benchmarking - the 2013 Airs are slower...

Averaging about 6000 so far in Geekbench averages.

http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekb...10003;&q=4250U

Versus the 2012 - the 1.8Ghz was ~6100 and upwards of 7600 for the 2.0 i7 models:

http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekb...acbookair5%2C2
__________________
13" rMBP, 13" 2012 MBA, 27" i5 iMac, iPad 3, iPhone 5 32GB
fyrefly is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 10, 2013, 06:40 PM   #9
mattferg
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: May 2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoPro View Post
Is it me or are the new macbook air's slower than the last generation?

i.e. 1.8GHz (up to 2.8GHz with turbo boost) of 2012 vs the 1.3GHz (2.4GHz with turbo boost) of the 2013 models.

Could it be that the macbook air's were getting too powerful, so powerful that they were matching macbook pro's for performance?

For example, my i7 2.0GHz outperforms the base macbook pro retina 13" (with turbo mode on both models active) and is on par with the higher spec one (again, with turbo mode active on both models).

Did apple reduce the speed of these processor's to save battery life and market it as an ideal laptop for somebody who is constantly on-the-go?
Your figures are incorrect.

The 2012 model i5 was 1.7 - 2.6 and the 2013 is 1.3 - 2.6. Just as much availabke power and speed. Same goes for the i7, where the 2013 model actually has more power available. 2012 was 2 - 3.2 and 2013 is 1.7 - 3.3.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by fyrefly View Post
It appears that in raw Benchmarking - the 2013 Airs are slower...

Averaging about 6000 so far in Geekbench averages.

http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekb...10003;&q=4250U

Versus the 2012 - the 1.8Ghz was ~6100 and upwards of 7600 for the 2.0 i7 models:

http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekb...acbookair5%2C2
Nope

http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/2030196
mattferg is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 10, 2013, 06:43 PM   #10
jmcube
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
You need to be careful between 64/32, it seems.

It is ~6900 for the Intel Core i7-3667U... 2000 running in 32bit mode.
Intel Core i5-3427U got only ~6000 in 32bit mode.

It means that the i5 are equivalent (but the haswell has better battery and better graphics).

I actually think that if anything the haswell i7 will be better (as it doesn't lose as much Hz) and has higher max turbo.

Jon
jmcube is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 10, 2013, 06:45 PM   #11
mattferg
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: May 2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmcube View Post
You need to be careful between 64/32, it seems.

It is ~6900 for the Intel Core i7-3667U... 2000 running in 32bit mode.
Intel Core i5-3427U got only ~6000 in 32bit mode.

It means that the i5 are equivalent (but the haswell has better battery and better graphics).

I actually think that if anything the haswell i7 will be better (as it doesn't lose as much Hz).

Jon
Completely agree, and the Haswell i7 has an extra 100mhz at the top end.
mattferg is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 10, 2013, 06:45 PM   #12
torana355
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
The new Airs have already been bench marked and are indeed slower the the 2012 models. Haswell would bring a small bump in performance but not enough to make up for the loss of 400mhz clockspeed. Im not fussed as i use my MBA for very light tasks anyway and prefer more battery life.
__________________
2012 27" iMac with 680mx | 2011 13" MBA 128gb | iPhone 4 32gb | Nexus 7 16gb | Nexus 4 on Carbon and Trinity.
torana355 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 10, 2013, 06:49 PM   #13
LeeM
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoPro View Post
IMO apple have limited the processor's so that they offer a great battery life, at the expense of performance. OR, the performance is the same (not inferior) while offering much greater battery life.
i agree. i think its more to differentiate the air from the pro retina. with the retina being so thin it makes the air sort of pointless, unless the air is less powerful and has a longer battery life and is cheaper. the air becomes the go to machine if you want to use word/pages while youre travelling and the pro is there for more intensive tasks
LeeM is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 10, 2013, 07:14 PM   #14
Mrbobb
macrumors 601
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Sounds like at least some of power savings tricks are software. Am wondering how Mavericks will improve, or not, to an old hardware.
__________________
Solution: FREE, Explanation: Is gonna cost ya.
Mrbobb is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 10, 2013, 08:15 PM   #15
mattferg
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: May 2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by torana355 View Post
The new Airs have already been bench marked and are indeed slower the the 2012 models. Haswell would bring a small bump in performance but not enough to make up for the loss of 400mhz clockspeed. Im not fussed as i use my MBA for very light tasks anyway and prefer more battery life.
There hasn't been a LOSS of 400mhz clockspeed and the benchmarks are pretty much the same.
mattferg is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 10, 2013, 08:18 PM   #16
radiohead14
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: nyc
should be about the same due to turbo boost
__________________
13" Retina MacBook Pro | 2.6GHz | 8GB RAM | 512GB SSD
radiohead14 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 10, 2013, 08:26 PM   #17
whtrbt7
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Perceived speed is different from clock speed and processor bench speed. One of the bottlenecks to speed for the 2012 MBAs was the graphics processing. Haswell SoCs are designed to deliver better graphics performance with lower power consumption as well as a lot of other features. Perceived speed of the 2013 MBAs should be about 10-15% faster than a comparable 2012 model running side by side.
whtrbt7 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 10, 2013, 08:53 PM   #18
snapdragonx
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by fyrefly View Post
It appears that in raw Benchmarking - the 2013 Airs are slower...

Averaging about 6000 so far in Geekbench averages.

http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekb...10003;&q=4250U

Versus the 2012 - the 1.8Ghz was ~6100 and upwards of 7600 for the 2.0 i7 models:

http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekb...acbookair5%2C2
Let's assume this is correct. The difference would be insignificant.

Plus, take into account the extra 4-5 hours battery life, and the fact that Engadget just reported the SSD read speed at 700MB/s+, plus the boost in graphics performance

That's a big bonus, and worth the sacrifice of 100 or even 1000 geekbench points.

Then take into account that benchmarks don't always relate to real-world performance. The perceived performance will no doubt be improved.
snapdragonx is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 10, 2013, 09:09 PM   #19
paulrbeers
macrumors 68040
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoPro View Post
Normally I would agree. However up until now the largest decrease in clock speed has been the transition from late 2010 models (1.83GHz) to 2011 models (1.6GHz) which is a difference of less than 2Ghz. This time it's a huge 5ghz difference in clock speed.

IMO apple have limited the processor's so that they offer a great battery life, at the expense of performance. OR, the performance is the same (not inferior) while offering much greater battery life.
Actually it isn't apple at all on this one. The fastest Haswell ULV processor is the 1.7ghz. Kinda hard to include faster processors WHEN THEY DON'T EXIST!!!
paulrbeers is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 10, 2013, 09:24 PM   #20
fyrefly
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by mattferg View Post
Why are you quoting a Windows 7 benchmark, exactly?

Quote:
Originally Posted by snapdragonx View Post
Let's assume this is correct. The difference would be insignificant.

Plus, take into account the extra 4-5 hours battery life, and the fact that Engadget just reported the SSD read speed at 700MB/s+, plus the boost in graphics performance

That's a big bonus, and worth the sacrifice of 100 or even 1000 geekbench points.

Then take into account that benchmarks don't always relate to real-world performance. The perceived performance will no doubt be improved.
Agreed. I was just posting Raw benchmark numbers - and you're 100% right that those don't always directly translate. The improved Graphics, battery life and SSD speed increases will certainly delight many.

But even if equal - the Haswell advantage comes mostly in battery and graphics, at the expense of any gains in raw power. This is not the jump from Core2 to Core i like the 2010-2011 MBAs, or even the Ivy->Sandy jump in 2012 which resulted in jumps in Raw power as well as Graphics benchmarks.

Apple has clearly positioned the Air as a portable road warrior machine, probably to differentiate it from the MBP as the "power portable".

My bottom line take (total IMHO) is unless you want to game on the Intel HD 5000, or need 8+ hours battery life (let's face it the current Air's don't get 7, so the 2013 Airs won't get 12 actual hours) you're probably fine with a 2011 or 2012 MBA vs. getting a Haswell machine.
__________________
13" rMBP, 13" 2012 MBA, 27" i5 iMac, iPad 3, iPhone 5 32GB
fyrefly is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 10, 2013, 10:19 PM   #21
MacLappy
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Singapore
Talking

Quote:
Originally Posted by GoPro View Post
Is it me or are the new macbook air's slower than the last generation?

My i7 2.0GHz outperforms the base macbook pro retina 13" (with turbo mode on both models active) and is on par with the higher spec one (again, with turbo mode active on both models).

Did apple reduce the speed of these processor's to save battery life and market it as an ideal laptop for somebody who is constantly on-the-go?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uliman View Post
I am interested in the answer to this question as well. I have the 2012 2.0 I7 with 8gb RAM and was looking to upgrade but after the very disappointing WWDC offerings I probably will have to wait until the Retina MBP gets slimmed down and gets Haswell.

Will the i7 1.7 Haswell generally be faster than my i7 2.0 Ivy? Looking forward to tests of course that will give real world results.
Am in the same situation as you guys.

Talking about just CPU speed, clock for clock haswell is faster. Unfortunately this time around we are not seeing a direct increase in clock speed like the last update(sandybridge to ivybridge). Here are some of the know results.

Geekbench 2 Results

MacBook Air 2013 i5 4250U = 6043
MacBook Air 11" 2012 i5 = 5758
MacBook Air 13" 2012 i5 = 6120
MacBook Air 2012 i7 = 7024

On the processor front
- slight upgrade going from 11" 2012 to 2013 base processor
- very slight downgrade from 13" 2012 to 2013 base processor
- noticeable downgrade from i7 2012 to 2013 base processor
- unconfirmed but most likely results i7 2012 to i7 2013 should be a slight upgrade

The main focus seems to be on battery life this year. Last year was probably a really special case, seeing how it was a tick plus. Yeah a nice jump in both cpu/gpu performance in one generation is pretty awesome. core2duo to sandy was a huge leap for the cpu as it was a multi-generation leap. Coming back to the topic of i7 3667u vs i7 4650u, from the i5 results we can guesstimate i7 4650u would probably be slightly faster, my guess less than 5%. I might skip this year update as battery life is not a major concern for me, the 40% increase in gpu isn't really going to change the way i use my MacBook Air. I will still have to leave the games i play at the same settings, the jump is not noticeable enough for anything drastic, remember depreciating returns are in order here. Going from 8fps to 22fps on benchmark is not the same as going from 22fps to 29fps. 8fps to 22 fps changes the whole playability of the game, the next noticeable jump would be from 22fps to something like 60fps, at least that's how I understand it. Furthermore, while I do enjoy some more eye candy, the greater need is more cpu bound for me, like 25 man raid in WOW, 4 way multiplayer in SC2 and multiplayer in D3. The bottleneck in these scenarios are mostly CPU base, which is completely not addressed in this update. Hopefully next year we see a good increase in both cpu/gpu along with the already awesome battery life from this year.
MacLappy is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 10, 2013, 10:28 PM   #22
MacLappy
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Singapore
My jump from Sandybridge to Ivybridge, benchmark results.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Screen Shot 2013-05-21 at 5.13.40 PM.png
Views:	25
Size:	145.2 KB
ID:	416475   Click image for larger version

Name:	Screen Shot 2013-06-09 at 10.51.15 PM.png
Views:	29
Size:	98.6 KB
ID:	416476  
MacLappy is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 10, 2013, 11:39 PM   #23
ayres
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeeM View Post
i agree. i think its more to differentiate the air from the pro retina. with the retina being so thin it makes the air sort of pointless, unless the air is less powerful and has a longer battery life and is cheaper. the air becomes the go to machine if you want to use word/pages while youre travelling and the pro is there for more intensive tasks
x2

though it's certainly good for more than just word/pages

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by whtrbt7 View Post
Perceived speed is different from clock speed and processor bench speed. One of the bottlenecks to speed for the 2012 MBAs was the graphics processing. Haswell SoCs are designed to deliver better graphics performance with lower power consumption as well as a lot of other features. Perceived speed of the 2013 MBAs should be about 10-15% faster than a comparable 2012 model running side by side.
not to mention, any improvement in the read/write as was highlighted in the keynote and on the apple's website. i'm curious to learn more about this in the coming weeks.
ayres is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 10, 2013, 11:54 PM   #24
ayres
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
here ya go:

http://anandtech.com/show/7058/2013-...ell-ult-inside
ayres is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 11, 2013, 01:32 AM   #25
GoPro
Thread Starter
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by mattferg View Post
Your figures are incorrect.

The 2012 model i5 was 1.7 - 2.6 and the 2013 is 1.3 - 2.6. Just as much availabke power and speed. Same goes for the i7, where the 2013 model actually has more power available. 2012 was 2 - 3.2 and 2013 is 1.7 - 3.3.
nope. the 2012's were 1.8GHz.
GoPro 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
Is the Macbook Air powerful enough for me Woofie2010 MacBook Air 3 Aug 17, 2013 07:35 PM
Macbook Air powerful enough to replace Macbook Pro? mdude85 MacBook Air 7 Nov 29, 2012 11:27 AM
Is 11" i5 MacBook Air powerful enough to handle for CS6 hulk2012 MacBook Air 7 Nov 2, 2012 07:48 AM
Apple Releases Update for Just-Released MacBook Air (Mid-2012) MacRumors Mac Blog Discussion 21 Jul 26, 2012 10:18 AM
Would this Macbook Air be more powerful than my '07 MBP? PhaserFuzz MacBook Air 8 Jun 21, 2012 03:54 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:36 PM.

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

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