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 Dec 3, 2008, 03:09 PM   #1
Kan-O-Z
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
1.6 Rev B faster than 1.6 Rev A?

I think it will be overall faster(bus speed, ram speed, better video) but my question is this:

Is the CPU faster than the old one? I know that they are using a Penryn 45nm version now. Will the new 1.6 be comparable to the older 1.8. Again I am just referring to CPU.

The reason I ask this is that Penryn saw a 5-10% boost over Merom for the exact same clock speed I believe.

Kan-O-Z
Kan-O-Z is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2008, 03:18 PM   #2
nick9191
macrumors 68040
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Britain
Yes. The cache is double on the new model (6mb vs. 3mb).

Ironically it has a larger cache than all 3 Macbooks, and even the baseline pro.
nick9191 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2008, 03:55 PM   #3
Kan-O-Z
Thread Starter
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by nick9191 View Post
Yes. The cache is double on the new model (6mb vs. 3mb).

Ironically it has a larger cache than all 3 Macbooks, and even the baseline pro.
But does anyone know if the processor itself is faster (not because of the cache, not because of the bus speed or RAM speed). Is the Penryn 1.6GHz faster than the 1.6GHz older processor.

Now that I think about it, it would be nearly impossible to know this as you can't test a Penryn with the old cache, bus speed and ram

Kan-O-Z
Kan-O-Z is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2008, 03:57 PM   #4
Pixellated
macrumors 65816
 
Pixellated's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Dartford, UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kan-O-Z View Post
But does anyone know if the processor itself is faster (not because of the cache, not because of the bus speed or RAM speed). Is the Penryn 1.6GHz faster than the 1.6GHz older processor.

Now that I think about it, it would be nearly impossible to know this as you can't test a Penryn with the old cache, bus speed and ram

Kan-O-Z
No. Apart from the cache, DDR3, FSB etc...
__________________
16GB iPhone 4 S⃣ ; 27" iMac 12GB RAM i5 2.7 GHz; 16GB iPad 2
Pixellated is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2008, 04:51 PM   #5
Molopo
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
I think common sense would dictate that any two processors with identical core speeds would the same speed. Your newfound interest in macbook airs is good and all, but try to keep your questions reasonable...
Molopo is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2008, 05:04 PM   #6
Mactagonist
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: NYC - Manhattan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kan-O-Z View Post
But does anyone know if the processor itself is faster (not because of the cache, not because of the bus speed or RAM speed). Is the Penryn 1.6GHz faster than the 1.6GHz older processor.

Now that I think about it, it would be nearly impossible to know this as you can't test a Penryn with the old cache, bus speed and ram

Kan-O-Z
It is faster because of all those things. Otherwise they are the same architecture.
Mactagonist is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2008, 08:42 AM   #7
andyOSX
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC
Uhhhh, no you guys.

The new MBAs use a 45nm penryn vs a shrunken down 65nm merom in the Rev As. A 45nm processor will always perform better at the same clock speed while simultaneously producing less heat. So yes, JUST the processor in a new MBA is faster at the same clock b/c it is a 45nm process.
andyOSX is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2008, 09:17 AM   #8
nick9191
macrumors 68040
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Britain
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kan-O-Z View Post
But does anyone know if the processor itself is faster (not because of the cache, not because of the bus speed or RAM speed). Is the Penryn 1.6GHz faster than the 1.6GHz older processor.

Now that I think about it, it would be nearly impossible to know this as you can't test a Penryn with the old cache, bus speed and ram

Kan-O-Z
The cache is part of the CPU.

The CPU is faster because it has a larger cache.

And because of the more efficient 45nm architecture.
nick9191 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2008, 10:00 AM   #9
Kan-O-Z
Thread Starter
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
I wonder if the new 1.6 CPU is as 'fast' as the old 1.8 CPU when just comparing CPUs and nothing else?

Kan-O-Z
Kan-O-Z is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2008, 10:09 AM   #10
r6girl
Administrator/Editor
 
r6girl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Massachusetts
Send a message via AIM to r6girl
Quote:
Originally Posted by andyOSX View Post
Uhhhh, no you guys.

The new MBAs use a 45nm penryn vs a shrunken down 65nm merom in the Rev As. A 45nm processor will always perform better at the same clock speed while simultaneously producing less heat. So yes, JUST the processor in a new MBA is faster at the same clock b/c it is a 45nm process.
That doesn't make any sense, unless the processor industry applies the same logic to defining a processor's clock speed as the hard drive industry does to specifying the capacity of an empty hard drive.

If one processor is faster than another, it should have a different clock speed, regardless of the architecture.

A Corvette traveling at 55mph is not going any faster than a Beetle at 55mph just because it has a larger and more powerful engine.
__________________
Editor at AppShopper.com and MacRumors.com
Personal site: marianneschultz.com
r6girl is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2008, 10:54 AM   #11
Kan-O-Z
Thread Starter
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by r6girl View Post
That doesn't make any sense, unless the processor industry applies the same logic to defining a processor's clock speed as the hard drive industry does to specifying the capacity of an empty hard drive.

If one processor is faster than another, it should have a different clock speed, regardless of the architecture.

A Corvette traveling at 55mph is not going any faster than a Beetle at 55mph just because it has a larger and more powerful engine.
I disagree with you. Think of clock speed as rpm for a car engine. The RPMs of a car do no determine it's horsepower. The same with CPUs.

When new CPUs come along there are architecture changes. Sometimes maybe slight changes like between current Penryn and previous Merom. Sometimes bigger changes like Core 2 Duo v. Core Duo. The latest architecture will often be more efficient per clock cycle so in essence it is faster at the same clock speed.

As an example, a current 2.0GHz core 2 duo is probably the equivalent of a 5.0GHz Pentium 4

Kan-O-Z
Kan-O-Z is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2008, 11:01 AM   #12
r6girl
Administrator/Editor
 
r6girl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Massachusetts
Send a message via AIM to r6girl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kan-O-Z View Post
I disagree with you. Think of clock speed as rpm for a car engine. The RPMs of a car do no determine it's horsepower. The same with CPUs.

When new CPUs come along there are architecture changes. Sometimes maybe slight changes like between current Penryn and previous Merom. Sometimes bigger changes like Core 2 Duo v. Core Duo. The latest architecture will often be more efficient per clock cycle so in essence it is faster at the same clock speed.

As an example, a current 2.0GHz core 2 duo is probably the equivalent of a 5.0GHz Pentium 4

Kan-O-Z
I understand what you mean, but you asked if there is a difference in speed in processors technically rated as having the same clock speed. It's clear that they'll operate differently because of their different architecture, but if they're both 1.6Ghz processors, they'll both technically run at 1.6Ghz. Again, Corvette at 55mph vs. a Beetle at 55mph - same speed, though the Corvette is obviously more powerful and capable of much more. Your question was whether or not the Corvette is faster at the same speed - you didn't ask about efficiency or capacity, which are different than speed.

Probably just semantics at this point - I do that sometimes...
__________________
Editor at AppShopper.com and MacRumors.com
Personal site: marianneschultz.com
r6girl is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2008, 11:02 AM   #13
nick9191
macrumors 68040
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Britain
Quote:
Originally Posted by r6girl View Post
That doesn't make any sense, unless the processor industry applies the same logic to defining a processor's clock speed as the hard drive industry does to specifying the capacity of an empty hard drive.

If one processor is faster than another, it should have a different clock speed, regardless of the architecture.

A Corvette traveling at 55mph is not going any faster than a Beetle at 55mph just because it has a larger and more powerful engine.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=PKF9GOE2q38

Watch
nick9191 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2008, 11:31 AM   #14
r6girl
Administrator/Editor
 
r6girl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Massachusetts
Send a message via AIM to r6girl
Quote:
Originally Posted by nick9191 View Post
I'm aware of the megahertz myth. At the end of his talk in that video you linked, John Rubinstein said he hopes that people understand that there's more to a processor than its clock speed. The OP is considering 2 processors at the same clock speed, but he's also asking to ignore the differences in cache or bus speed when comparing the two, and still asking if one is faster than the other. I just don't think that makes sense. Again, could be semantics on my part.
__________________
Editor at AppShopper.com and MacRumors.com
Personal site: marianneschultz.com
r6girl is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2008, 11:48 AM   #15
NC MacGuy
macrumors 603
 
NC MacGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: The good side of the grass.
65nm means more heat and more juice needed to push the 1's & 0's. Heat causes resistance which would slow the processes but if given the proper cooling and voltages, i.e. no limitation by enclosure, fans, air flow, etc. they should be theoretically the same. There's a whole world of crap you can look at theoretically speaking but I think that they are very equal in processing speed if just asking that question of the two processors alone.

This is assuming the same architecture. The megahertz myth was assuming two totally different processor architectures.

Last edited by NC MacGuy; Dec 7, 2008 at 02:36 PM.
NC MacGuy is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2008, 06:03 PM   #16
Stratus Fear
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Atlanta, GA
Quote:
Originally Posted by nick9191 View Post
Yes. The cache is double on the new model (6mb vs. 3mb).

Ironically it has a larger cache than all 3 Macbooks, and even the baseline pro.
First model MBA w/ the Merom C2D has 4MB cache, actually.
Stratus Fear is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2008, 06:35 PM   #17
QCassidy352
macrumors G3
 
QCassidy352's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: San Francisco
just wondering - why would anyone care whether one is faster than the other independent of RAM speed, cache, or bus? It's a purely theoretical question because in the real world, all of those things are inextricably linked to the 2 versions of the MBA. The only question that matters is how one performs compared to the other all things considered because when you're actually using it, all things *will* be considered.
__________________
"If Jesus Himself came back to earth and turned water to wine, half of MacRumors would say 'meh, this is red. I wanted white.'"
QCassidy352 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2008, 06:40 PM   #18
NC MacGuy
macrumors 603
 
NC MacGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: The good side of the grass.
^^^^ Exactly. The two processors may be equal in speed but how they're used with all the other pieces parts make the new 1.6GHz a much faster computer.
NC MacGuy is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2008, 07:41 PM   #19
andyOSX
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC
Quote:
Originally Posted by r6girl View Post
I'm aware of the megahertz myth. At the end of his talk in that video you linked, John Rubinstein said he hopes that people understand that there's more to a processor than its clock speed. The OP is considering 2 processors at the same clock speed, but he's also asking to ignore the differences in cache or bus speed when comparing the two, and still asking if one is faster than the other. I just don't think that makes sense. Again, could be semantics on my part.
No it's not semantics it's a lack of understanding. GHz measure frequency. A true measure of speed would be something like Gigaflops. GHz measure the frequency (speed/cycles) of the processor. A processor with lower frequency but superior architecture is yes running slower but it also has a shorter distance to run. IE that is why the core 2 duo /iTanium etc are all faster than a 3.0GHz P4 at even half the clock speed.

In this case they are the same processor but the more efficient 45nm process applies. Basically there is less physical area that the electrons have to travel around.

This is not "opinion" or "semantics" it is science. Look it up.
andyOSX is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2008, 07:51 PM   #20
andyOSX
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC
Quote:
Originally Posted by r6girl View Post
I'm aware of the megahertz myth. At the end of his talk in that video you linked, John Rubinstein said he hopes that people understand that there's more to a processor than its clock speed. The OP is considering 2 processors at the same clock speed, but he's also asking to ignore the differences in cache or bus speed when comparing the two, and still asking if one is faster than the other. I just don't think that makes sense. Again, could be semantics on my part.
Uh, I don't know if you watched the whole video but actually the key to what he was saying was that in order to reach frequency speeds like 3 GHz the processor makers have to add many pipeline stages. So while data moves faster through the pipeline stages, it has more pipeline stages to go through and thus ultimately it is not necessarily faster.
andyOSX is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2008, 08:26 PM   #21
ashowkati
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
The clock speed is 1.6 for both. So to answer your question, no. But if you're asking about the processor as a whole, what makes the new processor "the new processor" is all those things (cache, bus, etc.)

It goes even beyond the CPU to fully answer the question. Because of the new nvidia 9400M chip, it takes some of the load off of the CPU. It all ties into performance. Plus if you have the SSD, the rate of which data is accessed is higher, thus giving the illusion of faster "processing."
__________________
www.sswestern.com
 24" iMac 2.4 GHz, 320GB HD, 4GB RAM  iPad wifi 16GB  iPhone 3G 16GB White  30GB iPod 5G
ashowkati 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
iPad: What rev of IPAD 2 do I got? Banshe iPad 3 Nov 4, 2013 04:33 AM
New bootcamp rev for 10.9? Gav Mack OS X Mavericks (10.9) 12 Oct 13, 2013 04:34 AM
Rev A external enclosure icechunk MacBook Air 4 Sep 16, 2013 07:19 AM
iPad 2, rev 2 parts cwheatley iPad 0 Sep 13, 2012 08:55 AM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:48 PM.

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

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