Advice...13,3" 4GB 1.86GHz vs 2.13GHz

Discussion in 'MacBook Air' started by major7, Nov 2, 2010.

  1. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2010
    Location:
    Porto, Portugal
    #1
    I obviously know the 2.13 GHz is better but as i only need the 128GB of space so i'm considering the 13,3" 1.86GHz 4GB version. Will i really notice anything with a less powerfull processor?

    TY
     
  2. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2009
    #2
    Not too much so you can save but I went for the ultimate anyways - wanted the retail store experience and instant gratification. :D
     
  3. thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2010
    Location:
    Porto, Portugal
    #3
    There should be a test of performance to both of them so people could really know the difference.

    Anandtech review points out that the new 1.4GHz 11" MBA is faster than a 2008 1.86GHz 13,3" MBA so i'm wondering how important this difference really is(nt).
     
  4. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2010
    #4
    I did not pay extra.

    From some of the reviews and benchmarks I found links to in this forum (I am not going to search for them) I saw very little performance increase. That coupled with how much more expensive the 2.xx processor is, I am happy saving the few hundred dollars. I have the 13 MBA 1.86 and I am happy with it.

    I do not mind spending money if I can see a difference in real life performance or benchmark tests, but the difference is not worth it in this case.
     
  5. thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2010
    Location:
    Porto, Portugal
    #5
    i'm begining to think the same way....if i dont need the extra space why spend a lot more for something slightly better? maybe 5 to 10 % faster...
     
  6. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    #6
    Since when is $100 ($90 with education discount) a lot more for a processor upgrade? I will agree and say that if you are seriously doubting you will need the 2.13 processor then you should probably just get the 1.8GHz version.
     
  7. macrumors 6502a

    LouieSamman

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2008
    Location:
    Orlando, Florida
    #7
    If you have the money just go with the upgrade.
     
  8. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2007
    Location:
    Canada
    #8
    There is no processor upgrade option on the 128gb 13", he's looking at that model. To go to 2.13ghz he'd have to pay the extra $300 for the 256gb which he said doesn't need, then another $100 for the CPU upgrade. So it's a $400 difference in his case for 0.27ghz increase.
     
  9. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2009
    #9
    The process upgrade is only available with the $300 SSD premium + $100 for the processor. No processor upgrade options for the 128GB SSD model.
     
  10. macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2010
    #10
    I don't think most people would notice the CPU speed difference. It isn't like going from a Core 2 Duo to a Core i5. If you don't need 256GB, then I'd go with the 1.86GHz model.
     
  11. macrumors 68030

    ReallyBigFeet

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2010
    #11
    Help the economy, spring for the higher specs!

    Steve wants you to do this. WWSD?
     
  12. macrumors regular

    Spacekatgal

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2009
    #12
    Well, here's how I feel.

    I have the 1.86 model, and a friend of mine has the maxed out one. We ran Xbench and his scored 20 points higher than me, 160 to 180.

    I had been coming from an 80 gig Intel SSD, so to me the lower model was already an increase in space. I didn't upgrade the processor because I think it's usually not worth it in an Apple product.

    But 20 extra X-bench points was more than I would have guessed. I'd like to know what the effect is on the battery.

    I think if you're using it as a secondary machine, the lower model is fine. But, if it's your main box - you should probably spring for the more expensive model. JMHO.

    Bri
     
  13. thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2010
    Location:
    Porto, Portugal
    #13
    It's going to be my main computer and i think i'll be ok with the 1.86GHz....i'll be leaving a 4ys old Asus 1.66GHz with 1GB memory....the disk has about 90GB and i'm using about half of it! The performance of this machine is very acceptable....altough i never tested it to the limits.

    The main reason i think i'll be ok with 1.86GHz is because during this past year i used my laptop to work(word, excel & autocad), to navigate and ocasionally(once a month) play Counter Strike or similar with friends...im not a gamer.

    And i can think on pretty good things to do with the money difference :)....maybe buy an Iphone4!
     
  14. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2010
    Location:
    Turkey
    #14
    If you don't need extra space, I don't think it is worth $400. Increase of performance will not be that obvious and it will make your battery last shorter :)
     
  15. macrumors 601

    rockyroad55

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2010
    Location:
    Phila, PA
    #15
    I'm thinking about the maxed version because of the storage space. Who knows, apps might get more intensive in the future and they could function better with the 2.13 Ghz.
     
  16. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2010
    #16
    I bought the maxed out 2.13 for one reason. Once I buy a machine, I keep it for at least 3 years. So for me, it's worth the extra cost over the long term.

    If I was the type of person that always sold my computer after a year, just to buy the latest and greatest, then I'd go with the base model.
     
  17. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2010
    Location:
    OC
    #17
    Will you be running AutoCAD in a VM, will you be installing the new AutoCAD for Mac, or do you remote desktop to an office PC with AutoCAD? I will be getting the new 13" MBA maxed out, and I am of two minds about whether to install a VM for AutoCAD or buy the new AutoCAD for Mac. I'd rather not have a VM if I don't need one, but I would need to figure out where to come up with $$$$ for the new AutoCAD for Mac. Just curious what your plans are. VM's are very taxing on the machine's resources, so it is something to think about.
     
  18. thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2010
    Location:
    Porto, Portugal
    #18
    n2arkitektur,

    im going to use the autocad for Mac....which i already have...i have a friend with a 2009 macbook air and it runs ok so.....dont worry! You can PM me if you want to know anyhing else about something else....:D


    Mac Composer,

    My Asus has 4 years with no complaints from me.....i intend to make this one last another 4 so....im pretty confident on what im doing. Next year there will probably be a 1.86 version running better than this 2.13 version....it's all relative. You know as well as i that for the same price we can get a much better machine (even in the Apple universe)...so, as i said, its all relative...
     
  19. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2010
    #19
    exact same situation I was in with the same outcome. I must say this mba has handled everything i've thrown at it and i'm more than impressed with the performance..
     
  20. macrumors 68030

    Steve121178

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2010
    Location:
    Bedfordshire, UK
    #20
    There's very little 'real world' difference. If apps are going to struggle on a 1.86GHz CPU then they certainly won't perform noticeably different with a 2.13GHz CPU!

    For the record, my 13" MBA has coped easily with everything I've thrown at it so far...
     

Share This Page