1. Welcome to the new MacRumors forums. See our announcement and read our FAQ

Air better in every way? 15" MBP

Discussion in 'MacBook Air' started by Panini, Aug 10, 2012.

  1. Panini, Aug 10, 2012
    Last edited: Aug 10, 2012

    macrumors regular

    Coming from a mid 2010 MBP with the following specs:

    -2.4Ghz i5 (Dual-core, 3MB L3)
    -4GB (2x2GB) 1067MHz DDR3 Memory
    -1440x900 LCD Display
    -Graphics: Intel HD Graphics 288MB, Nvidia GT 330M (discrete)
    -320GB HDD

    I'm under the impression the 13" MBA is better in every single way:

    -1.8Ghz i5 (Turbo boost to 2.8Ghz (does this mean it is better since turbo with both cores is 2.6Ghz?))
    -8GB (2x4GB) 1600MHz DDR3L Memory (Obviously better)
    -1440x900 LED Display (despite smaller screen, same resolution)
    -Intel HD 4000 512MB (according to this chart, the HD 4000 is better than the 330m (current discrete card) and has more vram)
    -128GB SSD (obviously upgradeable, but I've never passed the 100GB limit on this MBP. Plus, it's faster).

    So what do you guys think? Is everything I said up there right? Because it seems awfully strange that a macbook air can beat a just 2 year old MBP.
  2. #2
    Look at Mac Benchmarks by Geekbench to see, if it actually is faster by some percent or so.

    Btw, your 2010 MBP, as my 2009 MBP and the 2008 MBPs, also have LED backlit LC-displays.
  3. macrumors regular

    Surprisingly, they don't have a Mid 2010 model on their chart. It does, however, have an early 2010 15" and it is "worse" than the current MBP. Do you know if the early 2010-mid 2010 upgrade was big?
  4. #4
    There only was one 2010 upgrade, in April. If there were later upgrades (I can't remember), they were probably a slight speed bump (100 MHz or so), which were unannounced.
  5. macrumors regular

    Between the two mid 2010 models one has Core 2 Duo while the other has an i5. Is that a big difference even though clock speeds are the same? The i5 is dual core as well.

    Also, these benchmarks seem to measure just CPU power. Is there anything on the graphics performance? Is the MBA integrated chip really better than 2010's discrete card?
  6. #6
    The 13" MBP had a C2D, the 15" and 17" MBPs had i5 and i7 CPUs.

    XBench and Cinebench measure the GPU performance, and lots of sides have the numbers from those benchmarks. A www search should get you some results.
  7. macrumors regular

    That website puts the 3DMAX scores of the 330M much higher than the HD 4000, but on the HD 4000 page (same website) it mentions that its performance is comparable to the 330m:

    "First benchmarks position the HD Graphics 4000 (in a fast quad core desktop CPU) on a level with a dedicated Nvidia GeForce GT 330M and therefore above the AMD processor graphics Radeon HD 6620G. In our extensive tests with games the HD Graphics 4000 was able to beat the HD 6620G in a fast Core i7-3820QM by about 15%. In the slower i7-3610QM and a dual core i5 it was on a similar level as the 6620G. Therefore, casual gamers that wont mind reducing the quality settings in high end games, may be happy with the performance of the HD Graphics 4000. Beware, that the HD Graphics 4000 is used with different clock speeds depending on the CPU model. The ULV CPUs (Core ix-3xx7M) for example feature lower clock speeds and cant maintain the Turbo frequency as good as the 35 - 55 Watt models. Therefore, the ULV version is about 30% slower on average."

    They also say the 330M can have up to 1GB vram but mine only has 256mb. I'm assuming the HD 4000 can vary a lot in performance depending on the processor being used. The specs for the MBA don't say exactly what processor it is using...
  8. #8
    The specific CPUs are listed here.

Share This Page