is 1.4 GHz too slow? Macbook Air

Discussion in 'MacBook Air' started by viperGTS, Dec 8, 2010.

  1. viperGTS, Dec 8, 2010
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2010

    macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    #1
    ^title^
    i mean, the iPad is 1GHz, sure its fast but its running iOS...
    is 1.4 GHz good enough for a "full on" notebook? and 2GB RAM? :confused:
     
  2. macrumors Core

    alphaod

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2008
    Location:
    上海 (Shanghai)
    #2
    All the current MacBook Pros have 2.4GHz or faster processors.

    Also the processor in the iPad has a different architecture than the x86 processor used in the laptops; furthermore these x86 processors are dual-core which is more than twice the performance of the iPad processor.

    Don't forget the iPad processor is designed to maximize power savings. The processor in your computer is designed to maximize performance.
     
  3. thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    #3
    Sorry, posted this in the wrong section. My bad, i was talking about the macbook Air.
    But still. is 1.4 GHz too slow or...?
    it just seems slow, i mean netbooks have 1.6 GHz processors, but then again they have intel atom :confused:
     
  4. macrumors P6

    Intell

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2010
    Location:
    Inside
    #4
    1.4Ghz is fine for an Air. MBA's aren't designed to be a production machine or do any heavy work. They are also duel core. And remember, a 1.6Ghz C2D is faster then a 1.6Ghz Atom of the same age/generation.
     
  5. thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    #5
    but, if you MUST rely on it for heavy work, say with 4GB of RAM and not 2, would it be able to do those tasks without too much of a stuggle?
     
  6. macrumors P6

    Intell

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2010
    Location:
    Inside
    #6
    Sure, an old Pentium 4 or even a 3 can do hard work, so why can't a C2D?
     
  7. macrumors 601

    alust2013

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2010
    Location:
    On the fence
    #7
    It may take a while, but it will do some moderately heavy work. Basically, if you need to do anything heavier than basic/casual usage on a regular basis, don't get the 11" MBA. It's designed for portability and basic usage.
     
  8. thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    #8
    Oh, cool! Im still new to processors and whatnot, so its gets rather confusing to me.
    Thank you for your replies. (and alphaod too, thank you.)
     
  9. macrumors 604

    thejadedmonkey

    Joined:
    May 28, 2005
    Location:
    Pa
    #9
    What sort of heavy work? Anything processor intensive (photo editing, video editing, software development, number crunching) will benefit from a faster CPU.

    Granted I have a Dell version of the MBA, with a 1.4ghz CPU and Intel graphics, and it's never failed me, so really it depends on how long you're willing to wait for it to do its thing.
     
  10. thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    #10
    Im not sure, im just wondering because 1.4 GHz just sounds.... wrong at $999...
     
  11. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2010
    #11
    mba 1.4 scores 2000 in geekbench

    I think I pad was 500 or less..

    so mba is 4 x faster

    mba 13.3" 1.86 scores 2700..

    mba's are very fast for surfing, office, emails, accounting....

    if u will be using any CPU intensive app.... go with the faster CPU... mbp 15 or 17
     
  12. macrumors 65816

    Alvi

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Location:
    Mars
    #12
    The MacBook Air is an Amazing premium NetBook, It has way more power than usual ones because it has two cores, It's really slim and good looking. But it won't be doing stuff as fast as a MBP even with an SSD
     
  13. macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2010
    #13
    You know there are Intel Atoms with 2 cores right? :confused:
     
  14. macrumors 6502a

    poobear

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2009
    #14
    Seems like the thread starter looks too much at just the amount of hertz.
     
  15. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2007
    #15
    Well my 2 year old 1.6 with an ssd was amazing! Did everything a macbook would do!

    Sold it :( Cant wait to get my 1.4!!!!!!
     
  16. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2009
    #16
    On a crappy netbook with a crappy hard drive and a crappy graphics card with crappy memory, the 1.4 GHz C2D would be great. The MBA gets 2000 on geekbench; vs 1300 for a 2-core 1.6GHz Atom. But on a cut-down Macbook Pro (i.e. the MBA); the processor will be a big performance bottleneck.

    It's still a great computer for some uses, but the processor is definitely a limiting factor.
     
  17. macrumors 6502a

    Mars478

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2008
    Location:
    NYC, NY
    #17
    bought a lo0ow end macbook air 11.6 until the Sandy Bridges come out. 1.4GHZ is serving me well. I do notice occasional hiccups but they are definitely livable. Needless- I am in love with this little computer.
     
  18. macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    May 13, 2010
    #18
    Then MBA isn't device for you...

    You are paying for 999 dollars for these reasons.

    1. Build quality.
    2. Laptop that will have high resale value.
    3. Apple logo
    4. Thin and light laptop with nice specs for netbook size. Yes, I said netbook. Steve and apple can say whatever, so 11.6 inch is designed to compete with netbooks. iPad is for people who don't want keyboard. MBA is for people who want keyboard.
     
  19. macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    May 13, 2010
    #19
    Personally, I bought 13 inch MBA and I don't like 11 inch MBA at all because it has 5 hours of battery life. I want more.
     
  20. macrumors 68000

    wirelessmacuser

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2009
    Location:
    Planet.Earth
    #20
    Other than having a high price which is typical for Apple, it's a nice machine.

    Anyone can pick apart any computer. Just ignore that. If it has what you need buy it and enjoy it.

    That's what I did... :)
     
  21. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2007
    Location:
    CT
    #21
    i have 1.4 and i love playing call of duty modern warfare 2 on full resolution :)
     
  22. macrumors 6502

    fswmacguy

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2009
    #22
    If I may provide some insight:

    The Intel C2D series requires less physical space on the logic board than the Intel Core i-series (even the mobile series). According to Intel's spec sheet, the i3M/i5M chips require almost double the amount of space that the C2D does.

    It simply wouldn't have been possible to keep the appropriate thinness and have an i-series processor.
     
  23. thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    #23
    you can play mw2 without hiccups?

    @poobear, sorry i may not have half the technological knowledge you have, but a person new to these kinds of things, like ME, will simply look at 1.4 GHz vs a 1.6 GHz netbook and assume the netbook is faster. ;)

    @hcho3, i havent even said what I would use it for, you cant assume it isnt for me.
    @mars478, what are "sandy bridges?"
     
  24. macrumors 6502

    Kaiser Phoenix

    Joined:
    May 12, 2005
    Location:
    London
    #24
    Hi there, I use a Macbook Air 1.4ghz 11inch Air:

    The stuff that I do:

    Run VMWARE Fusion and have windows open, along with several web browsers both in Safari in macosx and internet explorer in windows, itunes, watching a streaming video etc.

    Runs completely fine, in fact I am very surprised that it runs so smoothly!

    However I did upgrade to 4GB which might give you higher benefits rather than going for 1.6.

    my 2 cents
     
  25. macrumors Pentium

    KnightWRX

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    Location:
    Quebec, Canada
    #25
    I think we peaked on processor usage for running a text editor sometime back in the 80s. Software development is not processor intensive unless you're developing processor intensive software (which most software isn't these days).

    OP : your question is incomplete. Is 1.4 Ghz too slow for what exactly ?
     

Share This Page