1.7Ghz i5 vs 1.86Ghz Core 2 Duo?

Discussion in 'MacBook Air' started by acarney, Dec 20, 2011.

  1. acarney macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2007
    #1
    I've got a 2010 MacBook Air 1.86Ghz and I'm wondering what kind of differences I would notice if I got a 1.7Ghz i5. Mainly looking at things like encoding HD files down to iPhone size and stuff like that. I know in day to day tasks there probably wouldn't be that much of a change but I am kinda curious about the reduction in encoding time for stuff and maybe improvements for games like World of Warcraft and StarCraft 2. Nothing crazy but every now and then I'll play for a few hours...
     
  2. KPOM macrumors G5

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2010
    #2
    Encoding would be quite a bit faster on the i5, but games would be a mixed bag, since the NVIDIA 320m is a little faster than the Intel HD 3000.
     
  3. acarney thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2007
    #3
    Are we talking like 10% faster, 30% faster, maybe even 50% faster?
     
  4. doktordoris macrumors 6502a

    doktordoris

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2009
    #4
    If you search online you will find plenty of benchmark comparisons between various mac models.
     
  5. theSeb macrumors 604

    theSeb

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2010
    Location:
    Poole, England
    #5
    We're talking about 10% faster in some games and 10% slower in some other games.
     
  6. iSee macrumors 68040

    iSee

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2004
    #6
    It looks like the Geekbench for the i5 1.7 is about twice that of the C2D 1.86 13" MBA.

    http://www.primatelabs.ca/geekbench/mac-benchmarks/#64bit

    Geekbench is pretty much a processor and memory subsystem benchmark. For most kinds of day-to-day usage the processor isn't the primary bottleneck, but for a good transcoder it is.

    I would guess it will be at least 50% faster.

    (I base this on admittedly limited experience with Core Duo 2.16 MBP vs. Core 2 Duo 2.0 Mini vs. Core i7 2.8 iMac where Handbrake performance scaled roughly with Geekbench scores... I usually used a slightly modified version of the AppleTV 2 profile and was coming from Bluray.)

    Hopefully someone will have experience with your exact scenario, but if not, maybe my experience will give you some useful info. I think you'd be very happy with the newer MBA, though there are other ways you can go it you *just* want fast transcoding.
     
  7. KPOM macrumors G5

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2010
    #7
    For encoding, we're talking about 50% faster. For games, we're talking about 10% slower.
     
  8. Maven1975, Dec 24, 2011
    Last edited: Dec 24, 2011

    Maven1975 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2008
    #8
    If we're talking games, it's more than 10%. Call of duty alone is 20+ FPS faster. Even in games like Modern Combat 2 from the app store, you will notice a difference. Although, if your going to use Windows to game, the 1.86 will really be much better to have. Even the most updated drivers are no match for the 320m. Only if the game is truly CPU hungry will use see the HD 3000 come close. Example, YouTube Skyrim MacBook Air and compare the HD 3000's with the 320m's.

    Intel is working on CL and a few other extensions that will help down the road. But they are slow at updating their drivers and are speculated not to flip the switch on some of the real enhancements until Ivy Bridge.

    Get a 2010 if your going to game and wait for Ivy Bridge revision this summer. If your not doing heavy photoshop, video compression or just surf and use office daily, get the 2010. MacMall has some stupid crazy deals on new 2010's right now. 2010 13" Ultimate for this years entry price.

    For me, I chose gaming and battery life over raw speed. I just don't feel the need to convert videos on the Air when I have a desktop for the heavy lifting. You could also compress while you sleep, making this need less important in the overall picture. If your a professional that needs to do this sort of thing on the fly, the 2011 is the better machine. Although, I would opt for a 15" Anti-Glare if I was doing this sort of thing on a daily basis anyways. (Ram, Speed)

    The HD 3000 make me feel like the 2011 MBA is over priced. (All laptops for that matter stuck with the HD 3000) Intel really needs a reality check. Kicking other GPU manufactures off thir chipsets was a big mistake. One filled with greed, control, embarrassment and envy. We all lost... Thanks Intel.
     
  9. Tech198 macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2011
    Location:
    Australia, Perth
    #9
    Mba

    You are referring to the the latest i7 MBA aren't you? Coz this is what i'll be doing.

    When I get mine in few weeks i'll probably expect the same from Parallels too.
     
  10. calvol macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2011
    #10
    Good post Maven, exactly why I stuck w/ the 2010, and looking forward to the 2012 MBA 13 or MBP 15.
     
  11. KPOM macrumors G5

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2010
    #11
    Yes, I have the i7. It runs Parallels quite a bit more quickly than my 2010 Core 2 Duo model did.
     

Share This Page