Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I don't understand how this can be/work. The 11' gets 5 hours with a 40w battery and the 13" gets 7 hours with a 50W battery? but the processor in the 11" more than 30% more efficient?

The TDPs are the actual *max* that they could put out, in the real world, CPUs only hit 90% or something because if your maxing say, the FPU, some other area of the CPU is idle/under utilised.

There are huge amounts of variables to consider, it's not a simple calculation.

Either way, what Apple have quoted seems to be fair.

The 11" have a 40Wh battery? That means that the entire system has to draw 8W for 5 hours, which seems fair.
13" has a 50Wh battery? That means that the entire system has to draw ~7.1W for 7 hours, which again seems fair.

The increased CPU draw and increased screen size (the two major power users in a system) are a function that does not intercept the y axis at 0. Therefore a 10% increase in screen size doesn't cause a 10% increase in power draw, if you get what I mean?

My MBP draws about 15-20W off the battery according to iStat (within 5-10% accurate I'd imagine).
 
Edit: If they had ditched the 320 GPU in favour of the Intel integrated then people would moan it didn't have a discrete GPU. They can't win.
The 320 is not a discrete GPU, it's an integrated GPU. It's just faster than Intel's.

Personally I think the i3's GPU would be quite adequate for what the MBA is likely to be used for, though I'm not particularly surprised Apple went the other way.
 
Get 4GB for sure - especially if you want your computer to have any relevance in 2 years.

You can always open it up and smash one of the RAM modules if you find that 4GB is too much...
 
Frankly, if 2GB is enough for my iMac, I can't imagine what you'd be doing on your 11" MBA that would need more.

Bogus argument. The size of the machine has no relevance to RAM usage. Software does not query the physical size or type of a machine to determine how much RAM it uses.

If you have an iMac you only use to read e-mails, 2GB might be plenty for you. Personally, my 13" MB uses its 4 GB of RAM, especially when I really get into it and need to run my Windows VM for work along side a few OS X apps.
 
If you have an iMac you only use to read e-mails, 2GB might be plenty for you. Personally, my 13" MB uses its 4 GB of RAM, especially when I really get into it and need to run my Windows VM for work along side a few OS X apps.

Wait, didn't you say a couple of days ago you wanted to get the air? How are you going to do all that and run a VM on a 1.4GHZ Cpu?
 
Wait, didn't you say a couple of days ago you wanted to get the air? How are you going to do all that and run a VM on a 1.4GHZ Cpu?

My current 2.0 GHZ cpu idles when running a VM. I don't see how the 1.4 would even struggle. Running a VM is usually a memory bound task, not a CPU bound task. The CPU overhead of running VMs is quite minimal.

And I ordered a 13" Air, tyvm. It has the 1.86 ghz. Again, not that it matters.

Leave IT to the IT folks.
 
Leave IT to the IT folks.

Well then you're in good hands. (I specialise in Virtualisation Clustering)

Virtualisation performance and resource management is a much more complicated topic than your few sentences trying to force an argument win might lead people to believe. (And of course, an Idle VM isn't going to take up a lot of resources. That is unless you've set it up wrongly and it just idle-loops instead of sending a halt signal) How about forming an actual argument instead? It might work better.
 
The 320 is not a discrete GPU, it's an integrated GPU. It's just faster than Intel's.

Personally I think the i3's GPU would be quite adequate for what the MBA is likely to be used for, though I'm not particularly surprised Apple went the other way.

The 320 and 330 are discrete GPUs.

Integrated GPUs are the ones on the CPU die or on the chip itself, discrete have their own die as you can see below.

MBA 11" Motherboard below (from iFixit):
Red = C2D
Orange = 320M

POxSYUGpXHwopXCQ.medium


Please, check your facts before posting.

And AGAIN. The lowest wattage i3 is 18W, 7W MORE than the C2D used in the 11".

The MBA will NOT get a iX CPU until there are lower wattage chips. End of story.
 
New Mac Air

All this hoo ha on the Air is going to bring down the price of refurb Pro's.....thank you very much!!
 
Integrated GPUs are the ones on the CPU die or on the chip itself, discrete have their own die as you can see below.

Your description would say that Intel 9xx and Intel 4xxx (and other integrated graphics) are discrete. These Intel GPUs are on a separate die, as you can see below.

aopenMP945VX_i6a.jpg

The socket 478MT mobile Intel Core Duo T2400 processor and Intel 945GM
chipset are positioned side by side because one thermal solution cools both
integrated circuits.

more at http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleid=2062&page=8


Intel's definition of integrated graphics is:

Integrated graphics – The graphics controller is built into the chipset

Discrete graphics – The graphics controller is not built into the chipset but is a separate component

http://www.intel.com/support/chipsets/sb/CS-028822.htm#i

Usually IGPs will use system memory (shared memory) for video RAM, although some IGPs have some VRAM in addition to using shared memory. Use of shared memory by itself is not a distinguishing factor, since discrete cards can use shared memory to augment any dedicated VRAM.
 

Attachments

  • untitled1.jpg
    untitled1.jpg
    21.5 KB · Views: 136
I am not referring to the physical size of the machine, obviously, but the uses it is put too, which are far more demanding for my desktop than for my laptop.

Keywords. Don't presume that your needs are everyone's needs. I bet I drive my laptop harder than you drive your desktop. The Air with 4 GB ram will be perfect for me and that extra 2GB will get used.

Virtualisation performance and resource management is a much more complicated topic than your few sentences trying to force an argument win might lead people to believe. (And of course, an Idle VM isn't going to take up a lot of resources. That is unless you've set it up wrongly and it just idle-loops instead of sending a halt signal) How about forming an actual argument instead? It might work better.

What argument ? You said a 1.4 ghz processor would struggle on a VM. I responded that running a VM in my case leaves the CPU idle on the host. Running Outlook, IE, terminals and Checkpoint SecureClient doesn't drive up a Windows install to 100% CPU usage. Thus the guest doesn't use 100% of the host's ressources.

Same for the programs on the host. Illustrator, Terminal, Transmission, Skype, etc.. don't peg your 100% because they aren't there processing data. Most apps these days are either memory bound or I/O bound. There's plenty of that in the new Air.

Hence why I don't understand why you'd say a 1.4 GHZ processor would struggle running a VM. Maybe you need to explain yourself first if you want to debate. You should be forming an argument, you made a claim. For now, all I can say is your claim is bogus. Back it up, then we'll discuss.

The 320 and 330 are discrete GPUs.

Please, check your facts before posting.

Check yours. The 320M is integrated into the system's chipset. It contains more than just the graphics part, it contains southbridge, memory controller, disk controller, etc..

It's very much an integrated part. It also shares memory with the main system memory, another trademark of integrated graphics. When people refer to discrete or dedicated graphics, they are talking about inependant solutions.

This would mean you'd have 3 chips in the MBA and that VRAM would be provided on top of system ram.
 
Keywords.
Indeed, that is why I used them.

Don't presume that your needs are everyone's needs.
I am not the one being presumptious.

The Air with 4 GB ram will be perfect for me and that extra 2GB will get used.
I am very glad to hear it. However, I was not addressing you.

Back it up, then we'll discuss.
Your obnoxious manner does not encourage discussion.
 
There is no way known that the iPad - especially as it exists today, but even with promised (or speculated) changes in the near future - is going to cover all the requirements of "90%" of users.

I've brought up most of the things you've talked about before the first iPad was released and frankly there's no arguing with fanboys. Steve could sell them turds wrapped in silver foil and they would come up with some reason to buy them (they're collectible and they're from Steve!!!). :rolleyes:

What bothers me about the iPad is that Netbooks can be had for as little as $250 that have a 10" screen, 250+ GB hard drive, 2GB ram, external monitor connection, USB 2.0 (3.0 is starting to show up) ports, web camera, built in 90% sized keyboard and they run the FULL version of Windows (XP or 7) and in many cases with a little hacking the full version of OSX Snow Leopard. I know. I own one and I bought it with the full knowledge of what the iPad was going to be and that is EXACTLY why I bought it.

I can carry a little mouse with me and have full blown working setup on the go that is fairly ergonomic and takes up very little space. Because I'm using the full version of OSX, I can actually sync my iPod Touch (or an iPad for that matter) to it. It has 320GB of storage so it has plenty of space for music and movies to take with me and it has VGA out so I can connect it to most newer TVs and monitors with ease (even in some hotel rooms). No, it's not very fast. In fact, I think the iPad's processor is a bit faster, but that just drives home the point even more that the iPad COULD easily run a full version of OSX.

Now the iPad starts at $600!!! For $600, I can get a full sized notebook in the PC World and I don't mean a total piece of crap either. People like to point out that the iPad isn't an iPod Touch (no, the iPod touch has 720p video an facetime cameras and the iPad has nothing). Yet the iPad offers no more connectivity options than an iPod. There's no SD slots (even just to load music movies or photos while on the go) and so you're dependent upon ANOTHER COMPUTER to load anything. Well, that doesn't fly on-the-go! The whole point is that I don't have to carry my notebook with me (or maybe even own one; maybe I only own an iMac and wanted an iPad instead of a notebook; otherwise what is the freaking point? It's the size of a netbook, but it does little more than an iPod Touch + a Kindle.

The new Macbook Air would be a better choice. At least it can run full versions of iTunes and has actual connections to the outside world, not just a nested device for another computer and starting at $999 (compared to say a 64GB iPad at $700) it's not THAT much more; OTOH short of the connections the two have a lot in common. In other words, the iPad COULD have operated the same as a Macbook Air with a full OSX version with only a few additional connectors needed). Meanwhile, the Windows world sells plenty of capable netbooks and notebooks in the $200-800 range, many of which COULD (or even CAN) run OSX with a GPU driver and a little hacking.

It is Apple that chooses to sell overpriced toys with loads of missing features and consumers that choose to buy it anyway. So you can hardly fault Apple here. Why SHOULD they offer more to the consumer when the consumer appears to be perfectly happy buying a giant iPod that is not really easier to carry around than a Netbook or a Macbook Air (you'll still need a briefcase or bag of some kind because none of them will fit in your pocket and the iPad will need another computer to sync) for $600-800? To quote Forrest Gump, "Stupid is as Stupid does, sir."

Until people demand lower prices from Apple by avoiding their products (and making sure they voice WHY they're avoiding them; otherwise Steve will get the idea that they're just not thin enough or something), they'll keep doing what they're doing since you have no other hardware choices to run OSX without hacking (whereas direct competition to OSX hardware would tell Apple exactly why people don't buy their products...i.e. price versus size/performance and style).

Personally, I think it's only a matter of time before iOS and OSX converge even more so than now. A next generation iPad may indeed get a 'more' full version of OSX and Lion is probably a step in that direction. You may start to see standard connectors appear and the ability for it to run on its own and plug in USB/SD devices and possibly some day be able to run a greater variety of software than just "apps". OTOH, you might just see the opposite with OSX shrinking down to not support full sized apps (the removal of direct support for Flash and Java along with Lion's support an "app" launcher and Apple store center) might point in this direction. In all probability, it will happen somewhere in-between the two unless apps for OSX are wildly unpopular or something.
 
Check yours. The 320M is integrated into the system's chipset. It contains more than just the graphics part, it contains southbridge, memory controller, disk controller, etc..

It's very much an integrated part. It also shares memory with the main system memory, another trademark of integrated graphics. When people refer to discrete or dedicated graphics, they are talking about inependant solutions.

This would mean you'd have 3 chips in the MBA and that VRAM would be provided on top of system ram.

Fair.

I was using Apple's definition on the MBP page, however it says 15 and 17" feature a discrete GPU, hence my mistake.

Either way my original point still stands, MBA would not fit a iX CPU, the GPU switching chip, the GPU itself and the VRAM [which I can't tell is on the GPU die or not, I assume not?)

It's also I'd imagine the reason why the 13" MBP is not Core iX atm either.
 
I was actually considering that laptop at one point. However, there are some major differences between them:

1. MBA has the 320M, which is much better than the integrated graphics the 1830T is using.
2. MBA is even slimmer and lighter

If you look at overall performance of the two machines, the MBA is better. I admit the 1830T has more ports, but it's much thicker.

yes much thicker, but the same thickness as the macbook, and i see LOTS of people carry the macbook with no problem.

even if the MBa was 2 dimensional, you still need a 12" case to carry it in, and im pretty sure the exact same 12" case you choose will fit any other 12" netbook or ultra portable.

EDIT: this laptop is a far better value

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834115821

the cpu is the SAME SPEED as the MBA 11.6

Macbookair (SU9400) - 963 passmarks
Acer netbook (K625) - 945 passmarks
Asus N61 i7 $999 laptop - 3500 passmarks (for reference)

however, this Acer netbook has the following overtop of the MBA

HDMI
3USB Ports
VGA Port
multi card reader (not just SD)
4GB of ram
Gig LAN
same battery life
same screen size
same resolution
1" thick (same as macbook)

upgradable HDD and battery, if you get a 128GB SSD and a 9 cell battery it will still be cheaper but perform faster and longer
 
What bothers me about the iPad is that Netbooks can be had for as little as $250 that have a 10" screen, 250+ GB hard drive, 2GB ram, external monitor connection, USB 2.0 (3.0 is starting to show up) ports, web camera, built in 90% sized keyboard and they run the FULL version of Windows (XP or 7) and in many cases with a little hacking the full version of OSX Snow Leopard. I know. I own one and I bought it with the full knowledge of what the iPad was going to be and that is EXACTLY why I bought it.

Haha, I did the same thing. Exactly the same thing. After the iPad came out and I realised it was just a giant, useless iPod touch. (And that takes a LOT for me - my family's bought almost every Apple product that's come out in the last 10 years, and many macs 10 years before that.)

So I did the hackintosh thing with a $300 netbook and it's great to have Snow Leopard rather than iOS - I can click between windows, I can cmd+tab to other apps quickly, I can do programming for uni, etc. The problem is, the thing is nothing like a Mac in terms of quality. The trackpad is awfully tiny, keyboard is small and slightly spongy, there are bugs from the fact it's a "hacked" install.

Then I decided life's too short to be screwing around with hacked things and the new base model air for $1200 (4x my netbook) is well worth it. I'll easily get 1200 hours usage out of the thing. $1/hour is a small price to pay for a good user experience.
 
yes much thicker, but the same thickness as the macbook, and i see LOTS of people carry the macbook with no problem.

even if the MBa was 2 dimensional, you still need a 12" case to carry it in, and im pretty sure the exact same 12" case you choose will fit any other 12" netbook or ultra portable.

EDIT: this laptop is a far better value

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834115821

the cpu is the SAME SPEED as the MBA 11.6

Macbookair (SU9400) - 963 passmarks
Acer netbook (K625) - 945 passmarks
Asus N61 i7 $999 laptop - 3500 passmarks (for reference)

however, this Acer netbook has the following overtop of the MBA

HDMI
3USB Ports
VGA Port
multi card reader (not just SD)
4GB of ram
Gig LAN
same battery life
same screen size
same resolution
1" thick (same as macbook)

upgradable HDD and battery, if you get a 128GB SSD and a 9 cell battery it will still be cheaper but perform faster and longer

The GPU in that is about 3-4 times slower than the one in the air.
 
EDIT: this laptop is a far better value
/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834115821[/url]

NO. Add SSD, aluminum unibody, full trackpad. That's where you're saving money. That thing is even heavier than the 13" MBA LMAO!.

It looks like what it's worth, cheap.
 
Can the Acer run OS X and the full spectrum of OS X applications?

I don't say that to be an ass-hat, but because I'm invested in OS X and OS X applications, so a machine that runs Windows and Windows applications is not very useful to me, even if it offers more hardware features at a lower price than the MacBook Air.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.