Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Early Benchmarks on the New 13-Inch and 11-Inch MacBook Air
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Why wait for the next laptop? Upgrade yours now.
I did the upgrade to my Unibody 15'' MacBook and the difference is amazing. It is the best upgrade I ever did to a machine. No more bouncing icons until the application starts up - all applications start instant without wait (even Photoshop). SSD upgrade is so much better than any other memory/CPU upgrade (of course it is also the priciest upgrade) ... and thanks to CCC the upgrade is painless and fast.
Bottom line: the benchmark results probably havent changed too much, but it feels soooo much faster. I rarely wait for an app 'processing' something - but waiting for an application to start was always annoying.
I just used a new MacBook air in my local Apple Store and couldn't agree more with this post. I use a MacBook Pro as my main computer and while I am sure the Air would strain under some of the computational software I run I think people looking for a portable to run basic programs like word processors and spreadsheets for routine functions are going to find the experience, separate from the benchmarks, faster. For example, application launch time felt significantly faster on the Air then the MBP. The person that was with me that uses a MacBook and an iPad immediately commented on how much faster the Air seemed.
It's plenty sufficient, though it might be a bit pokey with only 2GB of RAM. Though you're going to find a faster CPU compiles code faster, a bigger screen is easier to code on, and 64GB is probably not enough disk space for a serious developer. In that vein, you could get a better Mac Mini and a nice big screen for less money.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8B117 Safari/6531.22.7)
I don't think it's a good idea to run OS X on 2 gb in general, like you said, a single app is capable of using the remaining gig, once you factor in the ram used by the OS and the ram used by the video card.
KPOM said:
I don't think it's a good idea to run OS X on 2 gb in general, like you said, a single app is capable of using the remaining gig, once you factor in the ram used by the OS and the ram used by the video card.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8B117 Safari/6531.22.7)
They use a bigger cache in processors. The new Airs (only the 13" models) come with 6-mb cache vs. 3-mb in the old ones and the current MacBook Pro 13" / MacBook
KPOM said:
They use a bigger cache in processors. The new Airs (only the 13" models) come with 6-mb cache vs. 3-mb in the old ones and the current MacBook Pro 13" / MacBook
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8B117)
What does that even mean? How is it different (other than solid state memory as opposed to ssd) than anything else?
segfaultdotorg said:
What does that even mean? How is it different (other than solid state memory as opposed to ssd) than anything else?
I just downloaded GeekBench for kicks. I have a SR MBP. I know what you are thinking...I have a dog on my hands. Well, I have a SSD, HD, and 6 Gigs of ram and that brought me to a score of 3228. Not to shabby for a computer that is a few years old.
As you can see, the SSD is definitely worth it. I have been using an Intel one for about a year now. It is definitely worth it.
As you can see, the SSD is definitely worth it. I have been using an Intel one for about a year now. It is definitely worth it.
Safari currently has some horrible memory leaks - its memory footprint balloons with very little provocation!
I agree that 4GB would come in handy at times, but I've been quite happy with my 2nd gen Air (with the SSD drive). For most tasks 2GB is plenty. While I generally only have 5-6 tabs open on Firefox, I have opened 20+ without issues... once the pages all finish loading anyway.
Thanks. I'll have to check out Firefox.
Probably not iPad or iPhone 4 just on account of screen real estate. I still regularly use my 2006 Core Duo MacBook Pro (about 2600 on Geekbench, I think, and just 2GB RAM) for iPhone and iPad development, but producing iPad apps is a real hassle because the iPad can be oriented to be 1024 pixels tall and the iPhone 4's display is similarly 960 pixels tall, whereas my screen is only 900 pixels tall. The simulator can display at 50% scale to squeeze everything on, but then you're not getting a brilliant preview and Interface Builder has no such provision, so you're often stuck laying out screens just a portion at a time.
I'm one of the last remaining users of Xcode in 'condensed' view (in which the project list is one window, every file you open is a separate window), but if anything I think that increases the amount of space I use because I end up arranging things unconsciously in complicated spatial patterns. Reports are that the pending Xcode 4 does a lot for better screen real estate usage, but it's still under NDA so I doubt anybody will directly comment.
In terms of build speed and memory availability, I've never had an issue. I've not even been close to having an issue.
It takes a couple of seconds more to build and launch on a real device than in the simulator, but if you have a real device and are happy to tether all day then it's actually quite an efficient working environment.
The Rev 2.1 (November 2008) version of the MacBook Air had a 6MB cache as well. It's the same SL9400m and SL9600m processors that are in the new versions.
sandy bridge, if apple can put 128GB Flash on a $1199 machine (MBA) do not you think eventually it is going to be in the 13.3" MBP ($1199 and $1499)?
enjoy guys! (until the time 13.3" MBP is refreshed with Flash and New CPUs, say March 2011?)
Only my gut feeling Macbook will be left with Mechanical Hard drive
if it reaches 4GB RAM/500GB HDD and $799 I would not mind (you can always upgrade the off the shelf SSD Drive upgrade yourself)
It's entirely possible the MacBook goes the way of the dodo and there are just the MacBook Air and Pro lines. Right now, there is just one version of the MacBook, which is basically a plastic 13" Pro minus the SD card slot and limited to 4GB.
I have the 11 inch one on order, and I can still change the order. My biggest issue is I fly a lot, and the 13 inch MBA is too tall when a person in front leans back. I ordered the 11 inch with 4 gigs of ram and the 1.8 g processor. I hope its gonna be fast enough.
I just played with the 11.6" version in an Apple Store. I performed a restart and it was very fast. I then launched every application in the dock and they all launched in a couple of seconds. The new version of Word launched almost instantly.
My white MacBook is no where near this fast, nor is my Mac Mini, even with more RAM fitted. To me the speed of the SSD is way more important than the speed of the processor.
My white MacBook is no where near this fast, nor is my Mac Mini, even with more RAM fitted. To me the speed of the SSD is way more important than the speed of the processor.
I have the exact same model though I have upgraded the RAM (4Gb). I get a Geekbench score of 3108, significantly higher than the 2891 you quote!
can anyone compare these MBA geekbench results with a ~$500 netbook with Atom processor so I can see the difference?
I know that the better SSD and graphics card will also be a big improvement, but I'm just interested in the processor performance of say a 1.6GHz Atom vs the 1.4GHz core 2 duo ULV
I know that the better SSD and graphics card will also be a big improvement, but I'm just interested in the processor performance of say a 1.6GHz Atom vs the 1.4GHz core 2 duo ULV
Well I would get 4GB with 256GB SSD. Thanks for the response.
I can see what you mean about the orientation. I have a Mac Pro & 30" ACD at work but I want something portable for the house. I need to change my signature as it doesn't reflect my current Apple hardware. Thanks for the response.
I did have a 64GB SSD in my white MacBook for a while and I was very impressed with the speed, I did however run out of space.
I just checked on the Apple Store and a MacBook Pro is £999 but Apple want an extra £280 for a 128GB SSD.
I cannot think of anything that I do that would require more than the 1.4GHz Core 2 Duo.
I just checked on the Apple Store and a MacBook Pro is £999 but Apple want an extra £280 for a 128GB SSD.
I cannot think of anything that I do that would require more than the 1.4GHz Core 2 Duo.
With all this new solid state stuff around Apple better introduce support for the TRIM command. It's been in Linux and Windows for a good while now.
Well, if only our work ended after we started the application
Some of us still have to run compute intensive applications and if we do, snappy startup is nice but not critical.Is it possible that performance of SSD in your MBP has already degraded due to lack of TRIM support in OSX? Performance of flash in MBA will degrade with time too (Anandtech reported that the performance will eventually drop below that of HDD).
I suspect that a lot of home users are similar to me, browsing the web, playing with Facebook, sending emails. I actually use my iPad for most of these activities now, even thought it only has a 1GHz processor.
I do produce web sites, and having Dreamweaver launch in 3 seconds rather than 30 is a real boon.
Sometimes you do need a lot of processor power, but not very often. The responsiveness of a machine is however very important.
A 1.4GHz computer with an SSD will feel faster than a 3GHz computer with a conventional hard drive.
I do produce web sites, and having Dreamweaver launch in 3 seconds rather than 30 is a real boon.
Sometimes you do need a lot of processor power, but not very often. The responsiveness of a machine is however very important.
A 1.4GHz computer with an SSD will feel faster than a 3GHz computer with a conventional hard drive.