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 Put Retina MacBook CPU Performance in Range of 2011 MacBook Air
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I don't know how anyone can put a positive spin on a brand new computer costing over 1,300 dollars is as fast as 4 year old computer
Other then the screen, why would I really want to buy this over the current MBA lineup?
I think the performance numbers may cause this product not to be as successful as Apple had hoped.
The average boost in speed increase in the base Macbook Air model from 2012 to 2015 is.... between 2% and 7% (so lets say averaging out to 5%). The CPU itself is a small bit of the overall performance.... amount of memory and speed of SSD has to be taken into account.
The speed bump from 2011 to 2012 was 25%
The performance bumped almost 100% in 2011.
The speed bump from 2008 to 2011 was pretty constant
And the speed bump from original to 2008 was around 10%.
Taking into account the faster SSD in current versions and 8GB base memory..... performance difference is probably not noticeable.
CPU improvements from series to series is great advertising, but in reality... most years it is insignificant. We have plateaued.
Last edited:
I am not running virtual machines to run those software packages. As you correctly observed, they all exist for OS X.
I am running Windows virtual machines to simulate customer environments and for some special administration/development tools that only exist on Windows.
----------
It is not a nightmare. I was able to run two Windows virtual machines at the sametime with the 2010 11" Macbook Air and that had a Core2Duo! In fact, 3 virtual machines worked also but that would make the performance somewhat bad, but not really due to CPU, but because the Air only had 4Gb of RAM.
Windows do not use much CPU power by itself, so as long as you have enough memory.
This Macbook has 8Gb RAM, much faster SSD (perhaps 2-3x) and the CPU is faster.
I am running Windows virtual machines to simulate customer environments and for some special administration/development tools that only exist on Windows.
----------
2 operating systems fighting over 2 cores..... is not the best situation.... 4 operating systems fighting over 2 cores.... that would be a nightmare
It is not a nightmare. I was able to run two Windows virtual machines at the sametime with the 2010 11" Macbook Air and that had a Core2Duo! In fact, 3 virtual machines worked also but that would make the performance somewhat bad, but not really due to CPU, but because the Air only had 4Gb of RAM.
Windows do not use much CPU power by itself, so as long as you have enough memory.
This Macbook has 8Gb RAM, much faster SSD (perhaps 2-3x) and the CPU is faster.
Battery life? Yeah, the MBA destroys it. I meant that you get 2011 performance with a processor that runs on just a fraction of the power as the 2011 versions. That, to me, is impressive.
Why is it so difficult to understand that this is for people who value weight, size, screen, and battery life over everything else? It has more than sufficient performance for the tasks most people do most of the time.
This is really not difficult to understand.
If you don't think its powerful enough buy one of the many other options from Apple.
A lot of road warriors are going to buy one.
I'm going to buy one because I have a use case for it that my iPad Air doesn't provide. Namely an entire OS and apps with a retina display in a small lightweight package with great battery life. Killer features for me.
But it's also not going to be my only Mac.
----------
You get way better graphics and disk performance than the 2011 Air offered. Disk especially will make a very big difference in speed and negates a lot of the issues with low cpu score.
This is really not difficult to understand.
If you don't think its powerful enough buy one of the many other options from Apple.
A lot of road warriors are going to buy one.
I'm going to buy one because I have a use case for it that my iPad Air doesn't provide. Namely an entire OS and apps with a retina display in a small lightweight package with great battery life. Killer features for me.
But it's also not going to be my only Mac.
----------
You get way better graphics and disk performance than the 2011 Air offered. Disk especially will make a very big difference in speed and negates a lot of the issues with low cpu score.
Operating systems by themselves do not use a lot of CPU. The highest CPU use is during startup and doing some maintenance tasks. One of the design goal for an operating system is to use as few system resources as possible.
While I am typing this OS X is using about 0.5 - 1.5 % of the CPU on a rMBP (2012). Adding a few more operating systems are not going to kill the CPU.
DO the test yourself.
I'm still lost. The current MBA is faster, has the same battrey life, more ports (but an inferior screen). For real world application why would I buy a rMBP over a MBA?
I'm not trying to be hard, just trying to understand how this is a better computer then an MBA.
To put it another way, for day to day tasks of running office apps, internet stuff (email/web browsers), why would I buy a rMB over a MBA if the MBA offers more speed and the same (or better) battery life?
Oh! Well, I was comparing the rMB to the 2011 MBA.
Anyway, no. I would not recommend to the rMB over the 13" MBP to anyone at this current point unless they already had a main system. I'm looking at this as a portable machine to take to and from graduate classes as well as use around the house.
A user will have to weight the value of the retina screen and portability to make their own decision. I work with text all day so a retina screen is really nice. I think it's a few hundred overpriced, but I don't think it's a bad machine.
It has it's niche market. You don't see any value in this machine and that's understandable, but it doesn't make it a bad choice for some users.
----------
You're not being hard, you're just voicing your opinion for discussion.
Eh, that's hard to objectify. If I was only able to have one system, I'd choose the MBA for ports and power. Some users don't need ports or the power and will appreciate a lighter device with a retina screen.
"Better" is not really an absolute, but a relative measure.
I don't know how anyone can put a positive spin on a brand new computer costing over 1,300 dollars is as fast as 4 year old computer
Other then the screen, why would I really want to buy this over the current MBA lineup?
I think the performance numbers may cause this product not to be as successful as Apple had hoped.
The screen alone is all the reason I need. I tried, for a second time, to make an 11" MBA work for me last month. The screen was a fatal fail. YMMV, but that was my decision, and I made it a second time, and I knew that it meant going from a $775 brand new open box unused MBA to a $1300 rMB, which is a premium of $525. That's how much I dislike the MBA TN display.
On failure, who knows? I like the following quote from a Mossberg interview of Jobs. TLDR: if it succeeds, great; if not, we'll learn and try again.
The display. I don't know how anyone else feels, but i think the TN display on the MBAs was questionable in 2008 and is indefensible in 2015.
Because the screen on the rMB should be fantastic, and the screen is the only component on a laptop you use 100% of the time. To add to that, the 12" screen should be functionally equivalent to the 13", but in a package a full pound lighter in a much smaller footprint, with a smaller lighter power brick.
The problem is that you are confusing CPU performance with technology. The Macbook has more advanced technology in it than your typical Macbook Air. The SSD will be the Samsung (ultra-high speed), the memory is 8GB (lots of space to play in), the display is much better (though balanced against power consumption), batteries that are as good as they get..... with the CPU striking a balance between enough power to make it run like your average Macbook air (once all the components are taken into account) while having the the portable feel of an iPad (plus a few ounces).
Yep, 2011 technology is great!
In my experience, women (at least western women), tend to choose smaller and lighter electronics on average than men. That is my experience when it comes to computers, TVs, phones, cameras, speakers, and watches.
Also in my experience, women tend to emphasize looks more than men, and they are not that concerned with paper specs.
For the majority of the population almost all everything that Apple sells is overpriced.
You are taking the cpu performance based on one benchmarking profile as being the sum total of the system performance. The performance as perceived by the end user is so much more than that.
If any manufacturer released in 2015 a laptop with a CPU benchmarking the same as a 2011 equivalent product, with the same battery life, screen, size and weight as that same 2011 product, then they would be quite rightly derided if that same machine was going to be sold for rMB prices.
Giving us 2011 CPU performance along side (significantly) better battery life, better, screen, thinner smaller and lighter, makes it worth every penny, IMO. 8GB ram and super fast SSD just make it even better.
Be under no illusion, this machine will sell well, and when it gets a second USBC port next year, and comes down in price, it will become the best selling mac in the lineup.
Most people aren't concerned with paper specs. Apple has sold hundreds of millions of iPhones, you think majority of those individuals are aware of what kind of processor is in them? What it scores in a benchmark? This machine won't fail because of its performance (unless it's notably horrific), it will fail (if it does at all) because people can't/don't want to work with the one port limitation, and or they feel it's priced too high.
Specs don't matter. Apple has been kicking Samsungs ass for years without winning the spec race. It's irrelevant.
I don't know how anyone can put a positive spin on a brand new computer costing over 1,300 dollars is as fast as 4 year old computer
Other then the screen, why would I really want to buy this over the current MBA lineup?
The performance of a computer is not measured only by CPU performance.
The value of a computer is not determined only by the performance.
The screen is perhaps the most important reason why someone would buy this over the current MBA lineup! Also less weight, smaller footprint, best screensize/physical size ratio, no moving parts, silent.
Well I'm getting one.
I'm coming from a 2009 Aluminum Macbook.
The new retina Macbook is/has:
I put 8 GBs of RAM and a SSD drive in my '09 and it's got me this far. TBH I could probably get a few more years out of it. But I can't do **** about the battery life and the fact that when it does almost anything I can hear the fans.
I'd happily give up my ****ing arm to not hear those fans going. So I'll sacrifice extra ports. I think I'll be ok.
I'm coming from a 2009 Aluminum Macbook.
The new retina Macbook is/has:
- a better processor
- way more battery life
- better screen
- lighter than my current machine
I put 8 GBs of RAM and a SSD drive in my '09 and it's got me this far. TBH I could probably get a few more years out of it. But I can't do **** about the battery life and the fact that when it does almost anything I can hear the fans.
I'd happily give up my ****ing arm to not hear those fans going. So I'll sacrifice extra ports. I think I'll be ok.
Pretty much 99% of people buying a laptop. Why do you think every, single laptop has ports? Even the $499 MS Surface 3 tablet has multiple ports lol
The CPU itself will probably be around 75% more powerful.... large jump in the 2011 model.
----------
For each hole in your computer you get a discount
It's been said a million times but the CPU performance is only one part of the equation. This is not the same machine that was released in 2011. It is leaps and bounds better than that in every regard (including cpu: runs coolers, uses less power etc..).
I'm getting one and will gladly spend $1300 for it.
I'm getting one and will gladly spend $1300 for it.
I don't know where you got your 99%. It's probably more like 1%. I have two kids in their 20s, my wife is a teacher and I get out a lot in a very connected, young city. It actually gave me a little shock when I was thinking about your assertion, but the truth is that I almost never see anything other than a charging cord and headphones connected to a computer. That would actually confirm the way that Apple configured the rMB, which I personally am not enthusiastic about.
If I go back a few years, I'd occasionally see people passing files around on USB sticks, but with DropBox and other cloud storage/sync services, even that has more or less disappeared. Whatever else you think about this whole project, I doubt very much that your market research is better than Apple's.I don't know where you got your 99%. It's probably more like 1%. I have two kids in their 20s, my wife is a teacher and I get out a lot in a very connected, young city. It actually gave me a little shock when I was thinking about your assertion, but the truth is that I almost never see anything other than a charging cord and headphones connected to a computer. That would actually confirm the way that Apple configured the rMB, which I personally am not enthusiastic about.
So you think only 1% of people buying a laptop want ports? LOL!! If that were true, everyone would be buying tablets over laptops. That has never happened and will never happen.