Early Benchmarks Put Retina MacBook CPU Performance in Range of 2011 MacBook Air

[Piggie]

I disagree, they are building computers to fill the needs of different groups of people. If you want power without the need of portability and without balancing it against what you actually need..... by all means go out and buy a 12 core Mac Pro. If you want a powerful portable computer buy a Macbook Pro quad core, if you want an ultra portable buy the new macbook.

It's odd how they are year after year simply refusing to build the machine the proper Apple computer users actually want.

They know people want it, We know people want it.
The people keep saying they want it.

But Apple, year after year simply deliberately refuses to make it.

Not a Laptop on a stand with a mobile graphics chip.
Not a mini, that you can't upgrade.
Not a mac pro with spaghetti everywhere, that again is too locked down.

A proper sensible, Apple desktop at a sensible price, with a good high end consumer Intel CPU and the ability to take AMD/Nvidia graphics cards, normal SSD's.

All the things a modern high end PC can offer, but from Apple running OSX and not stupidly priced with an over engineered, locked down design.

Apple know it would sell well, but they won't make it.

 

[NT1440]

It's odd how they are year after year simply refusing to build the machine the proper Apple computer users actually want.

They know people want it, We know people want it.
The people keep saying they want it.

But Apple, year after year simply deliberately refuses to make it.

Not a Laptop on a stand with a mobile graphics chip.
Not a mini, that you can't upgrade.
Not a mac pro with spaghetti everywhere, that again is too locked down.

A proper sensible, Apple desktop at a sensible price, with a good high end consumer Intel CPU and the ability to take AMD/Nvidia graphics cards, normal SSD's.

All the things a modern high end PC can offer, but from Apple running OSX and not stupidly priced with an over engineered, locked down design.

Apple know it would sell well, but they won't make it.

Seeing as apple is nearly (and occasionally more) doubling the growth rate for the industry...how can you say it's not what consumers want?

Or are these the self important "I know what everyone wants, regardless of the reality of industry sales" mythical special little Apple users?

Apple clearly knows what does sell.

 

[bkkcanuck]

I see the new Macbook as another one of these shifts. I guarantee you that in 4 years time the norm of new laptops for average consumers will focus entirely on extremely light and completely wireless form factors and capabilities.

I have to agree with your analysis. The market that the new Macbook is going after is one that can run all your basic productivity (not really meant for video editing, and really high end) work -- in a very small portable package.

You just have to look at how many people have purchased iPads (something that the industry said was silly/crazy - no one would buy it) which are designed as consumption devices only. 200 million sold, 60 million units last year (down some). I have no doubt that probably 25% (at least) bought the iPad to do productivity and not consumption (which is why the external keyboards became popular add-on items) when what they would be better suited is a laptop that ran everything they needed in a form factor that is as small and light as possible. The Macbook is a few oz heavier than my iPad, yet provides everything most people need. This is a much larger market than your current mac market.

 

[newellj]

It's odd how they are year after year simply refusing to build the machine the proper Apple computer users actually want.

They know people want it, We know people want it.
The people keep saying they want it.

But Apple, year after year simply deliberately refuses to make it.

Not a Laptop on a stand with a mobile graphics chip.
Not a mini, that you can't upgrade.
Not a mac pro with spaghetti everywhere, that again is too locked down.

A proper sensible, Apple desktop at a sensible price, with a good high end consumer Intel CPU and the ability to take AMD/Nvidia graphics cards, normal SSD's.

All the things a modern high end PC can offer, but from Apple running OSX and not stupidly priced with an over engineered, locked down design.

Apple know it would sell well, but they won't make it.

This is obviously completely at odds with objective fact. As Steve Jobs said, they are intensely focused on customer reaction. They may not be building the machines that you, or I, or a majority of people posting at MR want, but they are making money by the ton and gaining market share. *Someone* - a lot of them - is buying what Apple is selling, and that's the cue that Apple is going to follow.

 

[bkkcanuck]

Not a mac pro with spaghetti everywhere, that again is too locked down.

The new Mac Pro is more expandable than my 2008 Mac Pro and I would love to have one of those (will probably move once I start replacing my 4 monitors for 4K x 40" monitors). My Mac Pro is filled, I could easily replace it and still have room for expansion by 35 more devices than I have now.... not really locked down. My Mac Pro has 3 of the prime slots taken by 2 video cards - which are not even close to the 2 built in graphics cards in the new Mac Pro.... leaving one small slot left. My 4 hard drive bays are filled and I have a small boot SSD using one of the two hidden under the DVD. It is packed....

I could easily replace that with a new Mac Pro with an external cabinet for hard drives (I have been eyeing one that supports 24 hard drives) which would take up one device (out of 36). I would have more video graphics power by far..... along with an ultra-high speed graphics cards..... not exactly locked down.... actually sort of liberating.

 

[Mr. Buzzcut]

The underlying operating system Darwin runs on the iPhone.... The restrictions on how far back the operating system upgrades are hardware are supported are architecturally restricted -- not size restricted.

When they left the Power architecture they dropped it after 3 years, and they dropped support in new releases on 32 bit hardware. I am running yosemite on Mac Mini (3,1) (Early 2009 I believe) and on this computer Mac Pro (Early 2008).... The Early 2008 Mac Pro is still running nicely (although I did upgrade the video cards - ATI 5770 x 2 ... 3 years ago and a boot SSD using one of the unused SATA ports).

Well there is more to OS X than a unix kernel. The bloat is external to that. I see the same thing in the Linux desktops. I have a top spec 2011 iMac and 2012 MBP that struggle a bit with it. Boot times are horrendous as well. I get what you are saying and I do agree the limitations are mostly forced but I can run Windows 7 or 10 in a VM with only 25% of my system resources allocated and it flies.

If you look in the forums you will see lots of complaints about performance of recent OS X versions. Beach balls, program load time, etc. I'm not saying it's unusable in the least but I am saying they could do better.

 

[Piggie]

Seeing as apple is nearly (and occasionally more) doubling the growth rate for the industry...how can you say it's not what consumers want?

Or are these the self important "I know what everyone wants, regardless of the reality of industry sales" mythical special little Apple users?

Apple clearly knows what does sell.

This is obviously completely at odds with objective fact. As Steve Jobs said, they are intensely focused on customer reaction. They may not be building the machines that you, or I, or a majority of people posting at MR want, but they are making money by the ton and gaining market share. *Someone* - a lot of them - is buying what Apple is selling, and that's the cue that Apple is going to follow.

Indeed, and this is what I said.

Apple are not interested in their Real computer using local old school core of Apple fans, if that's how you wish to call them/us.....

The are aiming 100% for the middle ground where all the money is.
People who want things that above all else look nice, and performance is "good enough" for those type of users.

You can tell the type of people who buy Apple products now, just be reading these forums with the number of posters who say they almost never touch their macbook since getting their iPads.

That statement alone tells you the users Apple have attracted and want to attract more of.
People with minimal needs, but like aesthetics above all else.

This also 100% goes along with Apple acting like a BIG MUM and controlling what you see and do, and how you should be doing it.

No one from the Apple heart old school wants to be told how to use things.

I don't blame Apple, we all know this is what they are doing.
It's making them lots of money.
Just a shame they are basically sticking their fingers up at the very users who make them in the 1st place.

Jobs iToys is where is started, it made them money, and that's the path they are continuing down. As I say, as a business I don't blame them.

I still find it very sad though

 

[Carlanga]

I'm not sure it matters. Given that most people will upgrade within 4 years or so anyway, this device will hold its own for what it is designed for. As for overpriced, we *are* talking about Apple, here. Remember:

[url=http://i.imgur.com/vv7bWH3.jpg]Image[/url]

Maybe, but your "remember" pics support what I'm saying. If this new MacBook replaces an iPad and not a MacBook air then it shouldn't cost more than an MacBook air. Should be priced between an iPad and a mba.

 

[Mr. Buzzcut]

What exactly is this "fat pig" statement based on? It's a bold statement but I don't think its really supported by any fact.

The weight of the UI primarily and system services that seem to get in the way when I could use the cycles for other things. I've had the same Macs through several iterations of OS X and I can feel the difference. This is my experience and not an attempt to offend anyone. I don't see Apple doing the same things as MS to make the OS feel light.

 

[bkkcanuck]

Maybe, but your "remember" pics support what I'm saying. If this new MacBook replaces an iPad and not a MacBook air then it shouldn't cost more than an MacBook air. Should be priced between an iPad and a mba.

The tray price for the processor is around $280 (we of course don't know Apples negotiated price but it is not going to be that significant)..... which is higher than many desktop processors.

An iPad processor is less than 10% the price (as well as Microsoft's Surface processor which is likely between $20 - $25).

The Macbook is not using cheap components.

It actually costs more to manufacture than the MBA.

 

[Piggie]

The new Mac Pro is more expandable than my 2008 Mac Pro and I would love to have one of those (will probably move once I start replacing my 4 monitors for 4K x 40" monitors). My Mac Pro is filled, I could easily replace it and still have room for expansion by 35 more devices than I have now.... not really locked down. My Mac Pro has 3 of the prime slots taken by 2 video cards - which are not even close to the 2 built in graphics cards in the new Mac Pro.... leaving one small slot left. My 4 hard drive bays are filled and I have a small boot SSD using one of the two hidden under the DVD. It is packed....

I could easily replace that with a new Mac Pro with an external cabinet for hard drives (I have been eyeing one that supports 24 hard drives) which would take up one device (out of 36). I would have more video graphics power by far..... along with an ultra-high speed graphics cards..... not exactly locked down.... actually sort of liberating.

Hiw many high end Nvidia gpus can you fit in the new mac pro?
A couple of Titan x ones?
You know, something that good for more than video editing?

Any range of normal high end deksktop intel chips?
Overclock a devils canyon Haswell perhaps?

What sound cards can they take ?

 

[newellj]

Indeed, and this is what I said.

Apple are not interested in their Real computer using local old school core of Apple fans, if that's how you wish to call them/us.....

The are aiming 100% for the middle ground where all the money is.
People who want things that above all else look nice, and performance is "good enough" for those type of users.

You can tell the type of people who buy Apple products now, just be reading these forums with the number of posters who say they almost never touch their macbook since getting their iPads.

That statement alone tells you the users Apple have attracted and want to attract more of.
People with minimal needs, but like aesthetics above all else.

This also 100% goes along with Apple acting like a BIG MUM and controlling what you see and do, and how you should be doing it.

No one from the Apple heart old school wants to be told how to use things.

I don't blame Apple, we all know this is what they are doing.
It's making them lots of money.
Just a shame they are basically sticking their fingers up at the very users who make them in the 1st place.

Jobs iToys is where is started, it made them money, and that's the path they are continuing down. As I say, as a business I don't blame them.

I still find it very sad though

There's the rub...they're a business in a more or less capitalist, market economy.

 

[bkkcanuck]

There's the rub...they're a business in a more or less capitalist, market economy.

Yes, but at least they are not suffering the decline as much and selling off their hardware business to some Chinese company.... which seems to be all the rage these days on the PC side.

 

[Derived]

Am I the only one left who wants CPU horsepower over battery life?

No? Why would you ask that. Buy a MacBook Pro.

I swear, what is it with people coming on here to whine and complain because their thinnest, lightest, smallest laptop isn't as powerful as their iMac? If you understand anything about how computers work, you'll understand this machine isn't for you.

 

[daveeasa]

It's odd how they are year after year simply refusing to build the machine the proper Apple computer users actually want.
...
Apple know it would sell well, but they won't make it.

I think the sentiment expressed here, one which I agree with, is best phrased as a question. "What would it cost Apple if they were loyal to their original fan base".

What would it cost Apple to have user-replaceable memory in the Mac Mini? A few dollars here and there gobbled up by 3rd parties offering certified upgrade kits? Is this cost/benefit the same as the $25 charge for checked bags which is now prevalent in air travel? And yet Apple is sitting on hordes of cash and making record profits while the airlines struggle to just break even. I simply don't buy the argument that soldering ram is cheaper in terms of support costs and I think it's reckless towards the environment.

What would it cost Apple to have a mid level mac desktop (mini or mini pro or whatever form factor they want) which supports a quad core processor and a video card (mobile or perhaps even desktop grade)? Could they not at least break even on this product? Gut feeling says yes. Reality says Apple doesn't care.

What would it cost apply to allow TRIM support of any ssd? This would allow all existing laptops and mini's which use 2.5" hdd's to get a great speed boost at a reasonable cost and increase lifetime of these great older machines. Does apple even sell a product with a SATA port anymore? This decision is just plain mean to those with a hobbyist mentality, it's hard enough work getting an older machine reinstalled on a new drive and now we're stuck using 5200rpm or disabling driver signing enforcement?

What would it cost Apple to add retina to the 13" macbook air for a $200 or $300 price premium? My 2011 air runs my 27" thunderbolt display at 1440p just fine, I'd have to imagine retina of 1366x768 would be great and if not I could live with 1440p at 13". Who wouldn't see this as a wonderful step forward just like when retina came to the macbook pro lineup? Is Apple worried this would hurt mbp sales? That's at direct odds with all of their marketing on slim/light.

What would it cost Apple to admit thunderbolt didn't fly and produce a 27" monitor with usb-c as input and a converter for thunderbolt equipped machines? And update the look to match the iMac with thinner edges? Why is there so much concern about thin phones, thin ipads, thin macbooks, smaller mac pros, and not a shred of interest in a sleek display when that is the most visible part of a workstation? Are we only supposed to compute in coffee shops now?

Thumbs up to Apple for all the tremendous innovation and especially for taking risks along the way and making beautiful products which demand their price premium. Thumbs down for locking out power users unnecessarily, for ignoring the very niche from which it was born and paying only lip service to the mac mini faithful, for keeping the blinders on when it comes to proprietary connectors, and for being an arrogant bully when nobody else can put up a fight. Yes, lightening is better than 30-pin because that's just a cable, but no, thunderbolt and firewire are not better than usb because that is about inter-operability with other devices and playing nice with windows is one great reason why people migrate to OSX in the first place.

Apple, I love you and I hate you, but I guess that's just how it has to be.

 

[bkkcanuck]

This decision is just plain mean to those with a hobbyist mentality, it's hard enough work getting an older machine reinstalled on a new drive and now we're stuck using 5200rpm or disabling driver signing enforcement?

Where did you ever get the idea that Apple was ever EVER interested in hobbyist? The original Macintosh? When I first became a Macintosh user (2007, though I had used older macintosh laptop for years (customer issued laptop) it was something that I chose to accept (after probably 20 years of only buying components -- with the exception to a Sparc workstation I bought). The decision point was that I wanted a UNIX based laptop with near leading edge tech in it without having to constantly fight to get things working because it was not old enough to have sufficient support..... (my experience of running Linux on just released laptops up until that point).

I still have a soft spot for Linux and I still have custom built machines for both Linux and Windows (much newer than my mac) -- but my preferred computer is still my 2008 Mac Pro. I have never viewed Apple as a company that was interested in hobbiest, they try to make the best machine for specific niches that will support a reasonable production line.... not custom computers.

It is not their market and never will. It is also a dying market.... When I go down from time to time a mall which was at one time full of different component/custom computer retailers..... has very few left.... not enough of a market.

 

[bkkcanuck]

What would it cost Apple to add retina to the 13" macbook air for a $200 or $300 price premium?

They're reputation for long lasting batteries. It would likely knock 30 - 40% off of the Air's battery performance to just hack in a retina display. The rest of the lineup is yet to get a full refresh -- which I suspect will be in the fall (but wondering what they are holding back for WWDC). It may be a merger of the macbook pro and macbook air line in the pro line (though smaller packaging than the pro line), or they might decide to keep them separate (by bet is they merge them).

 

[bkkcanuck]

I decided to test out my old Mac Mini (Early 2009 - Intel Core 2 Duo P7350 @ 2Ghz - Running Yosemite), which I still use for Remote Desktop VPN to work (leaving my main computer to have full internet access)...... Although I purchased it as a refurb (and upgrade memory to 4GB with 7200rpm disc) as a small backup server, I have used it for months at a time while my other computers were in transit or in the wrong location (Toronto vs Bangkok).

I ran Geekbench on it and it ran at 1147 single core, and 2075 multi-core. It still runs my full set of productivity apps and other applications and is still more than useable for average workloads... Not great, but very useable. Of course if I had a high speed SSD in there rather than a small slow hard drive it would be substantially snappier. The Macbook that we are talking about is 2x that benchmark, higher speed RAM (2x the amount) and probably has an SSD that will run 17x+ faster with little or no latency.

Performance for 90% of users will not be an issue. The SSD will make applications launch extremely quickly, there will be no noticeable lags in the user using it for data entry/ word processing / spreadsheets.... basically everything someone could need in an ultra-portable device.

Power users that would have problems with the performance of this computer would be a small minority.

 

[Hurda]

Nope. The ULV chip that powered the Air was a processor that Intel shelved for a few years because there was no interest in it.

Because pre-Core2Duo-ULVs they either produced too much heat which you couldn't cool away in such a narrow case, or the chips were just too underperforming to use them in a proper way.

 

[newellj]

Yes, but at least they are not suffering the decline as much and selling off their hardware business to some Chinese company.... which seems to be all the rage these days on the PC side.

Yeah.

Whatchagonnado?

This seems like a good place to say that I want my 701c Thinkpad back, even though I bet the benchmarks don't look much good today...

----------

They're reputation for long lasting batteries. It would likely knock 30 - 40% off of the Air's battery performance to just hack in a retina display. The rest of the lineup is yet to get a full refresh -- which I suspect will be in the fall (but wondering what they are holding back for WWDC). It may be a merger of the macbook pro and macbook air line in the pro line (though smaller packaging than the pro line), or they might decide to keep them separate (by bet is they merge them).

That has got to be why we got the rMB. Putting a retina display into the MBA was not as simple as just sticking it into the lid. That is probably where Apple started, but solving one problem led to another and by the time they were done it became apparent that they might as well go all-in on a completely new machine.

 

[bkkcanuck]

This seems like a good place to say that I want my 701c Thinkpad back, even though I bet the benchmarks don't look much good today...

I liked the Thinkpads (at the time) and still prefer the little joystick that I was much more proficient at than I have ever been with the trackpad.....

 

[erasr]

Try editing multiple images in preview on the new MacBook. Good luck not seeing that beachball!

 

[jcmeyer5]

For the majority of the population almost all everything that Apple sells is overpriced.

True, however even the new MacBook is overpriced when comparing it just to comparable Apple products.

 

[dba415]

Why would someone need all that portability? What can you do on this MacBook that you can't do on an iPad in that case? Just buy an iPad and buy a bluetooth keyboard...better yet, buy a cheaper windows ultraportable. You are paying a 200%+ premium just to use OS X.

 

[newellj]

Why would someone need all that portability? What can you do on this MacBook that you can't do on an iPad in that case? Just buy an iPad and buy a bluetooth keyboard...better yet, buy a cheaper windows ultraportable. You are paying a 200%+ premium just to use OS X.

Have you ever actually used a computer, or an iPad? I'm serious. "Why would someone need all that portability?" Do you work for a living, in any context that involves using a computer and traveling further than from your back door to your vehicle and from a parking lot or garage to wherever you work? Many people move around a lot and carry a lot of gear. And many of those same people need something that runs a desktop OS with desktop programs, not a mobile OS with mobile apps. You also need to check your math, you can't get to 200%+ even if you ignore the keyboard, and you're going to get only 50% of the storage.

----------

True, however even the new MacBook is overpriced when comparing it just to comparable Apple products.

If you price it against other Apple notebooks with comparable RAM and storage, it's in the ballpark. The 11" MBA with 8/256 is $1200 and the 13" MBA with 8/256 is $1300, and both have badly out of date TN display panels. Yes, the 13" has longer run time, but it weighs a lot more and is a good deal bigger. Considering the R&D costs that were invested in the rMB, I don't think the pricing is unreasonable. I think the shock is that there is no stripped down 4/128 option available under $1k.

I also don't the Apple is out of the market compared to Windows machines if you look at machines of approximately the same quality and specs.

----------

I liked the Thinkpads (at the time) and still prefer the little joystick that I was much more proficient at than I have ever been with the trackpad.....

I don't miss the joysticks...they always seemed to scratch the display!