Google has this in their Chromebooks, I don't see why they wouldn't implement it, or perhaps wait for 4G LTE in a year or two! That would be one awesome computer. I'd probably jump for..
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 Reveal New MacBook Air Rivaling High-End 2010 MacBook Pro
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Google has this in their Chromebooks, I don't see why they wouldn't implement it, or perhaps wait for 4G LTE in a year or two! That would be one awesome computer. I'd probably jump for..
It's pretty obvious just from the benchmark figures alone that the Air does support turbo boost and hyperthreading. Both of these factors combined are required to explain the 2.5x jump in benchmark numbers. Architectural improvements affecting instructions per clock do matter, but not on that order of magnitude when we're comparing two aggressively speculative out of order super scalar processors (Core 2 Duo and Core i5-i7).
Last edited:
I, for one, don't want to have to pay for a separate data plan for every iDevice I own.
Sign me up for a 3G/4G wireless hotspot instead.
It's true that smaller fabrication size gives faster clock rate. The problem is more heat accompanies the faster clock. The smaller package size means less area for heat to dissipate. That's why you'll find CPUs such as this ultra-low power i5 with a slower clock.
It was a simple analogy with the race length and IC size, but I still stand behind the argument that the signal itself does benefit from smaller IC size. Smaller transistor size corresponds to a linear reduction of transistor delay. Wires traverse shorter distances -- while the wires are narrower and resistance increases, the shorter distance currently outweighs the added resistance.
Where you are wrong again, is that the MBA does not support turbo boost or hyperthreading. See the above post, or call apple yourself (1-800-MY-APPLE) and ask. yes, at first they give you a sales person who says something lame. ask to speak to a tech and they will tell you that it is not supported.
Two reviewers who have actual units have already said the MacBook Airs have both HyperThreading and Turbo Boost (Jason Snell from Macworld and Anand Lal Shimpi from Anandtech). Their source? The review units and information passed along to them when Apple gave them those review units.
They can't, Geekbench is of limited usefulness.
Clock for clock we should be 20% faster. That however is processor performance. Geekbench Benefits greatly from the SSD, this is not a bad thing because many user programs do too. However these numbers do not represent CPU bound performance where we should see a substantial difference. The most interesting thing here is the comparison to the old AIRs.
What I suspect is that fewer will be complaining about CPU performance on these machines. If you have software performance issues I wouldn't go out and buy one of these AIRs until more testing is done. However if you are running almost any older laptop these new machines are very inviting.
On top of all of that these machines are running Lion. Now I've only played with Lion for a couple of hours now but my impression is that there has been considerable improvements in speed. At least on my old 2008 MBP. You really need to take the OS out of the equation. By the way take these comments with a grain of salt, like I've said it's only been a couple of hours and most of that time was spent updating
Clock for clock we should be 20% faster. That however is processor performance. Geekbench Benefits greatly from the SSD, this is not a bad thing because many user programs do too. However these numbers do not represent CPU bound performance where we should see a substantial difference. The most interesting thing here is the comparison to the old AIRs.
What I suspect is that fewer will be complaining about CPU performance on these machines. If you have software performance issues I wouldn't go out and buy one of these AIRs until more testing is done. However if you are running almost any older laptop these new machines are very inviting.
On top of all of that these machines are running Lion. Now I've only played with Lion for a couple of hours now but my impression is that there has been considerable improvements in speed. At least on my old 2008 MBP. You really need to take the OS out of the equation. By the way take these comments with a grain of salt, like I've said it's only been a couple of hours and most of that time was spent updating
Geekbench does not in any way use or measure hard drive performance. Geekbench results are not changed by installing an SSD.
Actually the Geekbench numbers very closely represent CPU bound performance in a heavily threaded scenario.
Last edited:
Completely defeats the purpose. Thin only "counts" if it's a small footprint.
The WHOLE THING has to be small.
Finally someone with the sense to understand that.
The MBA is easily Apple's biggest gimmick product to date and it serves no real purpose or practical uses. It's a completely unnecessary product.
How is it a gimmick? Please explain. I find for general everyday tasks and light content creation (ie: MS Office, iLife, etc.) the MBA is a pleasure to use.
The 1 thing that we can all say about the MBA is, it did get better. Pretty much what we had been waiting for we got. Have we not been entertained?
It's a gimmick because there is nothing practical about it when there are the MacBook Pro's and they are also due for an update in the next couple months. Lets compare these numbers again with the new MBP when the time comes.
If thinner and lighter but less powerful is something you want then go for it. How long can you and your friends admire how thin something is? I admire computers that give me the best performance possible by using the fastest parts available. The MBA has to sacrifice a lot of that to keep it's gimmick thinness. Fact.
Huh NO, TDP is about design power
If performance is a serious issue for you wait for more credible bench marks. Especially benchmarks that target your usage. Benchmarks are statistics and statistics are often lies or very misleading.
My impression right now is that several things have come together to give use very good performance on the new machines.
They can actually draw more power.
I'm sure it does but that doesn't mean it is enabled.
Don't forget the additional logic for TB.
Sure their is.
- You are getting something close to a 50% boost in performance clock for clock.
- Sandy Bridge implements some new technology or instructions which can speed up some apps significantly.
- The new AIRs run Lion, which seems to be much faster. At least I'm getting interesting behavior out of my old 2008 MBP.
- The GPU in Sandy Bridge may suck in some respects but it does 2D really well.
- You can't judge a machine based on one benchmark. Especially when that benchmark exploits the machines advantages.
If performance is a serious issue for you wait for more credible bench marks. Especially benchmarks that target your usage. Benchmarks are statistics and statistics are often lies or very misleading.
My impression right now is that several things have come together to give use very good performance on the new machines.
I gotta say, without official word from Apple (or a 2011 MBA of my own to test with) those are probably the two sources I would trust most to ferret out the facts.
I think you are confusing your needs with the needs of everyone.
Warped sense of reality.
So what does AIR sacrifice that makes it such a terrible machine? Let me answer that for you: nothing. For most users it has everything they need.
By that time the new AIR owners won't care! Why because of the pleasure they get from using the machine.
All right I have to call BS on this one! If what you say actually represents your thinking you would not even bother with a laptop thread.
So what does AIR sacrifice that makes it such a terrible machine? Let me answer that for you: nothing. For most users it has everything they need.
This from a guy that wrote "Geekbench Benefits greatly from the SSD". Massive fail on that statement.
You are obviously one who is swayed by pretty over practical so lets just leave it at that.
The HD 3000 graphics are slower than the 320M, but the specific H.264 encode/decode hardware and the significantly faster iCore CPU will more than make up for that in a many cases.
It'll be interesting to see how all the gaming benchmarks come in when people really start getting their hands on these. Something to tax the GPU in a way that the H.264 acceleration can't mask.
Last edited:
It isn't that simple.
First off the benchmark sucks. Second never judge a machine via one benchmark.
As to Sandy Bridge the GPU is a mixed bag. It is actually a faster 2D performer but falls on it's face as graphics become more and more demanding 3D wise.
The CPU is about 50% faster for general instructions but it also implements some really interesting new instructions. Instructions which can significantly speed up some operations.
Lion appears to have generally sped up many things. So by running Lion they have an advantage there.
if you look at what AMD is doing with CPU & GPU integration you will see there are some huge advantages to having that GPU on die. Now I believe Intel is a little behind here but still there is an advantage to keeping the GPU close by.
Finally don't make the fatal error of believing everything you read!
First off the benchmark sucks. Second never judge a machine via one benchmark.
As to Sandy Bridge the GPU is a mixed bag. It is actually a faster 2D performer but falls on it's face as graphics become more and more demanding 3D wise.
The CPU is about 50% faster for general instructions but it also implements some really interesting new instructions. Instructions which can significantly speed up some operations.
Lion appears to have generally sped up many things. So by running Lion they have an advantage there.
if you look at what AMD is doing with CPU & GPU integration you will see there are some huge advantages to having that GPU on die. Now I believe Intel is a little behind here but still there is an advantage to keeping the GPU close by.
Finally don't make the fatal error of believing everything you read!
You are completely wrong. I have the last MBA Ultimate 13" In and my job is design + film + production. I use it for everything from Photoshop to FCP. While it is obviously not a powerhouse when it comes to FCP it is adequate for the type of situation in which I would use a laptop. Nobody has actually ever admired or commented on my MBA -- it's not that big of a deal and is certainly not a status symbol or personal show piece.
This is a ridiculous attitude you have that somehow the MBA is a gimmick because it is thin and it has no merit. If it's not powerful enough for you then why don't you go back in time and pick up an Alienware unit?
I can't imagine such speed with the new MBA, much less where it will be a year from now! I'm sitting here with a late 2006 MBP that barely qualifies to be upgraded to Lion. I feel like I'm toodling along in a crank-start tin lizzy on a San Francisco interstate.
Indeed the rez on the MBP13 is too low considering the MBA is higher. Wonder what apple was thinking on the one. Next year I may make the jump to a new Mac.