Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
64,183
31,935



The first benchmark for the 2018 MacBook Air surfaced on Geekbench today, giving us our first look at how the low-power 7W Amber Lake Intel chip in the machine measures up to the performance of other Macs in Apple's lineup.

Equipped with a 1.6GHz Intel Core i5-8210Y chip and 16GB of RAM, the benchmarked MacBook Air earned a single-core score of 4248 and a multi-core score of 7828.

macbookairbenchmark-800x581.jpg

As should be no surprise, it's significantly better than the previous-generation MacBook Air equipped with a 1.8GHz Broadwell processor, which earned a single-core score of 3335 and a multi-core score of 6119.

It's faster than the fastest Core M chip in the 2017 MacBook models, but not by much. The 1.4GHz MacBook earned a single-core score of 3925 and a multi-core score of 7567, while the base model with a 1.2GHz Core M chip earned a single-core score of 3527 and a multi-core score of 6654.

Compared to MacBook Pro models, it's not too far off from the 2018 13-inch Touch Bar MacBook Pro with a 2.3GHz Intel Core i5 processor when it comes to single-core performance, but it can't compete with the four cores in the 2018 MacBook Pro. That machine earned a single-core score of 4504 and a multi-core score of 16464.

It's also slower than the 2017 13-inch MacBook Pro sans Touch Bar that Apple still sells, which earned a single-core score of 4314 and a multi-core score of 9071.

Single-Core Performance
[*]2018 MacBook Air - 4248
[*]2017 MacBook Air - 3335
[*]1.4GHz 2017 MacBook - 3925
[*]1.3GHz 2017 MacBook - 3630
[*]1.2GHz 2017 MacBook - 3527
[*]2.3GHz 2018 MacBook Pro - 4504
[*]2.3GHz 2017 MacBook Pro - 4314

Multi-Core Performance
[*]2018 MacBook Air - 7828
[*]2017 MacBook Air - 6119
[*]1.4GHz 2017 MacBook - 7567
[*]1.3GHz 2017 MacBook - 6974
[*]1.2GHz 2017 MacBook - 6654
[*]2.3GHz 2018 MacBook Pro - 16464
[*]2.3GHz 2017 MacBook Pro - 9071

Previous MacBook Air chips used 15W U-series chips from Intel, but the 2018 model is using a lower-power 7W Y-series chip, and there were some concerns about its performance relative to the rest of the Mac lineup.

Based on these Geekbench scores, which aren't necessarily indicative of how these machines will perform in the real world, the MacBook Air is superior to the MacBook lineup at this time, but falls short of the base-level MacBook Pro, which is about right given its price point ($1,199 for the Air vs. $1,299 for the Pro). What the Mac lineup will look like if and when the 12-inch MacBook is refreshed remains to be seen.

Additional benchmarking results should be available soon, as the MacBook Air is set to arrive to the first customers on Wednesday, November 7, and MacBook Air reviews should come out before then.

Article Link: First 2018 MacBook Air Benchmark Shows Moderate Gains Over 2017 MacBook Air and MacBook
 

lec0rsaire

macrumors 68000
Feb 23, 2017
1,525
1,450
I don’t even know what Macbook I plan to upgrade from my 2013 MBPr much less which one to reccomend to people anymore.

It’s very simple. For you nothing less than a 2018 13” TB. For casual users that are Apple fans i.e. the sort of people who have never opened a computer up and never will, the new MacBook Air or the 12” MacBook if they want a thinner notebook.

Basically, if you go on MR and tech forums, a MBA is not for you. For everyone else they are fine.
 
Last edited:

EugW

macrumors G5
Jun 18, 2017
14,216
11,983
Ouch

If this is truly representative, there doesn't seem to be much improvement vs. the i7-7Y75 it seems to be based off of.

I guess Apple will be relying on the fan to keep the performance from dropping due to throttling.
 

BODYBUILDERPAUL

Suspended
Feb 9, 2009
1,773
1,438
Barcelona
It’s very simple. For you nothing less than a 2018 13” TB. For casual users i.e. the sort of people who have never opened a computer up and never will, the new MacBook Air or the 12” MacBook if they want a thinner notebook.

Basically, if you go on MR and tech forums, a MBA is not for you. For everyone else they are fine.
But surely a casual user will pay £400 for a windows laptop. Is there such a thing as a Apple casual user who pays £1200 or £1400 for a laptop? I really don't think so. In todays world, £1400 is a hell of a lot of money. Good luck to Apple with the Air but I think that greed has caught them with this and it's going to fail. £1000 for an iPhone X that does everything Ok because that's often bought on a contract but £1400 for a basic, rather unadventurous MacBook Air no thanks.
 

lec0rsaire

macrumors 68000
Feb 23, 2017
1,525
1,450
But surely a casual user will pay £400 for a windows laptop. Is there such a thing as a Apple casual user who pays £1200 or £1400 for a laptop? I really don't think so. In todays world, £1400 is a hell of a lot of money. Good luck to Apple with the Air but I think that greed has caught them with this and it's going to fail. £1000 for an iPhone X that does everything Ok because that's often bought on a contract but £1400 for a basic, rather unadventurous MacBook Air no thanks.

I should have said casual user that is a fan of Apple and macOS. There are many, many out there. Some people will never buy a Windows computer.

As for the price. I don’t think it is really that much. The prices are higher but the currency is worth less than it was even a decade ago. The original MacBook Air at around $1799 was a much more outrageously priced machine and they still sold tons of them.
[doublepost=1541124340][/doublepost]
What about the GPU?

GPU a little more powerful than what you find in the 12” MacBook and the 2017 MBA. Nowhere near the Iris in the MBP or even the standard integrated Intel UHD630 in the 15” MBP.
 

Xgm541

macrumors 65816
May 3, 2011
1,098
818
But surely a casual user will pay £400 for a windows laptop. Is there such a thing as a Apple casual user who pays £1200 or £1400 for a laptop? I really don't think so. In todays world, £1400 is a hell of a lot of money. Good luck to Apple with the Air but I think that greed has caught them with this and it's going to fail. £1000 for an iPhone X that does everything Ok because that's often bought on a contract but £1400 for a basic, rather unadventurous MacBook Air no thanks.
There are plenty of casual apple users who spend over $1000 on a laptop and use it for word documents, YouTube, and social media.

Im not saying that's financially responsible or smart but they exist
 

EugW

macrumors G5
Jun 18, 2017
14,216
11,983
Yeah Geekbench tells you nothing how the CPU performs under sustained load.
Yeah, but if you are going to be using these machines for sustained loads on a regular basis, you are probably better off getting the MacBook Pro which has a significantly faster CPU. Pricing is similar and the Pro only weighs a quarter pound more.
 

pier

macrumors 6502a
Feb 7, 2009
579
950
There are plenty of casual apple users who spend over $1000 on a laptop and use it for word documents, YouTube, and social media.

Im not saying that's financially responsible or smart but they exist

Sure, but are those users enough to drive the Mac division?

I hope not...
 

EugW

macrumors G5
Jun 18, 2017
14,216
11,983
GPU a little more powerful than what you find in the 12” MacBook and the 2017 MBA. Nowhere near the Iris in the MBP or even the standard integrated Intel UHD630 in the 15” MBP.
GPU specs are the same as the Core i7-7Y75 in the top end 12" MacBook.
 

Queen6

macrumors G4
Yeah, but if you are going to be using these machines for sustained loads on a regular basis, you are probably better off getting the MacBook Pro which has a significantly faster CPU. Pricing is similar and the Pro only weighs a quarter pound more.

True, but it should perform as advertised and many of the MacBook Pro's struggle to do that, so concern is justified...

Q-6
 
  • Like
Reactions: galactic orange

swingerofbirch

macrumors 68040
Apple used to sell consumer notebooks with processors that were close to the top of the heap. I remember their white Core 2 Duo MacBooks were fairly comparable to what you could get with higher-end machines, plus had a lot of good I/O.

Now to get the current middle-of-the-road, state-of-the-art you're starting at $1799—and that only has 8 GB of RAM.

They used to have a sweetspot with notebooks I found desirable around $1200-1500.

I don't see anything in their mobile line-up that looks appealing to me or looks like an upgrade over what I currently have (late 2013 13" rMBP).

I wonder if they didn't put a 15 W quadcore processor in because they thought it would cannibalize the low-end MBPs (without touchbar)? I also wonder why they didn't just update the low-end MBPs.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.