Haswell vs. Ivy Bridge: will 2013 Air be as fast as 2012 rMBP?

[Brandon263]

I'm thinking of maybe buying the 2013 Air when it comes out to replace my 2012 15" rMBP, and I was hoping that someone who has looked at Haswell's tech could help me answer the following questions:

1. Do you expect the 2013 Air to have significant improvements over the 2012 Air in terms of (1) processing power (2) graphics performance?

2. Is there a possibility that the 2013 Air's graphics and processor improvements will make it on par with or better than the 2012 rMBP?

3. Would the new Air be more future-proof (for high quality video playback/office work) compared to the 2012 rMBP?

I'm asking because the rMBP is quite large to carry around and I would prefer a lighter machine if it has similar performance. I mostly use my laptop for web research (100+ tabs), video playback and word processing.

 

[B...]

1) Processing power: No. 5-10%. Graphics: it depends on what chip Apple uses (4600, 5000, 5100, 5200) but could be up to 100%. Doesn't matter so much if the Air isn't Retina.

2) You mean on par with the 15" rMBP's nVidia 650M? Not a chance.

3) Not so much for those simple tasks.

But it sounds like the 2013 Air would be a good choice, because you don't use all of the power of the rMBP.

 

[GermanyChris]

1 a. No 1 b. Yes

2. No

3. No

You don't need much of a computer just go with what you have and find a better bag or gym membership.

 

[Bear]

1 a. No 1 b. Yes

2. No

3. No

You don't need much of a computer just go with what you have and find a better bag or gym membership.

I do disagree with the answer to 3 slightly. It all depends on what they do to the Air at the next update. However, I'm not expecting that much, so "probably not" is the answer I would've given.

 

[adjeff8]

1) Processing power: No. 5-10%. Graphics: it depends on what chip Apple uses (4600, 5000, 5100, 5200) but could be up to 100%. Doesn't matter so much if the Air isn't Retina.

2) You mean on par with the 15" rMBP's nVidia 650M? Not a chance.

3) Not so much for those simple tasks.

But it sounds like the 2013 Air would be a good choice, because you don't use all of the power of the rMBP.

From what I've read, the Air will be getting the 5000

 

[JohnDoe98]

I'm thinking of maybe buying the 2013 Air when it comes out to replace my 2012 15" rMBP, and I was hoping that someone who has looked at Haswell's tech could help me answer the following questions:

1. Do you expect the 2013 Air to have significant improvements over the 2012 Air in terms of (1) processing power (2) graphics performance?

Regarding (1), no the cpu improvements won't be major. Regarding (2), yes the new graphics will be quite a bit better.

2. Is there a possibility that the 2013 Air's graphics and processor improvements will make it on par with or better than the 2012 rMBP?

It depends. The processor will still be a dual core at a lower clock speed vs the rmbp's quad core, so here the quad core will be far more powerful, but given your usage the difference might not even be noticeable. Regarding the graphics, the air's next gpu won't be as strong as the rmbp's second gpu, the 650m, however the intel gpu will be superior to the 2012 one so if you don't find yourself using the 650m much, which given your description you wouldn't, the graphics performance will see a great deal of improvement.

3. Would the new Air be more future-proof (for high quality video playback/office work) compared to the 2012 rMBP?

It is unclear at this point but it is entirely possible the 2013 gpus will have h265 hardware acceleration and the older 2012s won't, so yes the air would be more future-proof for high quality video if that happens.

I'm asking because the rMBP is quite large to carry around and I would prefer a lighter machine if it has similar performance. I mostly use my laptop for web research (100+ tabs), video playback and word processing.

Given your use, just get yourself an air.

 

[cirus]

I'm thinking of maybe buying the 2013 Air when it comes out to replace my 2012 15" rMBP, and I was hoping that someone who has looked at Haswell's tech could help me answer the following questions:

1. Do you expect the 2013 Air to have significant improvements over the 2012 Air in terms of (1) processing power (2) graphics performance?

2. Is there a possibility that the 2013 Air's graphics and processor improvements will make it on par with or better than the 2012 rMBP?

3. Would the new Air be more future-proof (for high quality video playback/office work) compared to the 2012 rMBP?

I'm asking because the rMBP is quite large to carry around and I would prefer a lighter machine if it has similar performance. I mostly use my laptop for web research (100+ tabs), video playback and word processing.

I am assuming that you mean the 13" rmbp.

1. Yes, haswell should improve perf/watt substantially and you should see that reflected in the cpu power. ULV sandy to ivy was pretty large (20-30%)

lowest power i5 ULV

Cinebench R11.5 Multi

2467M-1.9
3317U-2.4
26% increase, larger increase in igp performance.

i5-3210M (slowest SV i5) -2.9 points. (21% faster)

So next gen ULV could catch up to SV dual core parts.

2. Possible.

3. Possibly though ivy bridge doesn't seem to have a problem with playback and office work isn't really that demanding.

Edit: wrong model number

 

[Brandon263]

Thanks for the feedback guys: I appreciate it!

 

[Brandon263]

Thanks for the feedback guys: I appreciate it!

 

[dusk007]

Chance are you get much better battery life. I have seen reports of some 50% increase on newer models with Haswell in the Tablet/Ultrabook space.
The next Air may be a 10+h battery life notebook unless they add a more power hungry display to kill the difference.

Performance will be largely the same.

 

[jafingi]

Remember that the 650M in the rMBP is comparable to a GTX 660M, as Apple has overclocked it. So the Iris will not perform as good.

However, depending on your needs, the MBA could be just fine

 

[dusk007]

680M GTX?
You might mean the 660M. Quite a lot of 650M are clocked at some 900Mhz. In Asus notebooks. Samsung goes even higher.

A 680M is an entirely different beast with a power consumption higher than the entire rMBP including screen.

 

[GermanyChris]

Remember that the 650M in the rMBP is comparable to a GTX 680M, as Apple has overclocked it. So the Iris will not perform as good.

However, depending on your needs, the MBA could be just fine

not even close to true

 

[jafingi]

680M GTX?
You might mean the 660M. Quite a lot of 650M are clocked at some 900Mhz. In Asus notebooks. Samsung goes even higher.

A 680M is an entirely different beast with a power consumption higher than the entire rMBP including screen.

I have edited my post to correct my spelling mistake Of course I meant a GTX 660M!

----------

not even close to true

I meant the GTX 660M - not 680M. My mistake.

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1393606/

Still, it doesn't invalidate the fact that Iris is nowhere near as powerful as the overclocked 660M in the rMBP.

 

[dusk007]

Still, it doesn't invalidate the fact that Iris is nowhere near as powerful as the overclocked 660M in the rMBP.

True but then again it will be a pretty decent IGP that fits in a thin and light notebook. No added 40W power sucking chip.
If it could beat the 80W chip team from last gen that would be a bit too awesome.
The over clocking doesn't really make that much difference. Compared to the Iris in the Air (15W TDP) a standard clock rate 650M would still be quite a bit faster.

 

[thunng8]

True but then again it will be a pretty decent IGP that fits in a thin and light notebook. No added 40W power sucking chip.
If it could beat the 80W chip team from last gen that would be a bit too awesome.
The over clocking doesn't really make that much difference. Compared to the Iris in the Air (15W TDP) a standard clock rate 650M would still be quite a bit faster.

FYI, intel does not market the 15w ULV haswell as having Iris graphics. It is the intel hd5000 and is around 20-50% faster than the hd4000 in the ivy bridge air in graphics perf.

The lowest wattage chip with iris graphics is the 28w i7-4558u

Also note because of the higher performance graphics which use more power and integrated vrm, intel has had to decrease base frequency by up to 500mhz of the 15w haswell compared to the 17w ivy bridge.

http://www.cpu-world.com/news_2013/...of_Intel_Core_i7-4650U_and_i5-4350U_CPUs.html

 

[thunng8]

Compared to the Iris in the Air (15W TDP) a standard clock rate 650M would still be quite a bit faster.

Quite a bit faster is an understatement. Only the iris pro in 47w haswell chip come anywhere close to 650m performance.

As per ULV haswell chips, intel has had to decrease chip CPU frequency to accommodate iris / iris pro graphics.

The base frequency of haswell with iris pro is 2.4ghz quad at 47w while haswell with hd4600 is 2.8ghz at 47w and ivy bridge is also 2.8ghz at 45w.

 

[dusk007]

A lower base frequency just means there is more room to trade TDP between the CPU and GPU. If they set the base frequency higher that looks good on paper but it also limits the GPU turbo when it is needed.
The actual clocks the chip runs at at the end of the day will just be more optimal because the driver and power management has more freedom. Base frequency has to be lower but that doesn't mean anything for performance.

Right only 5100 is Iris. The 5000 is still a GT3 and probably the overall better package, because it can push more graphics performance when needed. Intel simply greatly increased the dynamic range of graphics performance and in at the same time to increase the dynamic range of the cpu performance (logically).
The Turbo on those ULVs is the same. If all you do is a handbrake encode the the cpu can still clock the same. Don't let the base frequency blind you into thinking that has anything to say about performance it is just a specification metric. The times where full out GPU Turbo is a good idea is likely the same time where CPU clocks are not in as high a demand. If the GPU cannot push any decent amount of frames the cpu is just sitting around anyway. A fixed too high base clock would only hurt performance. Base clock must not be higher than what the whole 15W package can handle for its two cores while the GPU runs at close to max. Anything else would just be poor design.
What efficiency the GPU delivers when it doesn't run full out will tell in the actual clocks of the CPU cores. If the GPU is a lot more efficient at the same task despite the lower base clock the CPU side will actually be faster. A little better IPC exists as well.

if it has similar performance. I mostly use my laptop for web research (100+ tabs), video playback and word processing.

Chances are the difference to a 650M in that department don't really exist.
Unless he goes into handbrake encoding, games or some other more serious stuff for all practical purposes one can speak of "similar" performance. The only real difference is the screen size between an Air and an MBP.

 

[gibkibonzo]

I'm asking because the rMBP is quite large to carry around and I would prefer a lighter machine if it has similar performance. I mostly use my laptop for web research (100+ tabs), video playback and word processing.

There is absolutely no reason for you to own a rMBP with your needs (unless you're a retina screen fanboy). Base MBA (even past generations) handles those with ease.

 

[Bear]

There is absolutely no reason for you to own a rMBP with your needs (unless you're a retina screen fanboy). Base MBA (even past generations) handles those with ease.

Screen size is of course one consideration. And the other is 100+ tabs. That tends to consume a lot of memory.

 

[Brandon263]

Screen size is of course one consideration. And the other is 100+ tabs. That tends to consume a lot of memory.

Yes, and lag is another factor. I did own a 2012 Air before I upgraded to the rMBP and while it was fine for most tasks, it would lag when opening applications, switching between windows and starting up. I haven't had any such problems with the rMBP and I'm more productive at my work because of that.