You do realize there is a Turbo Mode? 800MHz isn't the end of the story. To be able to run at lower clock speeds when all the power isn't needed, is progress. Longer battery life for thinner, lighter and quieter MacBook Airs.
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.
Intel Launches New Broadwell Core M Processors, Likely Destined for Apple's Ultra-Slim Notebook
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The only people who think that also think that, for whatever reason, they can just ramp up the clock speed and beat out Intel. They don't factor in anything else in what makes a computer fast, or slow, just CPU clock speed.
Gosh what an arrogant ass you are with that opening sentence.
Because maybe I want to buy 8gb now as that's more than adequate, and in a couple years when OS X needs more I can buy it at that point. You're just making excuses.
Here read about how difficult it is now to upgrade just Mac Minis:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/1...e_mac_mini_the_best_and_worst_of_both_worlds/
"Moreover, being able to upgrade your system as you need rather than investing all at the start is half the point of buying a desktop rather than a laptop. "
Yes,
Apple needs to stop using Intel, they are bad CPUs,low performance and inferior and should not be an in apple product.
----------
Yes. And no Intel.
The sooner Intel is out of business the better for all of us. Sick and tired of their bad products.
----------
So amazing battery life is a throwback?
Enjoy your Intel.
I don't care about " better "
I care about battery life and youtube and open office, thats it. Like maybe .5% of people use the power of Intels CPUs to their real extent.
Who cares about performance? It doens't matter.
If Apple keeps using Intel, their battery life will keep sucking.
Wanna compare battery life on my iPad Air vs your Intel book? Won't even be close.
----------
Exactly, thats what these Intel fan boys keep saying " AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH PERFORMANCE "
How much does a word processor, and photo and video viewer need?
Not an i7, thats what.
Doesn't the Haswell based 13-inch Macbook Air get around 9-12 hours of battery life during normal usage? Last I checked, that's about on par with the iPad Air.
Yeah, you'd probably drain the battery in about 5 hours if you were using something heavy like Photoshop, but hell, the same thing would happen with the iPad. I've used a few apps on my iPad that drained the battery down like a kindergartner on a juice box.
I get around 14, and I mournfully do own a Macbook Air, I get MAYBE 5 hours if I am doing something useful away from the plug.
If it was ARM based, I could bet money that the battery life of a Macbook AIr would be 20 hours plus.
Die Intel, your ship sailed in 1997, let a real company and REAL engineers do it now.
Is it the Haswell Air? You might be comparing apples to oranges here.
Doubt it. ARM chips aren't that much more efficient when it comes to watts spent to performance gained.
If you were using your iPad Air as hard as your MacBook Air, you'd likely get less battery life.
Because some people have higher requirements of their hardware. You're not the end all be all of the average end user. While the iPad Air might do everything you need it to do, that doesn't mean it works just as well for everyone.
HAW!
How isn't it?
Sure, you can play a few bad ports on Mac for gaming, but oin the iPad, tons of games.
I can't think of one maintream game thats as good as an iPad game.
I love XCOM on the iPad, but damn if the game doesn't look and run about a thousand times better on the MBA.
And of course Civilization V vs. Civilization Revolution 2 on the iPad. No contest.
Have you ever gamed on a Mac? I have. The iPad can't even say it has a game as good as DotA 2 or LoL, let alone Diablo 3 or any big AAA game.
You can run Windows very easily on a Mac via Bootcamp, which allows you to play any Windows game that your hardware supports. You can't do this on an iPad.
You wouldn't get that kind of battery life when factoring in components such as the display. You attribute way too much of it to the processor and graphics then tack on random nonsense about intel.
Oh my god I think toads are going to rain from the sky! I actually 100% agre with something you have posted... what is the world coming to?
----------
Join Date: Nov 2014?
Something tells me you've illicitly rejoined this forum after being banned for trolling too hard...
Couldnt agree more, it also bothers me that ppl eat it all up to, 16/64/128 gig iphones 6's identical in every other way which prob costs apple an extra $10 to double each ones memory. Then they charge HUGE mark ups for you to get the same phone with more memory, oh and the kicker that memory is removable in almost every other phone. They are the GODS of marketing.
I bet we could have had a quadcore 13inch to make it 'pro' in more than just title by now if they hadnt kept on the thinner band wagon.
And yet we still buy them because they're sleek, look nice, have MAC OS, they are minimalistic without any unnecessary ports or DVD-players, reliable hardware and quite fast.
Anyway, right now I back at school doing my PHD and also do some work and I'm traveling a lot. I need my computer to have a long battery life, word etc programs, some apps like podradio etc, spotify and some other stuff. I bring my Ipad sometime, but when I have to do a lot of research and writing I need my MBA 13 which I think is a little to big. Personally, for me, this new mac would come very well in hand. Doing my PHD in social sciences / Philosophy so I only need word and open PDF files - so I would be more than set.
Finally. Someone who actually can understand what the actual speed of the processor is! Personally, I'm looking forward to this for a few reasons:
1) Comparing the i5 on the current MBA and the fastest Core M, the Core M is much better
2) The Core M is about $100 cheaper than the current i5, possibly that extra $100 saved will be put to a better use (such as a Retina Display)
3) Since the Core M only uses 4.5 watts, the extra watts (about 10 I think) could be used to help power a Retina Display (I don't know exactly though if that's enough)
Is that why last generation scores higher on benchmarks in comparison to Core M? Because Core M is better?