Is the 2015 rMB faster than the 2010 MBA with Core 2 duo processor?

[saintforlife]

Just wondering if the new retina MacBook is faster normal in day to day operation than the 2010 MacBook Air (1.86 GHz/Core 2 Duo processor). Has anybody used both machines? Will there be a marked improvement in performance on the new MacBook, even thought it only has a Core M processor?

 

[PDFierro]

Just wondering if the new retina MacBook is faster normal in day to day operation than the 2010 MacBook Air (1.86 GHz/Core 2 Duo processor). Has anybody used both machines? Will there be a marked improvement in performance on the new MacBook, even thought it only has a Core M processor?

It's not even close. The Core M is way more powerful than you think. In fact, this was the biggest misconception about the rMB when it was announced.

 

[RUGGLES99]

link?

It's not even close. The Core M is way more powerful than you think. In fact, this was the biggest misconception about the rMB when it was announced.

 

[MyopicPaideia]

link?

Oh Ruggles...

http://9to5mac.com/2015/04/01/retina-macbook-performance-test/

http://www.primatelabs.com/blog/2010/10/macbookair_benchmarks-late-2010/

http://www.anandtech.com/show/9136/the-2015-macbook-review

http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/2299329

http://9to5mac.com/2015/04/25/first...op-model-rivals-1-4ghz-imac-2014-macbook-air/

http://www.everymac.com/systems/app...ok-air-core-2-duo-1.4-11-late-2010-specs.html

But I suppose you couldn't be bothered to look it up yourself, and would rather slap down a challenge with a one word post. His claim isn't wild or unsubstantiated, or not readily verifiable, he shouldn't have to cite sources for an established and well accepted position.

Also, the Core M is designed to be faster to turbo and faster to idle than its higher powered Core i siblings. This makes it extremely suitable for short burst tasks, even intensive ones, and equally unsuitable for long haul, sustained multicore tasks, like video encoding, or large complex compiling. That would be this Anandtech link.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/9117/analyzing-intel-core-m-performance

If we have to use a car metaphor, which I think we can all agree is not optimal - think of it as having a very short gear ratio on the same vehicle, whatever vehicle you can imagine, and the only difference is the gear ratios. With shorter gears throughout, it accelerates faster, is more responsive on the throttle, and has much more effective engine braking, but has a lower sustainable top speed because it runs out of revs in its final drive. This results in a car that feels very zippy and nimble around town, but is not really fit for long highway cruising.

Are there compromises? Yes there are, and if you want an all arounder processor that is a jack of all trades, but a master of none, then the U series Core i in your 11" MBA is great for you. And there is nothing wrong with that.

But if you value the portability and the lower heat and fanless design, and have usage requirements that actually favor the design choices made with the Core M and play to its strengths, then it is actually a very nice modern base for a good ultra portable laptop. And guess what - there is nothing wrong with that either.

 

[MyopicPaideia]

Just wondering if the new retina MacBook is faster normal in day to day operation than the 2010 MacBook Air (1.86 GHz/Core 2 Duo processor). Has anybody used both machines? Will there be a marked improvement in performance on the new MacBook, even thought it only has a Core M processor?

As an addendum to my post above, yes. It scores about 4 times higher in single core geekbench 3 testing and in multicore about 3 times higher in the same benchmark as the 2010 MBA. It has the latest SSD technology, faster RAM, much better integrated GPU, and much faster connectivity bandwidth in USB 3.1 - it also has the latest and fastest bluetooth and wifi standards the 2010 MBA lacks.

Everything you do will be quicker...everything, and the more capable CPU is only one element in that equation.

 

[Dayv]

As a rough rule of thumb, I've seen it said that a new MacBook is roughly equivalent to a two-year-old MacBook Air (i.e., 2013) in performance. I don't have an Air that recent to test with, but it's definitely quicker than my wife's 2011 Air.