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

KPOM

macrumors P6
Oct 23, 2010
18,025
7,868
You sure? I've seen the geek bench scores. It's way higher than the maxed out 13.

It is probably comparing the i7 11" to the i5 13" The two i7 models otherwise perform virtually identically because they are otherwise identical on the inside. There may be minor variation from model to model because of the two different SSDs that Apple uses (the Samsung is slightly faster), and because the 13" has a higher resolution screen, which might slow down some tests that simply draw something to fill the screen.

OTOH, the 13" is not available with an i7 processor and 128GB SSD combination. Only the 11" is, so it might still be better for you if you don't need the extra internal storage.
 

theSeb

macrumors 604
Aug 10, 2010
7,466
1,893
none
You sure? I've seen the geek bench scores. It's way higher than the maxed out 13.

You were probably looking at 64 bit geekbench scores vs 32-bit scores. They have the same CPUs so one won't be faster than the other, unless there are throttling issues due to heat, which would mean the 13" will be faster over long-running tasks.

Geekbench is not really a good comparison since you cannot be sure if all of the users ran the benchmark when the CPU was not busy doing other things. Even when the CPU is idling, it's possible to run Geekbench multiple times and receive scores that range by about 100 to 150 points one way or the other.

----------

It is probably comparing the i7 11" to the i5 13" The two i7 models otherwise perform virtually identically because they are otherwise identical on the inside. There may be minor variation from model to model because of the two different SSDs that Apple uses (the Samsung is slightly faster), and because the 13" has a higher resolution screen, which might slow down some tests that simply draw something to fill the screen.

OTOH, the 13" is not available with an i7 processor and 128GB SSD combination. Only the 11" is, so it might still be better for you if you don't need the extra internal storage.

Indeed, but Geekbench only tests your CPU and memory speed so screen resolution and storage speed do not impact it.

Edit to add:

32-bit scores
MacBook Air (11-inch Mid 2012) Intel Core i7-3667U 2000 MHz (2 cores) 6900
MacBook Air (13-inch Mid 2012) Intel Core i7-3667U 2000 MHz (2 cores) 6883

7 points is not a variance that can be considered to be significant. As I said above, I could run Geekbench over and over on these machines and produce scores ranging from 6850 to 6950 and, possibly, even further out.

http://browser.primatelabs.com/mac-benchmarks

To further illustrate this, let's look at the 64-bit geekbench scores for the 2011 models


MacBook Air (11-inch Mid 2011) Intel Core i7-2677M 1800 MHz (2 cores) 6359

MacBook Air (13-inch Mid 2011) Intel Core i7-2677M 1800 MHz (2 cores) 6300

Yet, I get 6405 (no, wait 6393, no, now it's 6394 - the scores change each time you run it). Does that mean my MBA is the fastest 2011 in the world? No. These scores are averages of what people have achieved and, as I said, how people run the benchmarks differs. If they are running other applications and services, it will impact the Geekbench score. These user run benchmarks are ok for quick comparisons, but because they are not run in a controlled environment, minor variances can be ignored.
 
Last edited:

RightMACatU

macrumors 65816
Jul 12, 2012
1,423
1,132
192.168.1.1
Yet, I get 6405 (no, wait 6393, no, now it's 6394 - the scores change each time you run it).
Did you take into account any wind, light, odours or humidity factors? :D
If people are making a purchase decision based on these numbers then the MBA is not the right purchase for them IMO.
 

mikeray

macrumors regular
Jan 17, 2006
215
67
Brooklyn, NY
This should be a discussion about screen resolution because the 11" and the 13" are the same speed, and the 13" is only $50 more!!!
 

quicks

macrumors newbie
Jul 10, 2012
8
0
With same specs they have the same performance, 11" is not faster.

11" is pretty dagm small for editing video (as is 13" I guess), especially once you start adding estate taken by menus etc.. For writing, reading, browsing internet etc., would go for 11" for sure. But for more "serious" work, its too cluttered imo. If you need to hook it up to an external monitor to work, portablility is kinda lost..
 

Power Macintosh

macrumors member
Original poster
Jun 5, 2012
63
0
This should be a discussion about screen resolution because the 11" and the 13" are the same speed, and the 13" is only $50 more!!!

Nope, if I chose the 11 Inch model, it's 8 GB i7. The 13 is only 8 GB i5.
It's a graphic intense application, spwhich takes up some screen space.
A nice puzzle to solve. But I already got the 11 Imch version. So much power in a tiny and cute packaging.
 

mikeray

macrumors regular
Jan 17, 2006
215
67
Brooklyn, NY
Nope, if I chose the 11 Inch model, it's 8 GB i7. The 13 is only 8 GB i5.
It's a graphic intense application, spwhich takes up some screen space.
A nice puzzle to solve. But I already got the 11 Imch version. So much power in a tiny and cute packaging.

Yes, I got the same one, I'm loving it...these new 2012 specs IMO mark the first time the airs can achieve 'no compromises' specs
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.