MacBook Air 13. I5 or i7?

[w00d]

I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. You can all buy Dells for all I care.

I'm sharing my experiences. That is all.

Here's something fun that you can try which might illustrate how the i7 can be faster for "everyday tasks".

Install the Intel Power Gadget, it will show you your CPU frequency as it changes:
http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/intel-power-gadget-20

I have my i7 plugged in, only thing running is Chrome.

When I first load Gmail (and a number of other websites that I use "everyday") the CPU will sometimes hit 2.9 Ghz or higher.

Attached is a graph that shows the CPU speed changing as I loaded and clicked through some of my "everyday use" websites.

p.s. Don't forget the i7 also has 25% more onboard cache memory. So even at the same clock speed it is more efficient.

p.s.p.s. I'm sure someone will retort and say this makes no difference and the i5 is just as fast. Ok, fine, you win. You've still got the slowest CPU that Apple sells.

 

[ZBoater]

...When I first load Gmail (and a number of other websites that I use "everyday") the CPU will sometimes hit 2.9 Ghz or higher.
...

Yeah, but its all in your head. You are just imagining that.

Just kidding!!!

 

[w00d]

Also torn between i5/8Gb/256 or i7/8Gb/256

I believe in my case, I'd be VERY disappointed with an i5 when finding myself surfing the web, having multiple apps open (itunes, iphoto, pages, numbers, font book, chrome with multiple tabs, app store, mac games store, textwrangler, textedit, activity monitor, terminal, notes, gTAsks - none of these are resource heavy apps but I DO have all these apps open all the time) and then to see my display rendering stutter when using mission control or launchpad or when scrolling through web pages.

If anyone can assure me from HANDS-ON EXPERIENCE that this WILL ABSOLUTELY NOT HAPPEN with an i5 in the situation mentioned above, then I'll take the money I save on the i7 and get Applecare instead.

I can assure you the i5 will never be faster than the i7, and the i7 will never be slower than the i5.

 

[SchodMC]

I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. You can all buy Dells for all I care.

I'm sharing my experiences. That is all.

Here's something fun that you can try which might illustrate how the i7 can be faster for "everyday tasks".

Install the Intel Power Gadget, it will show you your CPU frequency as it changes:
http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/intel-power-gadget-20

I have my i7 plugged in, only thing running is Chrome.

When I first load Gmail (and a number of other websites that I use "everyday") the CPU will sometimes hit 2.9 Ghz or higher.

Attached is a graph that shows the CPU speed changing as I loaded and clicked through some of my "everyday use" websites.

p.s. Don't forget the i7 also has 25% more onboard cache memory. So even at the same clock speed it is more efficient.

p.s.p.s. I'm sure someone will retort and say this makes no difference and the i5 is just as fast. Ok, fine, you win. You've still got the slowest CPU that Apple sells.

Although I think the i7 is a fine CPU, I don't think this argument will help a lot. It only shows how often the i7 goes up to 3GHz in your use case, which is the reason why the i7 has less battery life, BTW. So your graph won't show what you're doing to let the CPU jump to that high frequency. I managed to get an other i5 under my fingers and compared both systems using that tool. Both CPUs are jumping between 0,8 and 2,x GHz using the systems to surf the internet, start some apps, using office or iWork, switching spaces, opening Mission Control, using iTunes, etc.

The only thing your graph shows is, that the i7 CPU has a lot to do, but it doesn't say anything about a noticeable speed difference compared to the i5. Only the situations where the i7 CPU jumps above the i5 limit can be taken into account.

So long story short: what have you done while logging the speed?

EDIT: Sorry, I missed out something. I saw that you said you used Chrome. Well - I never got that high CPU usage using Safari for surfing on my i7. It's strange...

cu
SchodMC (have the feeling that I stir up a hornets' nest now. )

P.S.: I also realized that the i5, I got my hands on now, seems to be not that laggy my first i5 model was. And comparing both of them showed me, that in situations where I thought the i5 is slow (building up webpages, loading apps, scrolling, ...), and test the same on the i7, I realized that the i7 was not really noticeable faster. A result that was a surprise for me, because I could have make an oath that there will definitely be a noticeable difference in "daly usage". Not tested the behavior on "navy" load, means Photo / Video editing. Be confused...

 

[w00d]

EDIT: Sorry, I missed out something. I saw that you said you used Chrome. Well - I never got that high CPU usage using Safari for surfing on my i7. It's strange...

I might be able to partially explain that. Chrome is the faster browser with a really high performance javascript engine. How is that done? Probably a combination of algorithms that get more done in less time as well as more effectively loading up the CPU.

Anyways, my use case and my results, this is the best I can do to illustrate the difference is more than just subjective. Whether or not an individual can detect that difference is not my concern. Hell, there is another thread here where people have said they don't notice the difference between Retina and non Retina screens. So I don't expect everyone will notice the difference between i5 and i7 cpu for their everyday tasks.

 

[Michael Goff]

I might be able to partially explain that. Chrome is the faster browser with a really high performance javascript engine. How is that done? Probably a combination of algorithms that get more done in less time as well as more effectively loading up the CPU.

Anyways, my use case and my results, this is the best I can do to illustrate the difference is more than just subjective. Whether or not an individual can detect that difference is not my concern. Hell, there is another thread here where people have said they don't notice the difference between Retina and non Retina screens. So I don't expect everyone will notice the difference between i5 and i7 cpu for their everyday tasks.

Those tests are of browser on Windows, the ones on ZDnet, and actually not speed tests. :|

 

[w00d]

Those tests are of browser on Windows, the ones on ZDnet, and actually not speed tests. :|

Ok, you're right, that's Windows. Chrome is still faster on OSX. Try it.

Browser benchmarks = how fast for rendering page layout and javascript engine performance. How is that not a speed test?

 

[Michael Goff]

Ok, you're right, that's Windows. Chrome is still faster on OSX. Try it.

Browser benchmarks = how fast for rendering page layout and javascript engine performance. How is that not a speed test?

Browser benchmarks are not indicative of real world performance. They take a few small things (javascript for example) and make it seem as though those are important things. Then we get to the weird idea that Chrome is the fastest browser on OS X.

Faster doing what? Anything with flash? No. Anything dealing with HTML5? Still no. The entire idea is simply Google fanboyism at work.

So, yes, mostly javascript tests, splashes with a lot of tests that Google themselves are creating, isn't a way to determine anything when it comes to speed. And don't get me started on the love for Pepper Flash to crash every five minutes.

I used Chrome (Dev, Canary, Chromium even) and Safari is better than them. Firefox is better than them.

 

[w00d]

[/COLOR]

Browser benchmarks are not indicative of real world performance. They take a few small things (javascript for example) and make it seem as though those are important things.

Javascript and page rendering are not indicative of real world performance in a browser... then please tell me what is?

 

[Michael Goff]

[/COLOR]

Javascript and page rendering are not indicative of real world performance in a browser... then please tell me what is?

...

Real world performance is a nice indicator. They make these things that help determine how long something takes. Then you can go to pages that normal people go to. You then can record how long it takes for you to get to each of those pages.

Or you could just realize that the speed of the browser isn't going to be the bottleneck that people run into.

One of the two.

 

[w00d]

Real world performance is a nice indicator. They make these things that help determine how long something takes.

Yeah, it's called a benchmark.


I'm saying that I believe I feel a difference using the i7 when browsing the web. My data shows that my browser is taking advantage of speeds faster than which the i5 is capable of.

Not sure how much more I can break it down.

 

[Michael Goff]

Yeah, it's called a benchmark.


I'm saying that I believe I feel a difference using the i7 when browsing the web. My data shows that my browser is taking advantage of speeds faster than which the i5 is capable of.

Not sure how much more I can break it down.

CPU-bound browsers, ones that take a huge amount of resources, will see a huge speed increase between, an i5 and an i7.

>_>

 

[w00d]

CPU-bound browsers, ones that take a huge amount of resources, will see a huge speed increase between, an i5 and an i7.

>_>

Never said it was a huge increase. I said it was perceptible on day to day tasks.

 

[Michael Goff]

Never said it was a huge increase. I said it was perceptible on day to day tasks.

Woah dude, I was agreeing with you. When I said huge, it was in reference to the amount of resources used. Chrome is a heavy program in terms of what it uses.

 

[SchodMC]

I might be able to partially explain that. Chrome is the faster browser with a really high performance javascript engine. How is that done? Probably a combination of algorithms that get more done in less time as well as more effectively loading up the CPU.

Anyways, my use case and my results, this is the best I can do to illustrate the difference is more than just subjective. Whether or not an individual can detect that difference is not my concern. Hell, there is another thread here where people have said they don't notice the difference between Retina and non Retina screens. So I don't expect everyone will notice the difference between i5 and i7 cpu for their everyday tasks.

Hey, it was no personal attack. Don't know that Chrome is that resource-hungry, what leads to a better performance compared to Safari. Don't use Chrome, because I don't like it.

I wonder if the less power of the i5 will really noticeable when using Chrome. If so, then yes - there will be a noticeable difference. Only compared Safari performance on i5 & i7.

cu
SchodMC

 

[Doublea6]

I found this super helpful.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7113/2013-macbook-air-core-i5-4250u-vs-core-i7-4650u

 

[entatlrg]

I found this super helpful.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7113/2013-macbook-air-core-i5-4250u-vs-core-i7-4650u

After reading the article which one did you buy?

 

[mattferg]

I found this super helpful.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7113/2013-macbook-air-core-i5-4250u-vs-core-i7-4650u

I found it really unhelpful, tbh. All it shows is that at full CPU usage, the i7 runs faster than the i5... not really surprising considering it's got 700 more mhz when it does. Also uses the same amount of battery more than it gives performance back, supposedly. In day to day usage the i7 and i5 perform the same.

----------

I am not implying the i5 is a poor CPU. I don't need to imply. I can say what I mean. And what I said was the the i7 is a more powerful CPU than the i5. It is faster, more capable - more CPU. That's what I meant when I used the term "not enough computer".

It's a comparison to a clearly superior CPU, not an indictment of the i5 itself. The i5 is quite a capable little CPU. Just not as capable as the i7.

Unfortunately this shows a lack of understanding yet again of how Intel processors work. The i7 is only faster than the i5 when running at full utilisation, anything less than that and the i5 can run just as fast. It's more capable at full utilisation, yes, but not faster throughout the performance range, far from it. As such, the i7 is not clearly superior in most usage cases, it's just equal.

----------

If you want to future proof it and give it better value get the i7. Most applications that are gonna come out are gonna need more CPU and RAM power so it is good to upgrade when you can for a average price.

Not really - most applications barely use all the power in the 2010 MBAs, let alone the 2013. As such, the best way to future proof a MBA is to follow industry trends, all of which shows that storage, battery life and RAM are most lacking/most likely to be needed more of in future.

----------

Again my point, there are plenty in this thread who are constructing well researched ideas validating points for each point of the argument, and are not getting aggressive over it. Yes I had read your previous replies thus the post.

You still are missing the point, your argument though this thread is exerting Hitchen's Razor (or maybe to a lesser extent Reductio ad absurdum) and rather aggressive.

Seriously you commend the posts that have terrible points and criticise mine for pointing out how you STILL miss the point?! seriously?! I never said the i7 wasn't faster than the i5 overall, of course it is.

However all of the tasks you claim you notice a difference with the i7 vs the i5 are not everyday tasks for most Air users, MILES from it. Those you 'agree with' are advocating everyone should buy an i7 if they can afford it, which is a terrible notion. Most people will never, ever use the extra power the i7 comes with, as it's high-utilisation extra mhz, and nothing more.

As such, my points are completely valid, and the reason I'm stating them so strongly is because you seem to be missing them. The way Intel processors work is that they turbo boost up when more power is needed. As such, until the i5 hits the max 2.6ghz, it matches the i7. Fact. There is no arguing against that.

And me, arguing aggressively compared to ZBoater, who's accusing me of obscuring facts when he never uses any? Have you actually read any of my posts and seen my well-referenced facts and arguments? I mean, wow, really? Your whole post makes no sense.

----------

I can assure you the i5 will never be faster than the i7, and the i7 will never be slower than the i5.

I can also assure him the i7 will never be faster than the i5 when doing tasks that don't require the CPU to max out.

 

[AXs]

I had a brief moment of clarity today. I was on 3G with my Air, and normally I just google but I tried to youtube today... it doesn't load instantaneously.

I finally realized that a lot of people could be complaining about flash being slow, or stuttering a little- when it is directly related to internet speed, and not cpu speed.

Any well Haswell laptop chip is overkill for browsing flash. Wifi speeds and reception surely has something to do with it too, but usually will be faster per second than internet speed.

The bottleneck is most likely internet connection. On my cable internet via wireless n300 router, nothing has ever taken more than a blink to load... especially with chrome.

Over 3G via my phone, it was definitely going slow.

This may have everything to do with people complaining about browsing issues?

or maybe youtube won't load perfectly and some lighter IT users think it is a cpu issue?


I'm on i5/8/256 and I have just ONCE seen the infamous apple beach ball after 1 month of use. Once skype crashed on me and I had to force quit - I saw the beach ball for a couple seconds.

Never seen it on any other occasion even when running DotA 2 (I don't game, I just wanted to test graphics ability first hand), nor when I run Fusion and ubuntu on an external monitor.

I just got logic pro a couple of days ago, and I've had no issues running it while running 10 different other things either... though I'm sure the i7 would show better speeds (though I'm a light user).

The point is I'm a routine medium-power user with my Air, and I've found everything thus far to be lightning speed.
Hell even when I unrar'd a 6GB file today, it took maybe like about 30-40 seconds (I wish mac had winrar so I could see exact time, the dumba$$ rar app I have is weak).

I'm telling you. Haswell Macbook Air is Skynet

 

[w00d]

As such, my points are completely valid, and the reason I'm stating them so strongly is because you seem to be missing them. The way Intel processors work is that they turbo boost up when more power is needed. As such, until the i5 hits the max 2.6ghz, it matches the i7. Fact. There is no arguing against that.

Actually, technically, that is false. The i7 has more onboard L3 cache, which would make it a faster CPU even if the clock speed is the same.

 

[ZBoater]

...As such, my points are completely valid, and the reason I'm stating them so strongly is because you seem to be missi...The way Intel processors work is that they turbo boost up when more power is needed. As such, until the i5 hits the max 2.6ghz, it matches the i7. Fact. There is no arguing against that.....

Ummmmm, what am I missing? Yes the i5 turbo boosts to a max of 2.6ghz and matches the i7 assuming the i7 doesn't boost itself up to its max of 3.3ghz.

So if you are saying that an i5 boosted matches a non-boosted i7, then yes, you win.

I find it hard to believe that even you can make such as weak argument.

i5 max boost = 2.6GHz.

i7 max boost = 3.3GHz.

i7 > i5. Any other flawed comparisons you want to make?

Oh, and BTW,

BASE clock speed of i5 = 1.3GHz.

BASE clock speed of i7 = 1.7GHz.

Just in case you wanted to drop that every day task, non maxed out argument again....

 

[w00d]

For reference, here is a summary of the differences between the two CPUs:

http://ark.intel.com/compare/75114,75028

 

[Mike in Kansas]

I can also assure him the i7 will never be faster than the i5 when doing tasks that don't require the CPU to max out.

Have you downloaded Intel Power Gadget like w00d suggested and actually OBSERVED how the CPU reacts versus just speculating? I did it a week ago and have spent quite a bit of my time looking at how my 2012 i7 MBA performs when doing "everyday" tasks.

The 2012 i7 has a base speed of 2.0GHz, with a turbo of 3.0 in dual core and 3.2 in single core. With all background apps and processes killed, it sits there at 0.8GHz to 1.2GHz. If you launch Safari, it immediately jumps to 3.0GHz for a second and then evens back out at 1.2GHz or so. Start moving the cursor around and it goes to 2.0 to 2.4. Grab a slider on the side of the window, move the window up and down and it again shoots up to 3.0 - 3.1 GHz. Kill Safari and it immediately drops back down to under 2.0GHz and eventually settles down to 0.8GHz.

Similarly, launch iTunes. Again, screams up to 3GHz upon launching and updating Genius, then again settles out. Scroll your albums and it jumps up to 3.0 again. Play a song and it levels back out to 1.0 to 1.2

This is played out time and time and time again. The only app I didn't see this high level of processor speed is when I opened Pages. But when opening a document, it again shoots up over 2.8GHz.

Download it, see for yourself, and report back. After observing this for a week, I am more than convinced that the 2012 (and probably the 2013) processors spend more time at the high end of their turbo range than you would expect. At the very least, i7 doesn't need to be "driven hard" or "maxed out on high demand apps" to really go to high clock speeds; they are consistently running at speeds higher than their i5 counterparts even when doing tasks like mail, Safari, iTunes, etc.

 

[Doublea6]

After reading the article which one did you buy?

Well I'll probably go with an i7 because I don't want apples slowest CPU. I also found it annoying that the i5 was about the same speed as last years air. I also want it to be more powerful because I was disappointed that the pro didn't get updated and I was most likely going to get that one. I just don't want to wait for October.

I found it really unhelpful, tbh. All it shows is that at full CPU usage, the i7 runs faster than the i5... not really surprising considering it's got 700 more mhz when it does. Also uses the same amount of battery more than it gives performance back, supposedly. In day to day usage the i7 and i5 perform the same.

Seriously?! Did you even read the whole thing?! It said that even on the same tasks the i7 performed better and more efficiently then the i5. The i7 does everything better. Whatever though.

 

[ezekielrage_99]

Seriously you commend the posts that have terrible points and criticise mine for pointing out how you STILL miss the point?! seriously?! I never said the i7 wasn't faster than the i5 overall, of course it is.

And me, arguing aggressively compared to ZBoater, who's accusing me of obscuring facts when he never uses any? Have you actually read any of my posts and seen my well-referenced facts and arguments? I mean, wow, really? Your whole post makes no sense.

Again you are reinforcing my point with that response. Dunning-Kruger effect methinks.

Seriously?! Did you even read the whole thing?! It said that even on the same tasks the i7 performed better and more efficiently then the i5. The i7 does everything better. Whatever though.

I posted the same thing before and the answer was similar, he is not accepting of facts instead clinging to sophistical logic that and i5 = i7 at same clock speed for "average" tasks where it has been proven several times this is not the case. Not even taking into account the L3 cache is very different, this does impact performance...