Macworld Benchmarks - Pretty Nice

Discussion in 'MacBook Air' started by KPOM, Oct 25, 2010.

  1. KPOM macrumors G5

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2010
    #1
  2. Durious macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2008
    Location:
    Calgary, Alberta
    #2
    great link i am really looking forward to mine arriving i did not think it would perform that well
     
  3. zero85ZEN macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2009
    Location:
    Indianapolis
    #3
    Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_0_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8A400a Safari/6531.22.7)

    These numbers look really good! I'm moving toward pulling the trigger on a fully upgraded 13" model. :)
     
  4. nylon macrumors 6502a

    nylon

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2004
  5. Adidas Addict macrumors 65816

    Adidas Addict

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2008
    Location:
    England
  6. miata macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2010
    Location:
    Silicon Valley, Earth
    #6
    Interesting. Except for Call of Duty and storage related benchmarks like gzip and copy the 13" MacBook Pro is just slightly ahead of the 13" MBA.

    If you are sitting on the fence trying to decide between the 15" MBA and MBP with SSD performance should be a non-factor.
     
  7. bossxii macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2008
    Location:
    Kansas City
    #7
    The 1.4Ghz out paces the previous 2.13 :eek: wow, that's pretty incredible. I'm guessing it just shows how much they were throttling the previous gen MBA's to deal with the heat issues.

    I purchased the 11" and used it over the weekend but had issue with it's battery life. I watch a fair amount of Hulu and Netflix and just shy of 3 hours it was over. It performed great and was very snappy but the battery was my biggest issue and then after 48 hours of using it realized long term the screen size was going to bother me.

    After swapping to the 13"/2/256 I'm very happy with the performance and the battery. Today at work went from 9 am until 4:40 using mostly web, playing some ESPN video and email and leaving the office at 4:40 it was at 2%. I can't say it was used 100% of the time, but I had the brightness at 100% and probably had a solid 4 hours of use about half of that being video playback.

    Now if only Best Buy would carry the Max'd out version bah!
     
  8. evansph macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2008
    Location:
    Singapore
    #8
    Thanks for the link - really looks promising, though I'll probably wait for a few more reviews and a bit more user feedback on the 13" before placing my order.
     
  9. AtmChm macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2010
    Location:
    WI
    #9
    Bear in mind the disk intensive tests are comparing the old 4200 RPM HDD to the new SSD flash drives. Not really a fair comparison. They should have compared the mid 2010 (May - October) MBA with the new ones. That would have been a better demonstration of how the new design is (or isn't) better than the last versions of the "old" MBA.
     
  10. KPOM thread starter macrumors G5

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2010
    #10
    True, but they did say that the 1.86GHz late 2010 model was faster than the old 2.13GHz model (which was SSD).
     
  11. falconeight Guest

    falconeight

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2010
    #11
    That is amazing I don't care if its compared to an optical drive. If thats what it had then thats what you compare it to. They got faster come in two different sizes and are blazing fast.
     
  12. ghileman macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    #12
    Agreed.

    And the battery test results are pretty disappointing. Just 1 hour more battery on the 13"? I was expecting battery performance to double with the 7 hour claim.
     
  13. Stingray454 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    #13
    Seriously.. they compare 1.4Ghz with 64gb and 1.4Ghz 120Gb to 1.86Ghz with 64gb and 1.86Ghz 128Gb while doing CPU / GPU performance tests? How stupid is that? The SSD size will probably make no difference at all in speed, the small variations in speed are probably just coincidental. It would be MUCH more informative to see the 1.4 vs the 1.6 and 1.86 vs 2.13, or at least try with 2Gb and 4Gb too see if memory affects performance. Hoping for a better benchmark soon :)
     

Share This Page