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

MBA 2.13 Ghz Benchmarks Showing Up!

That's pretty stunning. Though that does put it at 1700+ dollars. Not a cheap machine. But the last one started at 1500 dollars and still found owners.
 
wingnut8 said:
I want to see benchmarks vs the 1.86 w/ 4GB of ram.
Click to expand...

http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/305731

2718 for the 1.86 vs. 3105 for the 2.13 = 14% performance increase for a 14.5% clock speed increase. Not bad, and I'm glad I went with the 2.13. Coming from a 2.8 ghz Macbook Pro that I just benched at 3835, I can take a 24% performance loss on the CPU end for having something so portable with even better battery life. :)
 
drvelocity said:
http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/305731

2718 for the 1.86 vs. 3105 for the 2.13 = 14% performance increase for a 14.5% clock speed increase. Not bad, and I'm glad I went with the 2.13. Coming from a 2.8 ghz Macbook Pro that I just benched at 3835, I can take a 24% performance loss on the CPU end for having something so portable with even better battery life. :)
Click to expand...

But the 2.13 has a 4gb ram and the 1.86 has 2 gb ram only.
 
These are my scores on my 13" Rev C Macbook Air - 2.13 w/ SSD HDD:

32-bit benchmarks: http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/305319
64-bit benchmarks: http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/305274


For those too lazy to click or just want the numeric score, my 32-bit test garnered a 2865 Geekbench 2 and my 64-bit test grabbed a 3099 Geekbench 2 score. Feel free to refer to the above links, if you need the details.

I figured I'd post these for reference. Having had a Rev A and this Rev C, I'd totally be all over the new Rev D MBA 13 2.13 w/ 4GB RAM BTO, but the lack of backlit keys are a bit of a deal breaker for me.
 
Slower than my 4,1 MBP

ntrigue said:
The Air is faster than my $2400 (2007) MacBook Pro :)
Click to expand...

Nice.

Although it's not going to be a deal breaker for me, I do wish I could say the same as my tried tested and still true 4,1 (early 2008) 15" MBP scores higher....results here.

I finally got my hands on yesterday and spent about an hour on each of the 11 and 13 base models, and was very impressed indeed. The marginal score difference is hardly enough for me to not realize the benefits of a much smaller, lighter, newer, cooler (in both regards) machine that still felt way snappier. The put me over the fence kicker is one of these 13" MBA will give me a drastic increase over my old baby's horrible 3 1/2 hours or less battery life. Looking and feeling really cool with a sexy and svelte new Mac while surfing and sipping a pint at our local brewery never hurt either. :D
 
drvelocity said:
http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/305731

2718 for the 1.86 vs. 3105 for the 2.13 = 14% performance increase for a 14.5% clock speed increase. Not bad, and I'm glad I went with the 2.13. Coming from a 2.8 ghz Macbook Pro that I just benched at 3835, I can take a 24% performance loss on the CPU end for having something so portable with even better battery life. :)
Click to expand...

I doubt you'll see any performance loss, but more likely a performance gain. Those tests are based on processor intensive tasks that totally max out the cpu. In real life 99% of the people just don't run apps that do that. For the kind of use most people use their computers for the fast flash drive, graphics card and generous L2 cache gives us a performance boost that you can definitely see.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back