Are you sure they didn't just take the old benchmarks and compared them with the new one? If they dind't (i coulden't find the old review) my theory is just... stupidI would assume MW does its tests under the SAME environmental conditions...
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
New MacBook Air Slower Than Older Model?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yes, mine had (sold it) the HD not the SSD, and this generation MBAir has a bus-speed that's twice as fast as the original.
I don't get this statement. What the heck is "weird" about a CHEAPER model being slower??? Gee, do you think that maybe, just maybe reducing costs could result in a less powerful product or do more expensive computers just cost more because they look pretty? If the new model was MORE EXPENSIVE then yes, I would expect it to be FASTER. Clearly, the Macbook Air was not a big seller because of its high cost. Apple addressed that and now people still aren't happy because it's slightly slower. Amazing.
Thermal Issue
This is clearly a thermal issue.
If you read forum posts about the original MBA they all run very hot and if you remember the first batch was notorious for switching off the second core for heat reasons.
This just looks like Apple finally recognized that this is not fixable unless they throttle the CPU even further. Hope this help running the new revision cooler than Rev B.
More and more it seems that the MBA is over-engineered. Not really fully nailed yet.
And I'm sure Apple is currently mulling over whether they should invest more time and money to re-engineer it, or whether they should just let the MBA slowly fade into the background...
Seeing that Rev C. hasn't really seen much of a change at all, I think Apple long decided on the latter.
They just don't want to lose face by killing it right away.
This is clearly a thermal issue.
If you read forum posts about the original MBA they all run very hot and if you remember the first batch was notorious for switching off the second core for heat reasons.
This just looks like Apple finally recognized that this is not fixable unless they throttle the CPU even further. Hope this help running the new revision cooler than Rev B.
More and more it seems that the MBA is over-engineered. Not really fully nailed yet.
And I'm sure Apple is currently mulling over whether they should invest more time and money to re-engineer it, or whether they should just let the MBA slowly fade into the background...
Seeing that Rev C. hasn't really seen much of a change at all, I think Apple long decided on the latter.
They just don't want to lose face by killing it right away.
I think Apple would be wise to completely skip Arrandale/Clarksfield and wait for 32nm Westmere chips.
Not only will it be hard to market a 2.0GHz machine as being an improvement over the existing 3.06GHz machine, the 2.0GHz Clarksfield is expected to cost $400 more than the 3.06 Penryn.
I don't believe the world is ready for a $3000 iMac that, for many tasks, can't keep up with a $1200 refurb.
I wouldn't count on seeing Sandy Bridge until 2011. The economy is still down, AMD isn't presenting any serious threat and Intel likes to get a full year out of each tick and tock. Unless external forces change dramatically in the next year I would bet Westmere will be the chip du jour throughout 2010.
Arrandale is Westmere. Plus, Clarksfield may not make it to 32 nm.
Sandy Bridge appears to be early 2011 for midrange and high-end variants and 2012 for low-end variants.
There probably haven't been big changes in the hardware for cost savings, the CPU's didn't change. It was mostly perceived as a price drop by Apple than anything else. So we all are surprised if performance is less than before. That's not too hard to understand (even if your general points are still correct.)
I think the possibility that CPU speeds are being throttled more is a very sound hypothesis for lower performance. If indeed performance has decreased in this new rev, which we don't really know for sure.
I think the possibility that CPU speeds are being throttled more is a very sound hypothesis for lower performance. If indeed performance has decreased in this new rev, which we don't really know for sure.
This sounds very reasonable, but I hope you are wrong... can’t wait to get the next (hopefully improved) version of the MBA in late 2009 or early 2010.
ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS!
Look.. Here the deal.
The battery life depends on Apples aggressive thermal management. If I want to play games, even MAME, I have to use Coolbook to override OSX management/throttling. (At the cost of Battery Life)
With Windows 7 64 under Bootcamp, you can clearly see the improvement. L4D, COD4 an other games play much better than the 1.86.
This is a bunch of crap. Good job MacRumors posting the obvious when it comes to ALL ultra portables on the market. However, most of them accomplish this by using low end or ULV chips that are slow in the first place.
BTW.. My 2.16 xbench score is 154. Old 1.86 was 126
Actually, all Apple needs to do is add and power saving and high performance setting.
Look.. Here the deal.
The battery life depends on Apples aggressive thermal management. If I want to play games, even MAME, I have to use Coolbook to override OSX management/throttling. (At the cost of Battery Life)
With Windows 7 64 under Bootcamp, you can clearly see the improvement. L4D, COD4 an other games play much better than the 1.86.
This is a bunch of crap. Good job MacRumors posting the obvious when it comes to ALL ultra portables on the market. However, most of them accomplish this by using low end or ULV chips that are slow in the first place.
BTW.. My 2.16 xbench score is 154. Old 1.86 was 126
Actually, all Apple needs to do is add and power saving and high performance setting.
expected response
I knew upon entering the thread that many would question the results.
But the same people who condemn and scrutinize negative results never seem to invest similar time and resources to doing the same with positive reports
Anyhow, having returned a 1st generation MB AIR, I can see how the results could be plausible. Apple is stuck with the thin design as it's biggest selling point (it could still be lighter and narrower). The thing just does not dissipate heat effectively and processors will throttle back under the slightest stress.
If huge price chops are any indicator, it's a form over function design that will likely see a slow death. It's one of the few apple products that I have had several geniuses and employees discourage me from buying.
I knew upon entering the thread that many would question the results.
But the same people who condemn and scrutinize negative results never seem to invest similar time and resources to doing the same with positive reports
Anyhow, having returned a 1st generation MB AIR, I can see how the results could be plausible. Apple is stuck with the thin design as it's biggest selling point (it could still be lighter and narrower). The thing just does not dissipate heat effectively and processors will throttle back under the slightest stress.
If huge price chops are any indicator, it's a form over function design that will likely see a slow death. It's one of the few apple products that I have had several geniuses and employees discourage me from buying.
Clarksfield is 45nm and Arrandale is 32nm.
$300 to $500 for a mobile quad falls in quite nicely with the current mobile Core 2 Quad crop.
Then again the iMac isn't using a quad core processor today. Yet another mess Apple needs to explain and is going to feel the pain of these new slower clocked Intel processors. 32nm isn't going to render much higher clock speeds either.
I wouldn't be surprised if Apple just kept dropping in faster mobile Core 2 Duo processors and even overclocking some to give the impression of progress.
I own the previous gen macbook air and it's nice and fast, unless it gets hot. After that it is dog slow. The faster the clock speed, the faster it will get hot.
This gives terrible results when you push the CPU (eg: a bench test like the one given), but in *real use* it's nice and fast, since normal people only spike the processor to 100% for a few seconds at a time, followed by minutes of near idle usage.
It seems likely the top end model gets a bad score because of the poor cooling at ultraportable form factors, but in real use it would be faster.
I'd like to see a bench test of, for example, resizing a 10MB photo, or launching an app, or web pages with a heavy of javascript (as in gmail. not sunspider).
This gives terrible results when you push the CPU (eg: a bench test like the one given), but in *real use* it's nice and fast, since normal people only spike the processor to 100% for a few seconds at a time, followed by minutes of near idle usage.
It seems likely the top end model gets a bad score because of the poor cooling at ultraportable form factors, but in real use it would be faster.
I'd like to see a bench test of, for example, resizing a 10MB photo, or launching an app, or web pages with a heavy of javascript (as in gmail. not sunspider).
Frankly I'd take a Dell Mini 9 running OS X over a MacBook Air for the same money. More USB ports, Ethernet, and above all vastly superior portability.
Despite running only a 1.6 Atom the performance is ridiculously close to the MacBook Air.
So many of us would have paid Apple decent money for a Mac Netbook, we didn't want a 13" laptop however thin it is.
Despite running only a 1.6 Atom the performance is ridiculously close to the MacBook Air.
So many of us would have paid Apple decent money for a Mac Netbook, we didn't want a 13" laptop however thin it is.
Yeah, Apple would rather make underpowered expensive machines.
Also, you quoted a post that said the Air is a second machine. A second machine doesn't have to be powerful, but you would expect it to be cheaper than your main machine.
One thing I don't completely get about the MBA.
How weak are you mofos?
How minuscule is your backpack or briefcase?
Are you elves or something?
I stick a 17" MBP in my messenger-type bag everywhere I go, and the 7lb (or whatever it is) is hardly noticeable.
Granted I am 6'3" and 190lbs, but still. I'm pretty sure that my grandmother can carry it.
If you can get a regular 15" MBP with a fast processor, twice the ram, larger drive, discrete graphics card and larger screen vs. a 13" air for about the same price ... is the two pounds and half inch savings REALLY worth it?
I mean, no offense ... but damn.
Aren't you just wasting space in the computer bag that could be filled with better hardware in a slightly larger package?
If you are built like Mr. Burns from the Simpsons, I get it.
I just don't what the allure is for a computer the width of a sheet of paper.
Past a certain point of "smallness", it's just a bragging point. I can't imagine someone saying "You know, I was going to take my Macbook with me, but it's just sooooo huge". Thank god for the Air and the whopping one pound savings. Now I can bring it with me!!!
Why not just drive a go-cart instead of a full-sized car too?
After all, it's smaller.
I've used the illustrious Air, and it's got a "gee-whiz" thing going, but I just can't imagine giving up specs to save a pound and an inch.
I find the 17" inch to be very managable on all but airline back seats, and the 15" is more than thin and light enough for even pixies.
Any Air users stressing about performance needs to get their cranium examined.
If you cared anything about performance, you would get a proper laptop which any seven year old can manage with ease, and which realistically ... fits anywhere the air does.
You don't really carry them around in legal envelopes do you?
How weak are you mofos?
How minuscule is your backpack or briefcase?
Are you elves or something?
I stick a 17" MBP in my messenger-type bag everywhere I go, and the 7lb (or whatever it is) is hardly noticeable.
Granted I am 6'3" and 190lbs, but still. I'm pretty sure that my grandmother can carry it.
If you can get a regular 15" MBP with a fast processor, twice the ram, larger drive, discrete graphics card and larger screen vs. a 13" air for about the same price ... is the two pounds and half inch savings REALLY worth it?
I mean, no offense ... but damn.
Aren't you just wasting space in the computer bag that could be filled with better hardware in a slightly larger package?
If you are built like Mr. Burns from the Simpsons, I get it.
I just don't what the allure is for a computer the width of a sheet of paper.
Past a certain point of "smallness", it's just a bragging point. I can't imagine someone saying "You know, I was going to take my Macbook with me, but it's just sooooo huge". Thank god for the Air and the whopping one pound savings. Now I can bring it with me!!!
Why not just drive a go-cart instead of a full-sized car too?
After all, it's smaller.
I've used the illustrious Air, and it's got a "gee-whiz" thing going, but I just can't imagine giving up specs to save a pound and an inch.
I find the 17" inch to be very managable on all but airline back seats, and the 15" is more than thin and light enough for even pixies.
Any Air users stressing about performance needs to get their cranium examined.
If you cared anything about performance, you would get a proper laptop which any seven year old can manage with ease, and which realistically ... fits anywhere the air does.
You don't really carry them around in legal envelopes do you?
First off, I would buy a tablet or smaller device is Apple made one toughguy. I work on my feet 10+ hours a day in the design feild. Your telling me that loosing 2+ lbs and a god awful glassy screen is not worth it in my position? 17 inch? I'd rather carry a server in a backpack.
Stop being an ass.
Stop being an ass.
hehe, point well made sir.
I have always wondered about this as well. Macrumors members really really need to hit the gym.
Success of the macbook air is nothing more than a heap of marketing coupled with pseudo-rationalization on the part of people who buy it.
I remember this one poster writing about how he has to walk 2 miles to school everyday, and how a laptop 1.3 lbs. lighter made all the difference.
this person is seriously malnourished, and definitely needs some spinach.
its amazing how people rationalize their purchases, such as this student. He must be really happy with a slightly lighter laptop, whilst lugging around 15 lb. textbooks simultaneously.
True, but todays componets put out WAY more heat than those in that era. Look at the 13 MBP, my MBA xbenches faster than the 2.56! (without the MBP having SSD) one could also argue that the MBA is the most durable Apple product out without all the glsss.
Please do tell. Especially with all this process shrinking and voltage lowering.
Wow.. I don't even know how to reply to this. So in your opinion ALL computers are getting cooler? I find the oposite witout even scratching the surface of replying to your comment.
Hence the need for Apple to throttle the CPU