Processor wise: New MacBook vs 2012 MacBook Air

Discussion in 'MacBook' started by bzavala, Mar 9, 2015.

  1. bzavala macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2012
    #1
    Hi all,

    Processor wise, is the new MacBook better than a 2012 MacBook Air with Core i7 processor? I currently use my MacBook Air and use Lightroom heavily, but it handles OK. Was wondering if the new MacBook will perform better or at least the same.

    Thanks in advance.

    Ben
     
  2. Mais78 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2014
    #2
    Same question but vs Mac Mini 2014 i5 2.6Ghz. 4k support at 60hz?
     
  3. Skika macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2009
    #3
    I would say worse.
     
  4. flur macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2012
    #4
    I'm in the same situation - 2012 i7 MBA and I use Lightroom, Photoshop, and a VM with no issues. If I can do that on the new 12", I'll buy it, but the reviews of the chip so far are not great. I don't expect it to do what our current MBAs can do without some issues.
     
  5. Matthias46 macrumors newbie

    Matthias46

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2014
    #5
    Very interested in this! Someone can provide some solid infos? :D
     
  6. alex0002 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Location:
    New Zealand
    #6
    You'll probably need to wait for some reviews. I suspect it could get interesting after the new fanless Macbook warms up.
     
  7. definitive macrumors 68000

    definitive

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2008
    #7
    agreed with this. my guess is that we'll be seeing a mba comparison done by barefeats.
     
  8. HelsinkiMac macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2010
    #8
    I expect (hope!) Apple will have worked hard to get the most out of the processor in terms of power, cooling and minimising throttling, so we probably have the best chance of seeing what coreM can actually do in these new machines. It's encouraging that in the buy to order GPU model they seem to have actually overvolted it to give a base frequency 0.1GHz HIGHER than the advertised base frequency of the top of the range coreM (the M-5Y71). That's actually allowed for in the specs for that processor, and seems to mean that it will be running closer to 6W than the 4.5W nominal TDP, which also is encouraging as it suggests they have done the opposite of the first laptops using these processors that limited the TDP to around 3W instead of the nominal 4.5W...

    Can't wait for the first tests, as a well designed chassis which this seems to be should let the M-5Y71 do its thing as well as possible, and that might allow results close to if not as good as the i5s and i7s of older generation MBAs etc.
     
  9. LV-16 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2013
    #9
    I'm coming from an early 2011 13" MBP and having trouble deciding which MacBook to get next as well. I guess I'll have to wait and see the performance scores.

    Also, do you guys think the rMBP line will get an upgrade again soon, since only the 13" rMBP was updated today?
     
  10. RoboWarriorSr macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2013
    #10
    Apparently someone mentioned it will only support 1080p out, no other resolution, not even 1900*1200 (probably black bars on those displays).
     
  11. bzavala thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2012
  12. flur macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2012
    #12
    I expect the rMBP line will be updated in the fall with Skylake, but I'm just guessing at this point.

    I'd love to see them make the MBPs lighter, and/or release a 12" pro version, but I'm not expecting any of that this year.
     
  13. jakesaunders27 macrumors 6502a

    jakesaunders27

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2012
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #13
    I have a baseline 2012 11 inch Air. Would like to replace it with the new rMB. Would be a companion to my Mac Pro so I think the speed should be ok for me, looking forward to some comparisons.
     
  14. Freyqq macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2004
    #14
    Look at the core m reviews from the pc market. It's really slow, which is not a surprise. Core M is 4.5 watts, and the core i5/i7 in the air is 15 watts.
     
  15. LV-16 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2013
    #15
    Oh okay that makes sense. And that's exactly what I'm looking for as well in the rMBP, time will tell. I'd go with the current Air if it's resolution was better.
     
  16. iamMacPerson macrumors 68030

    iamMacPerson

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2011
    Location:
    AZ/10.0.1.1
    #16
  17. Mais78 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2014
    #17
    I think that processor is 4k capable (remember checking on Intel website in the past) but not sure about I/O of this mac. These days you need at least a dp port and usb to run 4k at 60hz.
     
  18. jsnuff1 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2003
    Location:
    NY
    #18
    These Core M processors are no where near as powerful as the Airs i5/7. I really don't understand why anyone would be one. The airs are cheaper, more powerful, and pretty much have the same design.
     
  19. TheWelshBoyo macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2008
    Location:
    Cardiff, Wales
    #19
    Yeah, Core M has been a colossal disappointment in Windows computers. Even with the optimisations Apple can make when developing for a more limited set of CPUs, I don't see Core M being of much use at all.
    This is a proper first-gen device, with little point for most people. But it will set the trend. The second or third generation Retina MacBook will fix the majority of the problems with the existing one (second USB-C port, maybe even third?), better battery life, an actually usable CPU etc.
     
  20. HelsinkiMac macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2010
    #20
    The Anantech review of the reference intel coreM system said it ran at 6W and beat a 15W i5 Surface pro 3 in tablet benchmarks:

    http://www.anandtech.com/show/8515/quick-look-at-core-m-5y70-and-llama-mountain

    The promising thing is the 1.3GHz Macbook option also uses a higher than base TDP and an updated processor compared to the one they tested - the Macbook one has a 300Mhz higher turbo, and 300 Mhz vs 100 Mhz base and 900Mhz vs 850Mhz turbo GPU so should be even better than the tested one.

    On the whole I'm cautiously optimistic for decent performance. It's never going to beat current gen i5 or i7 processors (which were just updated on i.e. the MBA) but for those of us coming from an older MBP or MBA (mine is a 2010!) it should certainly be reasonable for light to medium use. My 2010 MBA is starting to creak a little but I use it as a research scientist for absolutely everything other than heavy 3D data sets (and even then, files of up to about 2GB are OK, it's those 30GB 3D volumes it just can't quite handle!)
     
  21. Val-kyrie macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2005
    #22
    rMB: Tablet in Disguise

    The problem is that I don't want a tablet--I already have one. I want a laptop. As others have pointed out, this is less a laptop and more a tablet with attached keyboard and a more functional OS. No thanks.

     
  22. venom600 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2003
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    #23
    That's what everyone was hoping. In actual machines, it's been a massive disappointment. The best I've read about it is that it is passable as long as you don't get too crazy with multitasking. It's more Atom (netbook processor) than Core iX.
     
  23. Diversion macrumors 6502a

    Diversion

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2007
    Location:
    Jacksonville, Florida
    #24
    It's pretty clear that Core M is a slot between the 15 watters and Atom CPUs.. Think of it like a more powerful Atom but using all the high end memory and SSD buses on a Core I style setup.. This may sound confusing but imagine a Baytrail Atom with more modern SSD setup and more memory, you'd find it running probably within 15% of a Core M cpu.

    For 95% or more of folks, Core M does everything they need in a PC and does it FAST.. The difference between using a 15" MBP and a Core M to most folks will be nearly imperceptable.

    Anybody who needs to drive production/media/encoding/musical type applications, there is a reason Apple didn't give the new Macbook a Pro moniker.. It's not Pro enough for that..

    This new Macbook is just a machine that Apple made for folks who want all day battery, high resolution, and a no-bs just works mentality. It's basically what the Air used to be.. Now it's the Air that is all confused in the line-up.. the Air has a much more powerful CPU/GPU combo at 15 watts.. but yet still lacks Retina IPS..

    The Air with Retina would be the sweet spot for portable-power but Apple just refuses to put Retina in it still.

    ----------

    Core M has been a massive disappointment because the current machines that employ it, aside from a few still have fans, don't get the battery life Core M promised, throttle more than you'd expect under load (especially the fanless models), etc.. And lastly, because the Core M machines cost as much as a i7 15 watter ULV.. And the 15 watter ULV Broadwells are netting the same battery life as a Core M..

    The issue is that it's the new hotness (no pun) to have a fanless machine that is almost 80% the performance of a 15 watter (fan required) machine so manufacturers keep the price the same and hope you buy into the 'fanless' craze.

    Me, I love fanless, no dust bunnies, no worries about over-time heat issues (maybe still an issue but going to be far less).. stuff like that is great, no moving parts. this is the future of computing yes.. But if you ask me, i'd wait for 2nd gen Core M.
     
  24. Dekimasu macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2008
    Location:
    Illinois
    #25
    Notebookcheck results seem to indicate the performance is somewhat comparable between M-5Y70 and i5-4200U...
     

Share This Page