Warming-up for the all-new redesigned retina 2014 (2015?) MacBook Air

[chleuasme]

My Haswell MBA will happily run at full turbo boost indefinitely, and the fan doesn't even spin up that much.

Hmmm, either you live in a fridge or you're in fact not in max speed turbo boost constantly because speeds in fact adjusts on load? A heavy graphic game for example would maybe let you hear more the fan I guess, asking more ressources continually.


Last news today show specs of higher-end Core M Broadwell CPU, that can be used up to 6W, enough to imagine similar performances on paper as current Haswell low-end 15W chips:
https://www.macrumors.com/2014/11/02/intel-broadwell-core-m-macbook
But that can't lead to expect a fanless design, intel specs posted earlier in the thread seems clear on that (and the Lenovo convertible using an even lower-end Core M shows it).

 

[motrek]

Hmmm, either you live in a fridge or you're in fact not in max speed turbo boost constantly because speeds in fact adjusts on load? A heavy graphic game for example would maybe let you hear more the fan I guess, asking more ressources continually.

Good point, I don't do anything to stress the GPU. But I can and do stress the CPU at times and it's easy to monitor via Intel's Power Gadget software. It does not experience thermal throttling even with both cores running at 100% for several hours.

Maybe if I was playing a 3-D game it would be a different story, not sure.

Broadwell is supposed to use 30% less power than Haswell, so I would expect a 10W Broadwell part to perform as well as a 15W Haswell part. Not 4.5W or 6W.

 

[chleuasme]

Broadwell is supposed to use 30% less power than Haswell, so I would expect a 10W Broadwell part to perform as well as a 15W Haswell part. Not 4.5W or 6W.

If the game with a tick was only to shrink a previous design, probably 11.5W would allow similar performances,
but the GPU is enhanced in design and having gained room to add more transistors, and CPU is tweaked (5% faster clock for clock with Haswell, it doesn't only come from the switch to 14 nm).
Plus, we only talk about TDP, but my understanding is the 15W is more like the contract guarantying full performances against being cooled down; in practice, it's used at a lower power when few resources are used.

Looking at the specs of the low-end 2014 Air made around a Haswell Core i5-4260U, you have a dual 1.4/2.7 GHz CPU with 3MB of L3 with a HD 5000 at 200/1000 MHz.
With the higher-end Core M still at 4.5W, you have a dual 1.2/2.9 GHz CPU with 4MB of L3 with a HD 5300 at 300/900 MHz. And at 6W, you can tweak the specs to even get better if I follow.
The only difference is you're not allowed to have thermal go high too fast to sustain high speed, and as desktop tasks with a modern OS as OS X are demanding, the whole difficulty probably resides in cooling.
But on paper, it appears to me performances could be comparable.

 

[Serban]

The retina on the MBA is the last thing to add to become the perfect laptop for customers

 

[skaertus]

The retina on the MBA is the last thing to add to become the perfect laptop for customers

Well, from that perspective, actually, the 13-inch MBA is not that different from a 13-inch rMBP. So, the 13-inch rMBP would be the perfect laptop for customers?

 

[motrek]

If the game with a tick was only to shrink a previous design, probably 11.5W would allow similar performances,
but the GPU is enhanced in design and having gained room to add more transistors, and CPU is tweaked (5% faster clock for clock with Haswell, it doesn't only come from the switch to 14 nm).
Plus, we only talk about TDP, but my understanding is the 15W is more like the contract guarantying full performances against being cooled down; in practice, it's used at a lower power when few resources are used.

Looking at the specs of the low-end 2014 Air made around a Haswell Core i5-4260U, you have a dual 1.4/2.7 GHz CPU with 3MB of L3 with a HD 5000 at 200/1000 MHz.
With the higher-end Core M still at 4.5W, you have a dual 1.2/2.9 GHz CPU with 4MB of L3 with a HD 5300 at 300/900 MHz. And at 6W, you can tweak the specs to even get better if I follow.
The only difference is you're not allowed to have thermal go high too fast to sustain high speed, and as desktop tasks with a modern OS as OS X are demanding, the whole difficulty probably resides in cooling.
But on paper, it appears to me performances could be comparable.

You're on the right track. TDP stands for "Thermal Design Power." So if you're designing a computer to use a 15W chip, you have to design it to cool 15W worth of heat coming off of that chip to get the manufacturer-advertised performance.

The real issue here is how long these chips can sustain their turbo boost speeds, because frankly operating at their base clock speeds of 1.2 or 1.4 or whatever is kind of crap.

So, it's very possible for a 4.5W Core M CPU to perform as well as (or better than) a 15W Haswell if you're doing something CPU-intensive for just a few seconds. But if you do something intensive for a few minutes, such as transcoding a video file or playing a video game or something like that, the Haswell will end up performing twice as well.

 

[chleuasme]

The real issue here is how long these chips can sustain their turbo boost speeds, because frankly operating at their base clock speeds of 1.2 or 1.4 or whatever is kind of crap.

It depends on the use cases; with most operations on OS X and basic apps, usability shouldn't be much crippled; they already often run on today's Haswell in fact at under 1GHz.

So, it's very possible for a 4.5W Core M CPU to perform as well as (or better than) a 15W Haswell if you're doing something CPU-intensive for just a few seconds. But if you do something intensive for a few minutes, such as transcoding a video file or playing a video game or something like that, the Haswell will end up performing twice as well.

And, cooling is the problem. Now again, how much performances are important on a low-end line of laptops for simple users? On your example, 30sec 1080p vids won't be a problem.
I completely agree that's going backward and I'd prefer Apple to offer to any system they sell the capacity to also support to work hard and for example transcode 4K movies without melting or take a week. But is it their approach? Is it anyway reasonable to use a line of laptop built to be ultra-thin and light for such heavy tasks?
Games are the bottleneck as always.

 

[motrek]

...
I completely agree that's going backward and I'd prefer Apple to offer to any system they sell the capacity to also support to work hard and for example transcode 4K movies without melting or take a week. But is it their approach? Is it anyway reasonable to use a line of laptop built to be ultra-thin and light for such heavy tasks?
Games are the bottleneck as always.

I fully agree that for most users and use cases, they probably wouldn't notice a difference between a Core M and a Haswell.

But, "they probably won't notice" is a pretty crap reason to put a slower processor in a computer, wouldn't you agree?

Also, "most users" doesn't mean "all users." Frankly I'm very happy with the fact that my ultra-light, ultra-small, ultra-thin Haswell MBA has a substantial amount of processing power. I don't use it often, but when I do, I appreciate it, and I appreciate knowing that I have it.

If Apple started putting Core Ms in the MBAs I would definitely have to have a re-think about whether or not to buy or recommend them. Probably I would want an older model with as Haswell, as seemingly backwards as that seems. Sort of like how people are now seeking out 2012 Mac Minis with quad core i7s instead of the current crippled models.

And I know I'm not alone. Notice that on this forum, probably once or twice per week somebody posts about how they are very impressed and pleased that their new MBA is able to do substantial tasks like heavy video editing.

 

[chleuasme]

I agree 100% on everything. But then, they exactly made the 2014 mini.

We are at a transitional moment, a bit like when the first MBA models were offering very degraded performances, but that was the price for ultra-mobility and a first step for what we have now.
The rename of the Core M line with Broadwell is a lot of marketing, but objectively, it seems to be the first chips to start to look good at these low TDP.
Either Apple continues to wait until performances comes with next ticks and tocks, or they decide this can be good enough to design a new generation of "ultra-ultrabooks" around smaller TDP chips, with of course future versions in the visor.

In any case, the first generation of a redesign will appear/be crippled, they'd have to stop upgrading current 15W-based lines to replace it with a next generation based on a lower-power and less powerful line of chips. Waiting for SkyLake for example, they would have to skip Broadwell on current 15W-based MBA or face the same kind of criticism.

 

[Serban]

Well, from that perspective, actually, the 13-inch MBA is not that different from a 13-inch rMBP. So, the 13-inch rMBP would be the perfect laptop for customers?

13" macbook pro it is heavier and thicker and with a lower battery life

 

[skaertus]

13" macbook pro it is heavier and thicker and with a lower battery life

It is also faster and it has a smaller frame than the Air. The Pro has a lower battery life because of the battery, there is no workaround. And it is heavier and thicker to accomodate the battery, but the difference in weight is not much.

 

[gugy]

I wondering if some of you can shed some light on my conundrum.

I need to get a laptop to use when I travel for work. I am between the MBA 11" or 13" or the MBPr 13".
My work is mostly Photoshop(huge files up to 1gb)/Illustrator/Bridge open at all times. I am graphic designer. The size of screen is not a huge deal because I will have a TB display available.

I am wondering if I go the Air route adding more RAM would be enough. This is a secondary computer, my main work happens with a MacPro at 12 cores but I need to have an option when I travel.
I like the price and size of the Air but the Retina 13" would have a better performance but in my situation I wonder if it is worth the price difference. I don't want to invest too much $$$ because this is a computer that will not see much use after all.
Thanks

 

[chleuasme]

There is a lot of criticism about the MBA screen quality (not talking here about pixel density difference with the rMBP), and for your professional graphic designer eyes it might be to consider, too. If you did not already check, see them in person before buying anything.

Hard to tell without knowing exactly how intensive are the tasks you do with CS, but a maxed out in RAM MBA13 could very well be a good deal, maybe even the MBA11 with a TB screen always at hand. Now, such apps mostly relying on CPU, the rMBP will always be more comfortable, and the screen more appealing for graphic tasks.
You really need that fantasized $~1k 15W rMBP12

 

[motrek]

...
I like the price and size of the Air but the Retina 13" would have a better performance but in my situation I wonder if it is worth the price difference. I don't want to invest too much $$$ because this is a computer that will not see much use after all.
Thanks

Don't let the base clock speeds fool you (1.4GHz vs. 2.5GHz or whatever). What you really want to look at are the turbo boost clock speeds which are really pretty close between the MBA and the MBP. So the MBA will only be some small percentage slower than the MBP when it comes to photo editing.

The only exception would be if you use filters that are OpenCL accelerated, in which case the MBP's superior graphics "card" might make it significantly faster. I don't know how common such filters are though. You might not use them at all, or only rarely.

 

[skaertus]

I wondering if some of you can shed some light on my conundrum.

I need to get a laptop to use when I travel for work. I am between the MBA 11" or 13" or the MBPr 13".
My work is mostly Photoshop(huge files up to 1gb)/Illustrator/Bridge open at all times. I am graphic designer. The size of screen is not a huge deal because I will have a TB display available.

I am wondering if I go the Air route adding more RAM would be enough. This is a secondary computer, my main work happens with a MacPro at 12 cores but I need to have an option when I travel.
I like the price and size of the Air but the Retina 13" would have a better performance but in my situation I wonder if it is worth the price difference. I don't want to invest too much $$$ because this is a computer that will not see much use after all.
Thanks

I guess it depends on how long you plan to stay with it.

For short term, the 13-inch base MacBook Air for some US$ 1,099 could be enough, if you can handle the 128 GB SSD.

If you plan to stay with the laptop for a longer period of time, the retina MacBook Pro may be worth the investment. In this case, you should get at least the mid-range version for US$ 1,499. You also have the option to put 16 GB RAM and 1 TB SSD on it, and the MacBook Air offers no such options. While the laptop will cost more, it will also last longer.

 

[gugy]

Don't let the base clock speeds fool you (1.4GHz vs. 2.5GHz or whatever). What you really want to look at are the turbo boost clock speeds which are really pretty close between the MBA and the MBP. So the MBA will only be some small percentage slower than the MBP when it comes to photo editing.

The only exception would be if you use filters that are OpenCL accelerated, in which case the MBP's superior graphics "card" might make it significantly faster. I don't know how common such filters are though. You might not use them at all, or only rarely.

Interesting, I wasn't aware of this.
I use Adobe CS6 not sure the filters there take too much advantage of Open CL. The biggest thing is saving and managing my files that have tons of layers and folders.

----------

I guess it depends on how long you plan to stay with it.

For short term, the 13-inch base MacBook Air for some US$ 1,099 could be enough, if you can handle the 128 GB SSD.

If you plan to stay with the laptop for a longer period of time, the retina MacBook Pro may be worth the investment. In this case, you should get at least the mid-range version for US$ 1,499. You also have the option to put 16 GB RAM and 1 TB SSD on it, and the MacBook Air offers no such options. While the laptop will cost more, it will also last longer.

The storage is an issue but not big one. 256gb should be more than enough. RAM yes, I think 8gb at least, ideally 16. I don't think I would keep the laptop for too long. I can see the point of the rMBP being a better resale value.
What I like a lot about the Air is the size and weight to carry around and surf the net and email.
The retina 13 is a sweet spot in terms of weight, size and performance . I might go that route. We'll see.

 

[motrek]

Interesting, I wasn't aware of this.
I use Adobe CS6 not sure the filters there take too much advantage of Open CL. The biggest thing is saving and managing my files that have tons of layers and folders. ...

In that case all the relevant internals, i.e., RAM and SSD, are effectively the same between a MBA and a MBP. I'd say go ahead and get the MBA.

 

[skaertus]

The storage is an issue but not big one. 256gb should be more than enough. RAM yes, I think 8gb at least, ideally 16. I don't think I would keep the laptop for too long. I can see the point of the rMBP being a better resale value.
What I like a lot about the Air is the size and weight to carry around and surf the net and email.
The retina 13 is a sweet spot in terms of weight, size and performance . I might go that route. We'll see.

The 13-inch retina MacBook Pro is a great laptop. I would recommend it over the Air in any case, except if you want to save money (in that case you may well get a cheap PC then).

 

[gugy]

The 13-inch retina MacBook Pro is a great laptop. I would recommend it over the Air in any case, except if you want to save money (in that case you may well get a cheap PC then).

No doubt.
I am considering get a Mac Mini instead. Since where I travel they have a TB display available, I just need to carry a keyboard and mouse.
If I had other uses to a laptop, I would definitely get one but bang for the buck the 2012 Mini's with max out RAM (16gb) and SSD (128gb) are still much lower in price with similar specs than the Macbook front.

 

[skaertus]

No doubt.
I am considering get a Mac Mini instead. Since where I travel they have a TB display available, I just need to carry a keyboard and mouse.
If I had other uses to a laptop, I would definitely get one but bang for the buck the 2012 Mini's with max out RAM (16gb) and SSD (128gb) are still much lower in price with similar specs than the Macbook front.

Well, if you intend to buy a 2012 computer with no screen and does not matter carrying a keyboard and a mouse around... then it may be worth it. But a laptop is still more portable and you can use it on the go.

 

[kmaute]

Well, if you intend to buy a 2012 computer with no screen and does not matter carrying a keyboard and a mouse around... then it may be worth it. But a laptop is still more portable and you can use it on the go.

Are you really interested in buying a new Mac? It's still going to run the crappy version of Office.

 

[Serban]

just wait for the new model...and after that we can compare...if they can make retina with at least 10-11h usage, and even lighter...then the gap between air and pro is higher (lighter, cheaper for those who care, and maybe with 8gb Ram standard)

 

[Serban]

Next macbook air generation will have 2732x 1536 so around 240 ppi

 

[motrek]

Next macbook air generation will have 2732x 1536 so around 240 ppi

What in god's name are you talking about. Why would a retina MBA have a higher resolution than a retina MBP with the same panel size?

 

[Serban]

What in god's name are you talking about. Why would a retina MBA have a higher resolution than a retina MBP with the same panel size?

than what macbook pro? (lets not forget until retina macbook air had a better resolution 900p vs 800p)
and again MBP has 1600p i am talking about 1536p