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.
What if the New 12" MBA Used an A8 Chip?
- Thread starter iRun26.2
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
No I wouldn't be interested. Putting off buying a rMBP in hope of an Intel rMBA being released soon.
If an A8 powered MacBook Air comes along instead, I'll just buy a rMBP.
If an A8 powered MacBook Air comes along instead, I'll just buy a rMBP.
I don't think they will, but I'm sure if they did 90% of consumers wouldn't know the difference or care. Even I wouldn't care, as long as it could match the performance of the i5 and run common programs.
I think we're at least 3 generations away from an Arm powered laptop from Apple though.
I think we're at least 3 generations away from an Arm powered laptop from Apple though.
But that's what Microsoft thought about the Surface RT: Many customers had no clue, until they couldn't run their old software. Then they returned it!
Would Apple's built in apps (Safari, Pages, etc) be good enough? No other programs that customers bought for a previous Mac would work (like if they had a previous version of MS Office for OSX). There is no way a x86 emulator could deliver reasonable speeds (at least not yet).
But, like you say, maybe three generations from now I can see it.
If it does use an A8 chip, it won't be called a Macbook Air. That much you can bank on.
if you want the performance of an i5, its going to take a lot more than 3 generations.
I see Apple using a 7w Broadwell chip. Atom is about as fast as an A7.
I use Intel's Power Gadget on my 11" 2013 Air. My processor is normally using around 2 watts, and it is normally running at .8-.9Ghz. it is an interesting tool, since Terminal or any other app doesn't show real time Ghz.
Last edited:
The new Quad Core Atoms are much faster than the old Atoms. You can't compare the two (A7 vs Atom) anyways due to architectural differences.
On my Dell Tablet the quad Core Atom idles around .2 watts and is just as fast as the first macbook Air's Core Duo. Now that's impressive! My 3840QM can idle around 2.4 watts so the U SKU CPU's aren't impressive to me.
Nope. Mainly for program compatibility, though. I don't want to go through another transition. Plus, I'm not sure the power-to-performance benefits are there yet with ARM, and they may never be.
Intel is doing a really good job with decreasing power consumption while maintaining performance. And I'm not even sure that the CPU is the component pulling most of the power on the Air: the display is probably pulling a lot. After a few more cycles, I think it will be clear that the display is the battery killer.
Finally, once a certain battery life milestone is crossed/ maintained, it becomes less important to chase battery gains. What I mean is, Apple laptops used to last about 4 hours, then 7, then 9, now 12. So it lasts a work day for most people, but not everyone. We could get to the point where it lasts more than 24 hours, which would be awesome. At that point, I don't think it makes much sense for them to keep chasing battery life.
Intel is doing a really good job with decreasing power consumption while maintaining performance. And I'm not even sure that the CPU is the component pulling most of the power on the Air: the display is probably pulling a lot. After a few more cycles, I think it will be clear that the display is the battery killer.
Finally, once a certain battery life milestone is crossed/ maintained, it becomes less important to chase battery gains. What I mean is, Apple laptops used to last about 4 hours, then 7, then 9, now 12. So it lasts a work day for most people, but not everyone. We could get to the point where it lasts more than 24 hours, which would be awesome. At that point, I don't think it makes much sense for them to keep chasing battery life.
Yeaaah, and the Broadwell i5/i7 will be way faster than any quad core Atom.
The MacBook Air isn't about making a netbook (and trust me, I made the mistake of trying one of those; there is NO comparison). It's about think and light, and power saving, yes, but also very much about how much CPU and raw performance can also be packed into that small space. Atom just isn't there, no matter how many cores you stuff into the die.
I'm guessing the motivating to speculate about ARM/Atom-spec'd MacBook Airs is to make them cheap. But I guarantee you that people aren't gonna like a "cost-reduced" Mac. It'll be slow, and it'll be a compromise, and it will be frustrating.
Keep in mInd that an IGZO screen will be a dramatic improvement. Will it make up for a higher resolution retina display all by itself? I am not sure but I bet it will be pretty close.
well idk what you mean by make up for? A "retina" and a IGZO screen are pretty both just run of the mill high resolution screens?