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

1.4 GHz vs 1.86 GHz on Macbook Air. HELP

M

macnerd123

macrumors regular
Original poster
Nov 6, 2010
135
0
Pennsylvania
Is there a difference between a core 2 duo 1.4 GHz processor with 4GB of memory and a core 2 duo 1.86G GHz processor with 4GB of memory? Both have 128GB of flash memory.
Main uses of Computer
- microsoft office
- iWork
- iLife
- Safari
- iTunes
- iChat
:apple:
 
Last edited:
TMRaven

TMRaven

macrumors 68020
Nov 5, 2009
2,099
1
I ran tests on both of them at the apple store. They both can handle 720p flash content, but not 1080p flash content. 1080p shouldn't matter anyways, as the screen isn't big enough for it.

As far as cpu usage for playing 720p content, the 1.46ghz was at 80% while the 1.86ghz was at 60-70% roughly.

I say you're going to get a tiny bit of extra leeway when multitasking with the 1.86ghz, probably equal to an extra program or two at the same time, or an extra couple pages of flash on safari at the same time.
 
G

gks

macrumors 6502
Aug 16, 2010
290
2
TMRaven said:
I ran tests on both of them at the apple store. They both can handle 720p flash content, but not 1080p flash content. 1080p shouldn't matter anyways, as the screen isn't big enough for it.

As far as cpu usage for playing 720p content, the 1.46ghz was at 80% while the 1.86ghz was at 60-70% roughly.

I say you're going to get a tiny bit of extra leeway when multitasking with the 1.86ghz, probably equal to an extra program or two at the same time, or an extra couple pages of flash on safari at the same time.
Click to expand...

Odd because my 13" which has the 1.86ghz processor plays 1080p movies just fine.
 
Adidas Addict

Adidas Addict

macrumors 65816
Sep 9, 2008
1,455
0
England
gks said:
Odd because my 13" which has the 1.86ghz processor plays 1080p movies just fine.
Click to expand...

I would like to second that, my 1.86 13" (4GB Ram) plays 1080P video at full screen (flash or installed media) with no stutters or issues whatsoever.
 
G

gw1

macrumors newbie
Nov 11, 2007
19
0
I bought a 1.4 GHZ 11" MBA. For the uses you suggest, which are similar to mine, it works absolutely fine & far far better than my original MBA Rev A. The bonded-on flash memory seems to really boost speed far above what the clock speed on the CPU suggests.

So, you might get a bit more speed from the 1.83 but I wouldn't bust a gut to get it as the 1.4 will be just fine!
 
arctic

arctic

macrumors 6502a
Jun 18, 2008
632
1
gw1 said:
I bought a 1.4 GHZ 11" MBA. For the uses you suggest, which are similar to mine, it works absolutely fine & far far better than my original MBA Rev A. The bonded-on flash memory seems to really boost speed far above what the clock speed on the CPU suggests.

So, you might get a bit more speed from the 1.83 but I wouldn't bust a gut to get it as the 1.4 will be just fine!
Click to expand...

This!

1.4 to 1.8 isn't THAT big of a difference. It's the SSD that makes this little beast snappy.
 
TMRaven

TMRaven

macrumors 68020
Nov 5, 2009
2,099
1
gks said:
Odd because my 13" which has the 1.86ghz processor plays 1080p movies just fine.
Click to expand...

Perhaps yours has flash 10.1 installed with gpu acceleration, and the ones in the Apple store don't.


Corax said:
@ TMRaven,
Mine (1,86GHz) play's 1080p, no sweat.
What mediaplayer did you use, to play 1080p content?
Click to expand...

I ran the test on youtube using the Big Buck Bunny Animation in 1080p. It is a process which uses 10% of total capacity of an i7 860.
 
Last edited:
Corax

Corax

macrumors 6502
Apr 27, 2009
266
0
Willemstad - Curaçao
TMRaven said:
Perhaps yours has flash 10.1 installed with gpu acceleration, and the ones in the Apple store don't.




I ran the test on youtube using the Big Buck Bunny Animation in 1080p. It is a process which uses 10% of total capacity of an i7 860.
Click to expand...

Do they have flash installed in the store?
The same 1080p trailer you mention, I tried out on my iMac 21,5" and also without a glitch, uses 20% of the CPU.

At the moment I'm calibrating the battery of my MBA, so I'll report back when that's ready, I just drained the battery until the Air went to sleep, now I have to let it rest a couple of hours, before charging it up again.

It's a very nice, high quality animation though! Thnx for letting me know about it. :)

Edit: With the Youtube5 extension my iMac (C2D) uses 20% CPU for playing this movie, but with Flash it uses 40%.
 
Last edited:
TMRaven

TMRaven

macrumors 68020
Nov 5, 2009
2,099
1
If the ones in the store didn't have flash installed, I wouldn't be able to play youtube videos alltogether (no, youtube was not on html5 version)
 
wirelessmacuser

wirelessmacuser

macrumors 68000
Dec 20, 2009
1,968
0
Planet.Earth
gw1 said:
I bought a 1.4 GHZ 11" MBA. For the uses you suggest, which are similar to mine, it works absolutely fine & far far better than my original MBA Rev A. The bonded-on flash memory seems to really boost speed far above what the clock speed on the CPU suggests.

So, you might get a bit more speed from the 1.83 but I wouldn't bust a gut to get it as the 1.4 will be just fine!
Click to expand...
Well said, my experience mirrors yours exactly. My personal preference is the 1.4, simply because, benchmarks aside, in real world usage I can assure you the "faster clock speed" of the upgraded processor is of negligible difference.
 
PBG4 Dude

PBG4 Dude

macrumors 601
Jul 6, 2007
4,363
4,645
wirelessmacuser said:
Well said, my experience mirrors yours exactly. My personal preference is the 1.4, simply because, benchmarks aside, in real world usage I can assure you the "faster clock speed" of the upgraded processor is of negligible difference.
Click to expand...

Just to clarify, the difference in processor speed is .46GHz per core, for a total of .92GHz difference between the 1.4 and 1.86 chips. This .92GHz represents about 66% or 2/3rds of a 1.4GHz core. Also, the 1.86GHz chips have double the on-chip cache, or 6MB vs. 3MB. This is >a negligible difference. :)
 
M

macnerd123

macrumors regular
Original poster
Nov 6, 2010
135
0
Pennsylvania
PBG4 Dude said:
Just to clarify, the difference in processor speed is .46GHz per core, for a total of .92GHz difference between the 1.4 and 1.86 chips. This .92GHz represents about 66% or 2/3rds of a 1.4GHz core. Also, the 1.86GHz chips have double the on-chip cache, or 6MB vs. 3MB. This is >a negligible difference. :)
Click to expand...

Would this make a noticeable difference with my daily needs.
- iWork
- iChat
- iTunes
- Safari
 
D

double329

macrumors 6502
Sep 10, 2008
452
75
According to my observation the day to day basis stuff that people do; you might not notice the processing power different. The processes that need more processing power will make some different. How much of the different? Well, the test number showed some different. The actual usage? its' all relative... I went with the ultimate 13 anyway :p
 
Corax

Corax

macrumors 6502
Apr 27, 2009
266
0
Willemstad - Curaçao
TMRaven said:
I ran the test on youtube using the Big Buck Bunny Animation in 1080p. It is a process which uses 10% of total capacity of an i7 860.
Click to expand...

Running the movie in 1080p on my MBA uses very little CPU, between 10% and 15%, and I must say, it runs FLAWLESS, smooth and easy, in full screen...no pain and no fans kicking in.
I'm using the extension Youtube5 by the way, so no flash.
I'm amazed!!!
Tomorrow I'll try again with flashplayer on.
 
Dammit Cubs

Dammit Cubs

macrumors 68020
Jul 31, 2007
2,122
718
TMRaven said:
I ran tests on both of them at the apple store. They both can handle 720p flash content, but not 1080p flash content. 1080p shouldn't matter anyways, as the screen isn't big enough for it.

As far as cpu usage for playing 720p content, the 1.46ghz was at 80% while the 1.86ghz was at 60-70% roughly.

I say you're going to get a tiny bit of extra leeway when multitasking with the 1.86ghz, probably equal to an extra program or two at the same time, or an extra couple pages of flash on safari at the same time.
Click to expand...

I would try this test using chrome or safari with proper adobe 10.1 installed. 1080p works fine in my 11. but ONLY!!! AFTER 10.1 was installed.

as for 1080p videos, those will work flawless if you use a software that has GPU acceleration suppose like plex.
 
K

KPOM

macrumors P6
Oct 23, 2010
18,308
8,320
macnerd123 said:
Would this make a noticeable difference with my daily needs.
- iWork
- iChat
- iTunes
- Safari
Click to expand...

If you write large or complex spreadsheets a faster CPU could make a little bit of a difference. The processor also will help if you rip CDs. Overall, though, it likely won't be too noticeable.
 
D

double329

macrumors 6502
Sep 10, 2008
452
75
I finally got Adobe LR installed and play around with it last night. All I can say is: I am glad I got the Ultimate 13. Using LR in the MBA 13 did the job. Is it better than the 3 years old 17" Gateway power house I still have? NO... 80% of my photos are in RAW format. I know it is not quite exact comparison, working with massive files and post processing. I still prefer to work on my 17", it is much snappier than this little MBA 13. Don't get me wrong, MBA13 is a capable machine. I don't know if the less CPU power MBA will feel more under power or the same as ultimate with LR? I can't tell you. I don't have one to compare. When it comes to loading up the apps and light weight processing stuff, MBA is really shine. Again, this is just my non-scientific observation and personal experience :p
 
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