He was talking about CPU speeds in that quote, like how a 2ghz wouldn't be much faster than a 1.86ghz.
Anyway, I'm just being boring.
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.
1.6 Rev A vs. unibody 2.0 MB
- Thread starter aaquib
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
He was talking about CPU speeds in that quote, like how a 2ghz wouldn't be much faster than a 1.86ghz.
Anyway, I'm just being boring.
I don't know who this Scottsdale guy is, but he needs to find an extra curriculuar activity or something (whatever his persuasion may be). I can understand having strong feelings about this, but all these posts are just ridiculous. Dude, all these long diatribes - seriously man.
You can play youtube MAINLY dont have everything in your dock on at once and your fine just use what you need. I would go for the air!
Even hulu 420 works great!
Even hulu 420 works great!
Well... the Rev. A have the very same clock speeds than Rev. B, and you say its worlds of difference.
Gotcha, huh?
Not true at all. You should read and understand what the hell you are talking about before you go bragging about how you are superior to others.
The original MBA had a Merom 65 NM CPU with 4 MB L2 Cache. It is a 20W chip with 800 MHz Front side bus.
The NEW MBA has a Penryn 45 NM SSF CPU with 6 MB L2 Cache. It is a 17W chip with 1066 MHz Front side bus.
Also, the original were 1.6 and 1.8 GHz, while the new are 1.6 and 1.86, but the other factors make the newer MBAs much much faster. The new MBA has a much nicer chip, and clock speed alone is a fool's measure of power.
If you only could think before you accuse... but that requires reading first before mouthing off.
Another lengthy post with no real world data of your own to compare and post here to back up your claims.
The MBA rev A (especially refurb) is very capable, it does lag in issues like rendering times, but can run every application just fine.
https://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=7013333&id=5
Easy rule of thumb:
Do your heavy lifting, (ie. encoding video) on your desktop and everything else on the MBA. Screen Sharing will be your best friend.
Or you can buy ONE rev B MBA, and use it with a 24" Apple Cinema Display. That way you don't have to buy and maintain two machines. You don't have to ever worry about buying two versions of software, not having the right application with you, and not having the most current file with you. The rev B is a very capable machine. It is capable of being most Mac users primary and only Mac.
The original MBA makes for a decent secondary computer, but if someone doesn't already own a desktop, buying one computer instead of two seems a lot smarter. For those that want an underpowered Mac because it's cheap or they have a desktop for heavy lifting that is fine, but why encourage someone to sell a perfectly capable Mac to buy two new ones? Why when there is a simple solution already introduced?
I put a hell of a lot more thought and effort into my post than most here. I offer plenty of proof when requested. Usually state the components within a Mac or how to check real basline measures like xBench. Also, most importantly, I have my own experience. I have owned an original MBA, own a new MBA, and like this thread owner's question, I also own a unibody MB.
I go for the refurb RevA air over unibody MB for 3 reasons:
1:It's almost same price. If there is no refurb version, i might think twice.
2:The screen is much better than MB.
3:I have no need for extra usb/dvd/Ethernet.
Just simply sold my 3 years old laptop for $300 and upgrade to the Air. Happy customer so far.
1:It's almost same price. If there is no refurb version, i might think twice.
2:The screen is much better than MB.
3:I have no need for extra usb/dvd/Ethernet.
Just simply sold my 3 years old laptop for $300 and upgrade to the Air. Happy customer so far.
Technically, 1.6 on the old chip and 1.6 on the new chip, which is what we are talking about, is the same clockspeed, but there are other factors that make the new 1.6 faster. Like it being and 45NM chip and the higher L2 cache, which I didn't know.
Regardless the new 1.6 is faster than the old 1.6 without taking the SSD into account.
That being said, a lot of people will be happy with the Rev A 1.6 despite the Rev B being a much better machine.
Regardless the new 1.6 is faster than the old 1.6 without taking the SSD into account.
That being said, a lot of people will be happy with the Rev A 1.6 despite the Rev B being a much better machine.
Nothing wrong with MBA if you can live in its fixed capacities
I recently went from a MBA RevA 1.6/2/80 to a Unibody MB 2.4/4gb/320gb. I travel all the time and used the MBA for close to a year as my primary machine. I was having some HD issues with the MBA and was worried about it crashing at an inopportune moment so got the MB as a backup while I got the MBA serviced.
I loved traveling with the MBA. Sooo thin and light and fully functional for work. I run a lot of apps (about 80) and a dozen or so at any given time. The MBA was able to handle it all. Yes it was slower than an iMac or MB but it worked fine. Yes when using a VM you had to take care what else you were using. Yes 80gb was tight (for me). Only really heavy stuff like ripping DVDs bogged it down enough you did not really want to use it for that (but if you left it on its own while you were not using it it could actually do it). The portability more than made up for any performance/capacity issues for me.
But then I got the MB. Yup, crappy screen. Yup, even though only a bit thicker and heavier, no where near as portable. But FAST (even faster than my previous generation MBP). And 4gb RAM so no more worrying about running VM's even with total disregard to what other apps I have running. And a REAL HD with plenty of space for all my work and personal stuff.
The MBA is in a class all its own in a super thin and light high quality package that you can work on all day long and do just about any business computing you'd like. I'd highly recommend it if you can live within its reasonably good capacity limits. But if you can't live in 2gb ram or 80gb HD now the MBA may grate on you after a while.
I'm traveling a bit less these days so overall I'm happier with the MB just because it requires no management time. I can put ALL my stuff on it (no picking and choosing and syncing) and run everything I want at once without any consideration of running out of RAM or HD with a bonus of higher performance. If the MBA had been available with 4gb RAM a 256gb SDD I likely would have gone that route (and may in the future) though.
I recently went from a MBA RevA 1.6/2/80 to a Unibody MB 2.4/4gb/320gb. I travel all the time and used the MBA for close to a year as my primary machine. I was having some HD issues with the MBA and was worried about it crashing at an inopportune moment so got the MB as a backup while I got the MBA serviced.
I loved traveling with the MBA. Sooo thin and light and fully functional for work. I run a lot of apps (about 80) and a dozen or so at any given time. The MBA was able to handle it all. Yes it was slower than an iMac or MB but it worked fine. Yes when using a VM you had to take care what else you were using. Yes 80gb was tight (for me). Only really heavy stuff like ripping DVDs bogged it down enough you did not really want to use it for that (but if you left it on its own while you were not using it it could actually do it). The portability more than made up for any performance/capacity issues for me.
But then I got the MB. Yup, crappy screen. Yup, even though only a bit thicker and heavier, no where near as portable. But FAST (even faster than my previous generation MBP). And 4gb RAM so no more worrying about running VM's even with total disregard to what other apps I have running. And a REAL HD with plenty of space for all my work and personal stuff.
The MBA is in a class all its own in a super thin and light high quality package that you can work on all day long and do just about any business computing you'd like. I'd highly recommend it if you can live within its reasonably good capacity limits. But if you can't live in 2gb ram or 80gb HD now the MBA may grate on you after a while.
I'm traveling a bit less these days so overall I'm happier with the MB just because it requires no management time. I can put ALL my stuff on it (no picking and choosing and syncing) and run everything I want at once without any consideration of running out of RAM or HD with a bonus of higher performance. If the MBA had been available with 4gb RAM a 256gb SDD I likely would have gone that route (and may in the future) though.
You say 45nm I say 65nm...
Clock for clock: http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=3195&p=3
The Penryn is 1 to 8% faster on most tasks. On SSE4 enabled apps, it is up to 40% faster. So if you are encoding video, the Penryn has a very big advantage over the Merom. If you are doing common tasks, such as browsing the web, word processing, ObjectiveC development, posting on MacRumors... it won't buy you much at the same clock speed.
The MBA rev A. at $999 is a good deal for many users. It is a capable machine that will do fine at most tasks. If you are encoding/transcoding lots of video, doing 3d renders... get a faster machine.
For those that missed the sarcasm in my earlier post... a newer machine will usually be faster than the last generation. The next revision MBA will likely be faster than the current one at certain tasks. I personally try to get a machine that fits my needs. This allows me to save money by buying last years top end models at a big savings. I like saving money. I'd be pissed if I paid full price for a machine that was only 1 - 8% faster at the things I use it for.
Clock for clock: http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=3195&p=3
The Penryn is 1 to 8% faster on most tasks. On SSE4 enabled apps, it is up to 40% faster. So if you are encoding video, the Penryn has a very big advantage over the Merom. If you are doing common tasks, such as browsing the web, word processing, ObjectiveC development, posting on MacRumors... it won't buy you much at the same clock speed.
The MBA rev A. at $999 is a good deal for many users. It is a capable machine that will do fine at most tasks. If you are encoding/transcoding lots of video, doing 3d renders... get a faster machine.
For those that missed the sarcasm in my earlier post... a newer machine will usually be faster than the last generation. The next revision MBA will likely be faster than the current one at certain tasks. I personally try to get a machine that fits my needs. This allows me to save money by buying last years top end models at a big savings. I like saving money. I'd be pissed if I paid full price for a machine that was only 1 - 8% faster at the things I use it for.
45 NM means > 8% increases in the MBA! Reliable, Cool, Quiet, Dependable, Working Mac
^ ^ ^ Reply to the post by SeanU above. ^ ^ ^
I never said that it was the CPU only providing the performance differences between rev A and rev B MBAs. The other poster's point was since the rev A and rev B MBA have the same clock speed they are the same and could not be "Worlds Apart." I replied separately to that in another post.
The problem is your reply above is extremely misleading as it does not report all of the information.
It should be clearly noted that the Merom chip was/is part of the overheating problem with the original MBA. So, I think you failed to miss the point that the 45 NM Penryn SSF 17W CPU is FAR SUPERIOR to the original MBA's problematic CPU. Why don't you include more educational information about the differences in the two CPUs rather than just clock speed? It really leads people down the wrong path to believe that the differences between the original MBA and revised MBA are 8% gains of the rev B MBA's Penryn CPU (only expressing speed differences between Merom and Penryn of same clock speed).
In my opinion, your points about the CPUs used in the both MBAs are EXTRMELY MISLEADING. So, while you are quoting "facts," I believe it would be far more educational for you to explain while the Penryn CPU is only 8% faster, it is a Low Voltage CPU. It uses LESS power than the Merom CPU used in the original MBA. By using less power, the Penryn CPU is far less likely to overheat the MBA. You could also explain that the Penryn CPU used in the revised MBA has 6 MB L2 Cache, while the original MBA's Merom CPU had only 4 MB L2 Cache (and explain what that means to the end user). Or you could point out the differences between the 65 NM process of the Merom CPU versus the 45 NM process of the Penryn CPU. Why just point out the 8% difference in computing power, and not further explain the ramifications of using the 65 NM Merom 20W CPU? Apple obviously learned its lesson with the original MBA, and it put a much nicer Penryn CPU in the rev B MBA. The much nicer Penryn CPU is a big part of the reason the revised MBA doesn't overheat! It extremely minimizes the chance of overheating, core shutdown, and complete lock ups... all well documented problems of the original MBA.
Your "fact telling" is part of the problem here with these types of posts. You provide a few "facts" but fail to tell the complete story of the Merom CPU used in the original MBA. Without telling people ALL of the differences between the original MBA and the revised MBA, people are likely to be led down a path that may be completely wrong for them.
The original MBA may be right for SOME people, but your information reporting is very misleading for most readers. Your facts make people believe that if they buy a rev B MBA, for double the price, their MBA will only be 8% faster than the original MBA. That is a serious disservice to Mac Rumors members. The revised MBA is NOT about an 8% gain in power. It is about components all being really well incorporated into a system that eliminates the problems experienced with the original MBA. A revised MBA buyer gets a much improved graphics system with a GPU (also eliminates heat). A revised MBA buyer also gets a SATA drive controller instead of a PATA drive controller (how about you quote the speed differences there)! The RAM in the new MBA is FASTER (why not quote the differences there too)! So, by spending more money, the revised MBA buyer doesn't just get an 8% faster CPU. You left out a lot of information that really matters and affects performance output a heck of a lot more than 8%! The rev B MBA buyers get a computer that performs really well; its an excellent computer that experiences very few of the common problems that plague the original MBA.
Proving someone wrong based on a technicality may make yourself feel smart, but it is not providing the audience with all of the necessary information to make a properly informed decision.
To make your point valid, you could have stated all of the differences and then pointed out some changes (like Cool Book helping some problematic original MBAs or how software rewrites has helped the underperforming original MBA). But there are a ton of differences between the two chips. And clock speed for clock speed comparisons really do not show the complete picture of differences between the original MBA and the revised MBA. This is a lot more than an 8% difference. The component makeup of the rev B MBA is completely different than its predecessor. To only include the difference between the two with same clock speeds is not helpful to the audience and tends to lead opinions down the wrong path.
I urge the audience to use ALL information and determine which MBA may be right for them. In this thread, I advised the OP to keep the unibody MB and add a 24 LED ACD in favor of trading it in for an original MBA and buying an iMac for heavy lifting. I believe the unibody MB is a solid Mac and paired with the 24 LED will do everything buying two separate computers will do. I was not attempting to sell the revised MBA to anyone. However, I dont believe the original MBA is right for most people. And I believe that sharing all information will lead potential buyers down the right path which is NOT always the cheapest path.
There goes 30 minutes I will never see again.
^ ^ ^ Reply to the post by SeanU above. ^ ^ ^
I never said that it was the CPU only providing the performance differences between rev A and rev B MBAs. The other poster's point was since the rev A and rev B MBA have the same clock speed they are the same and could not be "Worlds Apart." I replied separately to that in another post.
The problem is your reply above is extremely misleading as it does not report all of the information.
It should be clearly noted that the Merom chip was/is part of the overheating problem with the original MBA. So, I think you failed to miss the point that the 45 NM Penryn SSF 17W CPU is FAR SUPERIOR to the original MBA's problematic CPU. Why don't you include more educational information about the differences in the two CPUs rather than just clock speed? It really leads people down the wrong path to believe that the differences between the original MBA and revised MBA are 8% gains of the rev B MBA's Penryn CPU (only expressing speed differences between Merom and Penryn of same clock speed).
In my opinion, your points about the CPUs used in the both MBAs are EXTRMELY MISLEADING. So, while you are quoting "facts," I believe it would be far more educational for you to explain while the Penryn CPU is only 8% faster, it is a Low Voltage CPU. It uses LESS power than the Merom CPU used in the original MBA. By using less power, the Penryn CPU is far less likely to overheat the MBA. You could also explain that the Penryn CPU used in the revised MBA has 6 MB L2 Cache, while the original MBA's Merom CPU had only 4 MB L2 Cache (and explain what that means to the end user). Or you could point out the differences between the 65 NM process of the Merom CPU versus the 45 NM process of the Penryn CPU. Why just point out the 8% difference in computing power, and not further explain the ramifications of using the 65 NM Merom 20W CPU? Apple obviously learned its lesson with the original MBA, and it put a much nicer Penryn CPU in the rev B MBA. The much nicer Penryn CPU is a big part of the reason the revised MBA doesn't overheat! It extremely minimizes the chance of overheating, core shutdown, and complete lock ups... all well documented problems of the original MBA.
Your "fact telling" is part of the problem here with these types of posts. You provide a few "facts" but fail to tell the complete story of the Merom CPU used in the original MBA. Without telling people ALL of the differences between the original MBA and the revised MBA, people are likely to be led down a path that may be completely wrong for them.
The original MBA may be right for SOME people, but your information reporting is very misleading for most readers. Your facts make people believe that if they buy a rev B MBA, for double the price, their MBA will only be 8% faster than the original MBA. That is a serious disservice to Mac Rumors members. The revised MBA is NOT about an 8% gain in power. It is about components all being really well incorporated into a system that eliminates the problems experienced with the original MBA. A revised MBA buyer gets a much improved graphics system with a GPU (also eliminates heat). A revised MBA buyer also gets a SATA drive controller instead of a PATA drive controller (how about you quote the speed differences there)! The RAM in the new MBA is FASTER (why not quote the differences there too)! So, by spending more money, the revised MBA buyer doesn't just get an 8% faster CPU. You left out a lot of information that really matters and affects performance output a heck of a lot more than 8%! The rev B MBA buyers get a computer that performs really well; its an excellent computer that experiences very few of the common problems that plague the original MBA.
Proving someone wrong based on a technicality may make yourself feel smart, but it is not providing the audience with all of the necessary information to make a properly informed decision.
To make your point valid, you could have stated all of the differences and then pointed out some changes (like Cool Book helping some problematic original MBAs or how software rewrites has helped the underperforming original MBA). But there are a ton of differences between the two chips. And clock speed for clock speed comparisons really do not show the complete picture of differences between the original MBA and the revised MBA. This is a lot more than an 8% difference. The component makeup of the rev B MBA is completely different than its predecessor. To only include the difference between the two with same clock speeds is not helpful to the audience and tends to lead opinions down the wrong path.
I urge the audience to use ALL information and determine which MBA may be right for them. In this thread, I advised the OP to keep the unibody MB and add a 24 LED ACD in favor of trading it in for an original MBA and buying an iMac for heavy lifting. I believe the unibody MB is a solid Mac and paired with the 24 LED will do everything buying two separate computers will do. I was not attempting to sell the revised MBA to anyone. However, I dont believe the original MBA is right for most people. And I believe that sharing all information will lead potential buyers down the right path which is NOT always the cheapest path.
There goes 30 minutes I will never see again.
I posted a link to a well known website with a very good comparison of the 2 processors. People should make informed decisions, and not take my word, or your word, as fact on any decision.
All the best! Sean
I had two Airs and am so thankful I got rid of them. To each their own I guess... (I do like the MBA screens better than the MB though).