11.6" Air compared to 2006 iMac

[elvineet]

I'm trying to make an educated guess regarding the usage experience of the base 11.6" Air by using my 2006 17" iMac for reference. Basically, it boils down to processor generation and speed, which I need help understanding.

iMac = Intel Core Duo T2400 "Yonah" 1.83GHz
11.6" Air = Intel Core 2 Duo 1.4GHz

Other specs I believe are either same or better in the Air:
iMac
2mb L2 cache, 667 MHz bus, 2gb RAM

Air
3mb L2 cache, 800 MHz bus, 2gb RAM

Can someone please explain to me exactly how these two computers compare in terms of usage? My current iMac runs Photoshop CS5 tolerably fast and plays 1080p video just fine.

 

[SatyMahajan]

I'm trying to make an educated guess regarding the usage experience of the base 11.6" Air by using my 2006 17" iMac for reference. Basically, it boils down to processor generation and speed, which I need help understanding.

iMac = Intel Core Duo T2400 "Yonah" 1.83GHz
11.6" Air = Intel Core 2 Duo 1.4GHz

Other specs I believe are either same or better in the Air:
iMac
2mb L2 cache, 667 MHz bus, 2gb RAM

Air
3mb L2 cache, 800 MHz bus, 2gb RAM

Can someone please explain to me exactly how these two computers compare in terms of usage? My current iMac runs Photoshop CS5 tolerably fast and plays 1080p video just fine.

They should be pretty close. Biggest problem will be storage space.

Processor - iMac > MBA11
RAM / Bus - MBA11 >> iMac
Storage (Speed) - MBA11 >>>>> iMac
Storage (Space) - iMac >>> MBA11
Graphics - MBA11 >> iMac

 

[jagger27]

One is thinner than your thumb. If you're looking for performance, see the thicker version.

>>13" MacBook (Pro)

 

[elvineet]

So the advances from Yonah to Merom to Penryn must mean something right? I would think the iMac's 1.83 GHz Yonah would face stiff competition from the Air's 1.4 GHz Penryn processor.

Just trying to understand the advances made in 2 generations of processors by Intel. I've been told you can't really compare generations of processors by raw GHz figures alone.

 

[joelypolly]

If you get 4GB of ram you should find the MBA quite capable. Since it is running and SSD you will feel that its much faster than your iMac. CPU speed past a certain point isn't that important.

 

[wkw]

better gpu in the mba

 

[bouncer1]

yeah the ram and the ssd matter more than anything here. MBA should be far snappier overall.

You can't really gauge cpu's on their own unless they have similar configurations.

Having said that, the core duos, where not really "core" cpus, the proper incarnation, and where intel made the big leap (finally) ahead of amd where the c2d's and of those the penryns are the c2ds with the die shrink. So yonah was previous gen, merom were the c2ds, and penryns the die shrink of the c2ds, so better architecture, much better architecture (the difference is much greater between core duo and c2d than c2d and ix), and a die shrink.

The graphics are also very capable in the new air, they are better than the imac.

Of course one has to see these in practice too, my only worry being the thermals. But as soon as they are out people are going to geekbench them (remind me guys btw, is that the site where you can also see other macs by loads of users and configurations and compare them with each other?) and you are going to get a definite answer.

But all things point to the air being a far better experience.

 

[Dammit Cubs]

intel follows a "tick-tock" development schedule. One year its litho-shrink. Next year its architecture change. year after that, its litho-shrink...etc etc.

There is more that goes into a processor than just the clock speed. You are dealing to different settings from pipeline changes, caching to, hardware improvements...etc etc. So It's not apples to apples. More like American Apples to Japanese Apples.

If anything you can even say they are American Apples to Korean Pears!!!! (YUM!!!).