15-Inch MacBook Air Reviews: The Sweet Spot for Performance, Size, and Value

[teh_hunterer]

except your source only did 8 run, while the link i posted did 16+, the more runs you do the clearer the picture,

If you really care you can find a third source. I don't, and I'll stick with the one that was in a controlled environment.

granted there are thermal conductivity given how close each conponents are in a phone or ipad, however the principle is still the same.

What are you even trying to say? I'm saying the thermal problems are not as bad in a fanless laptop compared to a phone. Because they aren't.

pc laptop are garbage at heat management to begin with given how much TDP x86 and gpu pushes out, while arm based AS is designed with low thermal output to begin with so its not a fair comparison.

Again, just saying 15% is a big number isn't saying anything. What matters is where it drops from and where it drops to. 85% of the M2 is still pretty decent.

I have no idea what you're talking about with "fair comparison". What matters is the actual performance. A passively cooled M2 in a laptop is decent for plenty of games, and the systems will not overheat, and I doubt anyone is going to run games on an M2 MacBook Air and complain that it's "overheating".

 

[antibolo]

It’s the same as the 13” ! Buy a MacBook pro if you need that feature

No. People shouldn't have to pay a fortune for a MBP to get a basic feature that any PC laptop has.

For a laptop that starts at 1300 USD it is completely absurd that it can't do that.

 

[ilikewhey]

If you really care you can find a third source. I don't, and I'll stick with the one that was in a controlled environment.

did you ever take high school physics? or any scientific oriented course at anytime prior or during k12 education? the more runs you do the more accurate the result, at this point fine, lets agree to disagree lol

What are you even trying to say? I'm saying the thermal problems are not as bad in a fanless laptop compared to a phone. Because they aren't.

and i agree, i didn't say they are as bad compared to phone, i said the experience are relatable.

Again, just saying 15% is a big number isn't saying anything. What matters is where it drops from and where it drops to. 85% of the M2 is still pretty decent.

I have no idea what you're talking about with "fair comparison". What matters is the actual performance. A passively cooled M2 in a laptop is decent for plenty of games, and the systems will not overheat, and I doubt anyone is going to run games on an M2 MacBook Air and complain that it's "overheating".

from 3.3ghz down to 2.6ghz, @ 45 celsius on the surface 😂

lol if you are ok with this then we have very different standards of whats acceptable thermal tolerance.

no one running games yet cause historically osx isn't a platform thats gaming developer friendly, however that might chance now apple is pushing out support for this area.

 

[teh_hunterer]

did you ever take high school physics? or any scientific oriented course at anytime prior or during k12 education? the more runs you do the more accurate the result, at this point fine, lets agree to disagree lol

Funny of you to assume everyone is American. I won't take a condescending crack at your education, but do a million runs in a non controlled environment and it's not that useful. Not sure why this is such a sticking point for you, but keep trying to get that gotcha moment you're chasing.

Even if a good source shows that the M2 fully throttled is slightly outperformed by a non-throttled M1 after 30+ minutes, so what? It's close enough, and if a throttled M2 is roughly equivalent to the full performance of the M1, that's decent for non-demanding gaming.

from 3.3ghz down to 2.6ghz, @ 45 celsius on the surface 😂

lol if you are ok with this then we have very different standards of whats acceptable thermal tolerance.

no one running games yet cause historically osx isn't a platform thats gaming developer friendly, however that might chance now apple is pushing out support for this area.

Oh god we're not bringing Max Tech into this are we? Good grief man, you do you, but don't make me watch Max Tech.

As you continually ignore, and what I won't bother saying a fourth time, is that "15% is a big number" is absolutely meaningless. It only matters what performance it throttles down to.

You seem to be unable to give up on this agenda that these devices will "overheat" when gaming. People are already playing games on these devices that push them to the limits, and I see no complaints about overheating.

 

[ilikewhey]

Funny of you to assume everyone is American. I won't take a condescending crack at your education, but do a million runs in a non controlled environment and it's not that useful. Not sure why this is such a sticking point for you, but keep trying to get that gotcha moment you're chasing.

Even if a good source shows that the M2 fully throttled is slightly outperformed by a non-throttled M1 after 30+ minutes, so what? It's close enough, and if a throttled M2 is roughly equivalent to the full performance of the M1, that's decent for non-demanding gaming.

because more runs means more accurate data, this isn't american or european or asian based education, its common knowledge. its the fundamental principle in testing with the bare minimium of 10 runs.

Oh god we're not bringing Max Tech into this are we? Good grief man, you do you, but don't make me watch Max Tech.

As you continually ignore, and what I won't bother saying a fourth time, is that "15% is a big number" is absolutely meaningless. It only matters what performance it throttles down to.

You seem to be unable to give up on this agenda that these devices will "overheat" when gaming. People are already playing games on these devices that push them to the limits, and I see no complaints about overheating.

whats wrong with max tech? this is the first time i saw that video but if his testing method is illegitimate do tell.

again, the gaming side of mac has been very lack buster so far since dev don't go out of their way to make a mac version, however that is changing, with apple releasing new porting tools, the apple silicon is about to get alot more graphically challenged.

 

[eifelbube]

MBP 16 is around 5 pounds and MBA 15 is around 3.

Thanks. That is a significant weight difference. I was at an AppleStore on Sunday, i.e. before they had any MBA 15 yet. I lifted the MBP 16 for the first time (i still use a 2013 ! MBP 15) and was shocked how heavy it felt. Why do MBPs and iPhones seem to be getting heavier as they „evolve“ technologically?? Faster and heavier … should it not be faster and lighter? I still miss my iPhone 6 for that reason … my XS feels like a brick compared to it, just like the M1/2 MBP 16 feels compared to my 2013 MBP 15 …

 

[Tagbert]

Thanks. That is a significant weight difference. I was at an AppleStore on Sunday, i.e. before they had any MBA 15 yet. I lifted the MBP 16 for the first time (i still use a 2013 ! MBP 15) and was shocked how heavy it felt. Why do MBPs and iPhones seem to be getting heavier as they „evolve“ technologically?? Faster and heavier … should it not be faster and lighter? I still miss my iPhone 6 for that reason … my XS feels like a brick compared to it, just like the M1/2 MBP 16 feels compared to my 2013 MBP 15 …

The big ones have been heavy for quite a while. When Apple brought out the new MBPs their aim was a full featured, powerful machine for professionals who wanted to get work done. The brought back the missing ports. they put in a larger and heavier battery and gave it lots of cooling capacity. That extra weight is there for a reason. those previous Intel models were too thin. That meant less battery capacity, fewer ports, and not enough room for cooling. If you want lighter, that is one of the benefits of the Air line where the 13" MBA got slightly lighter than the previous gen Intel MBA.

With phones, the added weight is probably battery, cameras, and (on the pro) the stainless steal frame.

 

[teh_hunterer]

because more runs means more accurate data, this isn't american or european or asian based education, its common knowledge. its the fundamental principle in testing with the bare minimium of 10 runs.

You're the one who brought up an American specific education. This is one guy on MacRumors doing more runs in a less controlled environment vs a well known good source doing runs in a thermally controlled environment. The M2 had stopped throttling in his results too, so further runs might have been completely unnecessary.

whats wrong with max tech? this is the first time i saw that video but if his testing method is illegitimate do tell.

Max Tech is clickbait nonsense. If you want to treat them as a legitimate source I won't stop you.

again, the gaming side of mac has been very lack buster so far since dev don't go out of their way to make a mac version, however that is changing, with apple releasing new porting tools, the apple silicon is about to get alot more graphically challenged.

It has been lacklustre, but enough games are out to push these devices to full gaming load, and them only dropping 10%-15% and not actually overheating is evidently fine.

 

[ilikewhey]

You're the one who brought up an American specific education.

no i didn't, i ask did you ever take high school physics or scientific course where you have to average testing results. cause if you did, then you would know the more results the more accurate the data, the 10 minimum might be arbitrary depending on whos asking, for example if you look at scientific journals, they avg hundreds if not thousands of results to have a conclusive evidence. this testing perimeter isn't american education exclusive. scientific standards don't have borders.

This is one guy on MacRumors doing more runs in a less controlled environment vs a well known good source doing runs in a thermally controlled environment.

lol thermally controlled environment = keeping the ambient temp the same, as long as the windows are not open its considered thermally controlled environment.


oh yeah, real professional setup there 😂 laptop on a desk = thermally controlled environment lol

The M2 had stopped throttling in his results too, so further runs might have been completely unnecessary.

yes the link i provided, towards the end his throttling did bottom out, but it took him 16+ runs and shows a larger deficit than yours with 8 runs.

Max Tech is clickbait nonsense. If you want to treat them as a legitimate source I won't stop you.

ok, thanks for letting me know, but i do have to ask, do you find any error in both his results and testing mythology?

or are you discrediting him simply because you don't like his alleged reputation.

It has been lacklustre, but enough games are out to push these devices to full gaming load, and them only dropping 10%-15% and not actually overheating is evidently fine.

ok, only time will tell when more developers release drops on osx.

 

[teh_hunterer]

no i didn't, i ask did you ever take high school physics or scientific course where you have to average testing results. cause if you did, then you would know the more results the more accurate the data, the 10 minimum might be arbitrary depending on whos asking, for example if you look at scientific journals, they avg hundreds if not thousands of results to have a conclusive evidence. this testing perimeter isn't american education exclusive. scientific standards don't have borders.

lol thermally controlled environment = keeping the ambient temp the same, as long as the windows are not open its considered thermally controlled environment.

View attachment 2218443
oh yeah, real professional setup there 😂 laptop on a desk = thermally controlled environment lol


yes the link i provided, towards the end his throttling did bottom out, but it took him 16+ runs and shows a larger deficit than yours with 8 runs.

You're like a broken record here. I'll just repeat myself one last time:

You've got some guy on Macrumors who showed one thing, I've got a guy on YouTube who showed different results but in a controlled environment.

Even if a good source shows that the M2 fully throttled is slightly outperformed by a non-throttled M1 after 30+ minutes, so what? It's close enough, and if a throttled M2 is roughly equivalent to the full performance of the M1, that's decent for non-demanding gaming.

You can keep making condescending remarks about other people's education and ignoring the points you don't want to engage with, but when you are going around in circles about something so petty for so long, at some point it's simply not worth my time.

ok, thanks for letting me know, but i do have to ask, do you find any error in both his results and testing mythology?

or are you discrediting him simply because you don't like his alleged reputation.

I'm not watching another Max Tech video. You can find someone else to watch it for you and tell you about his testing methodology.

 

[ilikewhey]

You're like a broken record here. I'll just repeat myself one last time:

You've got some guy on Macrumors who showed one thing, I've got a guy on YouTube who showed different results but in a controlled environment.

try again, i already debunked this controlled environment nonsense you keep labeling, its a laptop on a desk running benchmark for christ sake 😂

there is a old saying, you can lead the horse to the water, but you cannot make it drink. so awesome to see everything i said to you just flew right over your head lol

Even if a good source shows that the M2 fully throttled is slightly outperformed by a non-throttled M1 after 30+ minutes, so what? It's close enough, and if a throttled M2 is roughly equivalent to the full performance of the M1, that's decent for non-demanding gaming.

You can keep making condescending remarks about other people's education and ignoring the points you don't want to engage with, but when you are going around in circles about something so petty for so long, at some point it's simply not worth my time.

i didn't make any condescending remarks, its not my fault you never took high school physics to know the more results you avg out the better the accuracy.

I'm not watching another Max Tech video. You can find someone else to watch it for you and tell you about his testing methodology.

don't need to, i stick with my first link, i only posted max tech cause he address the very issue you put forth directly.
and again, i ask you, do you find any errors in his testing mythology, or do you just not like the guy.

 

[Rossmon]

I have a fully loaded 13” 2022 air. It’s replacing my 2020 M1 air which was an 8gb 512 model that is now pretty worthless but valuable as an upgrade for my wife from her 2013 15” MacBook Pro! First, Mac's are just cheaper but still expensive teasers with only 8gb ram and or a slow 256gb ssd. They only work well and last when you pay big bucks for the too expensive upgrades. As for the new 15” M2 Air. I don’t think this is why most buy a Mac air! They want something ultra portable that is light and fits in tight workspaces when traveling or carrying around the home or office. My 2022 13” already has a noticeably bigger, brighter, a lot nicer display! It's the perfect ultraportable Mac!
Nope, didn’t spend almost $3k for it. I’m retired from supporting Macs, networks and leading large support teams.
I got a loaded gorgeous midnight Air w/ 24gb ram, 2tb ssd, apple care plus to 9/25 for $1700. It’s a fantastic box! Didn’t need the pro models for a lot more money and weight. Still not happy with the non-upgradeable Apple ecosphere and I doubt if I will ever buy anything new if I can possibly help it. Sure, if you are a media freak and must absolutely have a 15” screen, great, but that's why there’s a giant LG OLED on my wall!

 

[teh_hunterer]

try again, i already debunked this controlled environment nonsense you keep labeling, its a laptop on a desk running benchmark for christ sake 😂

there is a old saying, you can lead the horse to the water, but you cannot make it drink. so awesome to see everything i said to you just flew right over your head lol

Quinn showed that even when fully throttled, the M2 Air outperforms a non-throttled M1. His testing methodology was more thorough than the link you posted, and at the ambient temperature he tested at, the throttling bottomed out, making more runs unnecessary. I don't know why you're so desperate to ignore this.

I'll also highlight the point you also keep ignoring:

Even if a good source shows that the M2 fully throttled is slightly outperformed by a non-throttled M1 after 30+ minutes, so what? It's close enough, and if a throttled M2 is roughly equivalent to the full performance of the M1, that's decent for non-demanding gaming.

i didn't make any condescending remarks, its not my fault you never took high school physics

^ hilarious sentence by the way.

don't need to, i stick with my first link, i only posted max tech cause he address the very issue you put forth directly.
and again, i ask you, do you find any errors in his testing mythology, or do you just not like the guy.

As I said, find someone else to watch the Max Tech video with you. I'm not interested.

 

[lcseds]

I have a fully loaded 13” 2022 air. It’s replacing my 2020 M1 air which was an 8gb 512 model that is now pretty worthless but valuable as an upgrade for my wife from her 2013 15” MacBook Pro! First, Mac's are just cheaper but still expensive teasers with only 8gb ram and or a slow 256gb ssd. They only work well and last when you pay big bucks for the too expensive upgrades. As for the new 15” M2 Air. I don’t think this is why most buy a Mac air! They want something ultra portable that is light and fits in tight workspaces when traveling or carrying around the home or office. My 2022 13” already has a noticeably bigger, brighter, a lot nicer display! It's the perfect ultraportable Mac!
Nope, didn’t spend almost $3k for it. I’m retired from supporting Macs, networks and leading large support teams.
I got a loaded gorgeous midnight Air w/ 24gb ram, 2tb ssd, apple care plus to 9/25 for $1700. It’s a fantastic box! Didn’t need the pro models for a lot more money and weight. Still not happy with the non-upgradeable Apple ecosphere and I doubt if I will ever buy anything new if I can possibly help it. Sure, if you are a media freak and must absolutely have a 15” screen, great, but that's why there’s a giant LG OLED on my wall!

You want someone to ask so I will. How did you get that machine for $1700? With my Veterans 10%, it's still $2450 configured like that. Don't tell me gift cards and such because those don't reflect how much you paid.

 

[Rossmon]

I had no thoughts about anyone asking and didn’t report the price to create a mystery. This was just a normal used buy/sell. As an experienced Mac engineer, I’ve done this many times for my clients and me over the years. I looked at all the various on-line ads and responded to one on Facebook from a local seller that looked legit. I always try to find a used machine with AppleCare for my clients or myself.

 

[Allen_Wentz]

Hi!
I have a MACBOOK PRO M1 14", but it honestly exceeds my needs (office stuff). I drool for this new 15"... Would you change one for the other in this circumstance?

Would you exchange a BMW for a KIA because the KIA is a year newer and shinier? Some do, but not me.

 

[Allen_Wentz]

Compact Flash is an ancient standard. No Mac has ever had a Compact Flash port.

Mis-stated. Used primarily by pro photogs, Compact Flash evolved into XQD and now the CF(Compact Flash)express cards used by pro photogs and others today. MY Nikon D2x and D3s circa 2005-2010 had CF but today's pro Nikons have CFexpress. Some Nikons like the D850 and the Z8 have both card types, but using the slower UHS you seem to recommend slows down camera operation.

CFexpress is ~5x as fast as the UHS-II relatively slow (typically maximum ~300 MB/s) SD cards you seem to consider "modern." CFexpress uses the PCIe standard, while SD does not and therefore is limiting.

Many pros like me would far prefer the bandwidth of another TB port over the slow SD card slot Apple gave us when they took a TB port away from the MBPs. Dongles are easy and cheap and allow connection of all kinds of things that are much, much faster than lame SD - - including modern CFexpress.

 

[Allen_Wentz]

Depends on what you do with the MBA/MBP. I have an M1 Max 64 GB MBP 16. It’s been my work horse for almost 18 months. My home shared laptop is MBA M2. M2 MBA starts throttling if I do something at sustained load for 15 mins. My kids love MBA, I use MBP 16.
Personally I would have gotten MBP M2 Max with 96 GB ram and GPU cores if I was in market for MBP 16. I keep my MBP for long time, so incremental cost over 7-8 years is not much.

Fully agreed for similar reasons. And I did get the MBP M2 Max with 96 GB RAM when upgrading from a 2016 MBP. The 96 GB RAM is overkill at the moment, but I keep Macs for 4-7 year life cycles and decades of Mac experience tells me the Mac OS/apps will grow to take advantage of that much RAM during the life cycle of the new 2023 MBP. Especially because of the extreme competence of Apple's M chips Unified Memory Architecture.

MBA drives less displays, has 1/3 the i/o real bandwidth, less ports, display visually looks less good (even if the MBA display is color-correctable), speakers may be lesser than the MBP. Most importantly the MBA is limited to max 24 GB RAM; IMO (YMMV) that will be a significant limitation over the life cycle of a laptop new in 2023.

 

[Allen_Wentz]

Thanks. That is a significant weight difference. I was at an AppleStore on Sunday, i.e. before they had any MBA 15 yet. I lifted the MBP 16 for the first time (i still use a 2013 ! MBP 15) and was shocked how heavy it felt. Why do MBPs and iPhones seem to be getting heavier as they „evolve“ technologically?? Faster and heavier … should it not be faster and lighter? I still miss my iPhone 6 for that reason … my XS feels like a brick compared to it, just like the M1/2 MBP 16 feels compared to my 2013 MBP 15 …

1.5 pound weight difference for the larger 16" MBP over the 15" MBA. One pays a weight penalty for pro capability.

 

[duffman9000]

The big ones have been heavy for quite a while. When Apple brought out the new MBPs their aim was a full featured, powerful machine for professionals who wanted to get work done. The brought back the missing ports. they put in a larger and heavier battery and gave it lots of cooling capacity. That extra weight is there for a reason. those previous Intel models were too thin. That meant less battery capacity, fewer ports, and not enough room for cooling. If you want lighter, that is one of the benefits of the Air line where the 13" MBA got slightly lighter than the previous gen Intel MBA.

With phones, the added weight is probably battery, cameras, and (on the pro) the stainless steal frame.

The Intel MBP was known to cook reproductive organs. Good riddance!

 

[Allen_Wentz]

The Intel MBP was known to cook reproductive organs. Good riddance!

Folks who whine about heat from Intel MBPs must have not used earlier Apple laptops. IIRC the G3 was the hottest; you literally could not keep it in your lap. All the Apple laptops since then have always seemed to control heat better with each new generation. My maxed-out M2 MBP is amazingly cool.

 

[Longplays]

No. People shouldn't have to pay a fortune for a MBP to get a basic feature that any PC laptop has.

For a laptop that starts at 1300 USD it is completely absurd that it can't do that.

Smarter people who think that way would just buy any PC laptop.

 

[duffman9000]

Actually, they do, every time I go to the Apple Store, general consumers who don't need that much power are always flocking to the 16 and 14 inch MacBook Pros. I live in a college town and then amount of 14 inch MacBook Pro's I just see text documents being typed on is astounding. You don't need a 14 inch Mini-LED screen to type documents.

Yes the MBP definitely looks better. Is it worth the price difference? Not to me given how my wife and I will use our new Air 15.

 

[sideshowuniqueuser]

Imagine, in 2023, Apple is still cheap enough to ship 8gb RAM as the base amount. What a joke.

Worse is that many unsuspecting people will buy it, stumble upon performance issues, and then be disgusted that they bought an expensive lemon.

 

[sideshowuniqueuser]

$200 seems to be the number Apple thinks people won't care about spending.

$200 for 2 inches extra screen size.
$200 for 8GB extra memory.
$200 for extra 256GB SSD.

Seems crazy to me.

Plus the extra you are forced to pay by only having the 10 GPU chip, rather than the option of the cheaper 8 GPU chip. Pointless if you don't do a lot of video editing.
(Note: the $200 for 2" of screen, is actually $100 for the screen, and $100 for the 10 GPU rather than base 8 GPU chip.)

Same with the 16" vs 14" MBP, except far worse, as you have to have to go from the 14" base 10/16 CPU/GPU chip, to the 16" base 12/19 chip, which is a much larger price difference.

How does a desire for a bigger screen magically equate to being a heavy video editor?