How does the Rev. B MBA compare to the old Rev. A Core Duo Macbook?

[mattcube64]

Hey guys!

I have a first generation Macbook that's starting to get long in the tooth. I keep hearing how the MBA sometimes feels sluggish... and I can understand how it would compared to the new aluminum MBs and MBPs. However, I would imagine it would be a fair bit faster than my old white MB. Am I right in assuming that... or am I way off?

 

[Kan-O-Z]

If you are talking about the 1.86 SSD Rev B then it will be a good bit faster than your Macbook. As a matter of fact, it's performance is on par with the current low end Macbook but it feels much faster. As a matter of fact, it feels like the fastest computer I have used and I currently also own a 1 year old MBP.

You have nothing to worry about from a performance aspect. You already have an iMac and could probably use a MBA as a great compliment to it. You will find it snappier than your iMac

Kan-O-Z

 

[msinco]

Dont know about rev B but rev A is not fast enough

I had a Rev A Macbook White before i went and bought a Rev A Macbook Air. The MBA was sometimes as fast as the Macbook, sometimes it is slower, but it is never faster than Macbook. It is especially slower during opening of apps and when using virtualization software (vmware/parallels).

Im using a Macbook Air Rev A with 80GB HDD. SSD or Rev B might be faster.

 

[jackiecanev2]

My revB 1.86/128 kills my first-gen macbook in just about everything. It's not really sluggish at all, unless you plan on watching HD movies, running Photoshop and Final Cut, encoding video, etc, all at the same time. Go try one in a store, if you can. It's faster than everyone would have you believe, and the revB are much more capable than the revA of being a primary computer (obvious expandability and lack of ports aside).

 

[nph]

First gen MBP?

What if you compare it to the first gen MBP instead?

Thanks

 

[jackiecanev2]

Although the 9400M is a little underclocked in the Air, I've read around here that the first gen MBP's ATI x1600 is about on par with the integrated 9400M of the new alu macbooks. If that helps at all.

 

[nph]

Thanks, so if graphics is about equal 9400 vs 1600 then the new memory and processor should beat the MBP in pure processing speed, right?

 

[elppa]

Geekbench 2.0:

Year — Model — Score — Increase over Baseline
2008 — MacBook Air Rev. B 1.6GHz — 2245 — Baseline
2006 — MacBook Core Duo 1.83GHz — 2298 — +53
2008 — MacBook Core Duo 2.00GHz — 2464 — +219
2006 — MacBook Air Rev. B 1.86GHz — 2519 — +274
2006 — MacBook Core Duo 2.00GHz (mine!) — 2524 — +279

Looking at the raw figures, they're all much of a muchness.

There is a difference between benchmarked speed and actual speed. Here the MBA seems to have a number of advantages:

[1] Faster disk access in the SSD version. Applications will load quicker. Disk IO is one of the slowest parts of a computer system, so speeding this up gives noticeable results.

[2] The NVIDA chipset will help with anything graphical. Apple claims 5x faster than the X3100 Intel integrated graphics in the original Air, which itself was faster than the GMA950 in your (and my) MacBook.

[3] GPU will be utilised better by OS in the future. The Nvida chipset is already used to handle H.264 decoding, which means the CPU is free to do other things and the unit runs cooler as a result. With Snow Leoaprd more and more tasks are likely to be offloaded to the GPU. The Air has a very good GPU for a laptop (let alone an ultra-portable), your (and my) MacBook in comparison has a very puny GPU.

 

[Cheffy Dave]

much of a muchness.
HUH

 

[elppa]

much of a muchness.
HUH

I was talking about the raw scores.

Here's a comparison:
July 2005 — iBook 1.42GHz G4 — 774
October 2005 — PowerMac 2.3GHz G5 — 2108
May 2006 — MacBook 2.00GHz Core Duo — 2464
October 2008 — MacBook Pro 2.8GHz Core2Duo — 3671

 

[Mactagonist]

Rev B will be faster then the original MBP.