I don't get why millions of people can't understand CPU logic...

[Dammit Cubs]

It's just boggles my mind. I read comments on every review about the macbook air. For the 11inch computer, they are like "why would I want a slow 1.4ghz C2D". Slow.....slow...............slow.

Let's really think about that. It's like everyone is trained that in their head, you need to fastest best processor in the world....so you can update your facebook status. You need to great processor in the world.....so you can say "rofl" to someone on IM.

Yes comparing processor to process, the 1.4GHZ is not that great, but do people really forget what an SSD can do to a product. People are like "well i can buy a Core i3 with 500GB HDD"... but from the looks of it, that C2D with SSD will run all your every day tasks better than with any HDD setup. I'm completely shocked. This isn't 2001, where we needed to update like every year because the CPU clock speeds were getting outrageous. I think the clock frequency is the most overrated value in computer today.

I think what I'm trying to say is...people should try it before they knock it. Of course, all these complainers are coming from PC users. You would think they would know a thing or two...then I realized that....they are PC users.

These aren't workhorses...they are portable computers. It's like comparing a V6 vs V12 and both are stuck at a speed limit of 40mph. Doesn't it really matter then. If you are complaining that this computer can't compute the next supernova in the other galaxies then...obviously, you were trying to floor your honda accord to 250 mph. ...it's a car nonetheless, it will though take you from point A to Point B.

 

[Mike225]

The over-generalizations were amazing. Keep up the good work

 

[netdog]

It's no different from the megapixel myth.

Processor speed is easy to grasp. 2.8 > 2.4 > 2.13 > 1.86 > 1.6 > 1.4.

Now easy to grasp doesn't mean that it is always meaningful, but for marketers, a simple number can be an effective marketing message even if the computer is cr@p. A high number instantly says to the consumer, as Clarkson likes to put it, "POWER".

 

[vm7118]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_0 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8A293 Safari/6531.22.7)

It's just boggles my mind. I read comments on every review about the macbook air. For the 11inch computer, they are like "why would I want a slow 1.4ghz C2D". Slow.....slow...............slow.

Let's really think about that. It's like everyone is trained that in their head, you need to fastest best processor in the world....so you can update your facebook status. You need to great processor in the world.....so you can say "rofl" to someone on IM.

Yes comparing processor to process, the 1.4GHZ is not that great, but do people really forget what an SSD can do to a product. People are like "well i can buy a Core i3 with 500GB HDD"... but from the looks of it, that C2D with SSD will run all your every day tasks better than with any HDD setup. I'm completely shocked. This isn't 2001, where we needed to update like every year because the CPU clock speeds were getting outrageous. I think the clock frequency is the most overrated value in computer today.

I think what I'm trying to say is...people should try it before they knock it. Of course, all these complainers are coming from PC users. You would think they would know a thing or two...then I realized that....they are PC users.

These aren't workhorses...they are portable computers. It's like comparing a V6 vs V12 and both are stuck at a speed limit of 40mph. Doesn't it really matter then. If you are complaining that this computer can't compute the next supernova in the other galaxies then...obviously, you were trying to floor your honda accord to 250 mph. ...it's a car nonetheless, it will though take you from point A to Point B.

Seems to me like you're the one who doesn't understand CPU "logic". The 1.4 ghz c2d is not only half the clock speed of the a typical pc purchase, but an entire generation behind.

So yes, maybe the speed limit is 40 mph. But the v12 SUV will get you to 40 faster than the hybrid civic, and do it while carrying your family.

And you can easily buy a *faster and better* SSD than what apple offers right off of newegg to throw into that machine with the i5 or i7.

The point isn't that the MBA is fast. It's not fast... At all. The point is that this isn't a notebook for people that are looking for speed. They don't need the SUV.

Speed is why I have an i7 desktop. The MBA's internals are horribly slow... But the form factor is unparalleled. That's they key.

 

[mark28]

Then why upgrade?

Might as well stick to your 7 years old 1.4 ghz computer then if power isn't important.

I'll happily drive my F1 car while you drive along in your more luxurious BMW that lacks power.

 

[wirelessmacuser]

The over-generalizations were amazing. Keep up the good work

+1

The word "assumptions" comes to mind...

 

[MrBellamy]

It's just boggles my mind. I read comments on every review about the macbook air. For the 11inch computer, they are like "why would I want a slow 1.4ghz C2D". Slow.....slow...............slow.

Let's really think about that. It's like everyone is trained that in their head, you need to fastest best processor in the world....so you can update your facebook status. You need to great processor in the world.....so you can say "rofl" to someone on IM.

Yes comparing processor to process, the 1.4GHZ is not that great, but do people really forget what an SSD can do to a product. People are like "well i can buy a Core i3 with 500GB HDD"... but from the looks of it, that C2D with SSD will run all your every day tasks better than with any HDD setup. I'm completely shocked. This isn't 2001, where we needed to update like every year because the CPU clock speeds were getting outrageous. I think the clock frequency is the most overrated value in computer today.

I think what I'm trying to say is...people should try it before they knock it. Of course, all these complainers are coming from PC users. You would think they would know a thing or two...then I realized that....they are PC users.

These aren't workhorses...they are portable computers. It's like comparing a V6 vs V12 and both are stuck at a speed limit of 40mph. Doesn't it really matter then. If you are complaining that this computer can't compute the next supernova in the other galaxies then...obviously, you were trying to floor your honda accord to 250 mph. ...it's a car nonetheless, it will though take you from point A to Point B.

I totally agree.
CPUs have gotten so much faster over the past years compared to things like HDDs. That the SSD is much more an improvement than a little processor boost. Also, things such as RAM can't even keep up with todays processors. Processors are just an easy way to market computers compared to other things because some people think that a 2.8 GHz computer is twice as fast as a 1.4 GHz which is not true when taking into account everything else.

 

[holmesf]

It's just boggles my mind. I read comments on every review about the macbook air. For the 11inch computer, they are like "why would I want a slow 1.4ghz C2D". Slow.....slow...............slow.

Let's really think about that. It's like everyone is trained that in their head, you need to fastest best processor in the world....so you can update your facebook status. You need to great processor in the world.....so you can say "rofl" to someone on IM.

Yes comparing processor to process, the 1.4GHZ is not that great, but do people really forget what an SSD can do to a product. People are like "well i can buy a Core i3 with 500GB HDD"... but from the looks of it, that C2D with SSD will run all your every day tasks better than with any HDD setup. I'm completely shocked. This isn't 2001, where we needed to update like every year because the CPU clock speeds were getting outrageous. I think the clock frequency is the most overrated value in computer today.

I think what I'm trying to say is...people should try it before they knock it. Of course, all these complainers are coming from PC users. You would think they would know a thing or two...then I realized that....they are PC users.

These aren't workhorses...they are portable computers. It's like comparing a V6 vs V12 and both are stuck at a speed limit of 40mph. Doesn't it really matter then. If you are complaining that this computer can't compute the next supernova in the other galaxies then...obviously, you were trying to floor your honda accord to 250 mph. ...it's a car nonetheless, it will though take you from point A to Point B.

Amdahl's law comes to mind. Whether or not the 1.4GHz C2Duo CPU makes sense depends on the workload. For workloads which are CPU bound (like say video transcoding) it actually makes very little sense and is a deal breaker, and so for some people it really doesn't make any sense at all as a purchase. For those whose workload mainly consists of casual use where the most intense operations are generally launching applications, it makes a lot of sense (due to the SSD) and is probably a great machine.

 

[chrono1081]

It's just boggles my mind. I read comments on every review about the macbook air. For the 11inch computer, they are like "why would I want a slow 1.4ghz C2D". Slow.....slow...............slow.

Let's really think about that. It's like everyone is trained that in their head, you need to fastest best processor in the world....so you can update your facebook status. You need to great processor in the world.....so you can say "rofl" to someone on IM.

Yes comparing processor to process, the 1.4GHZ is not that great, but do people really forget what an SSD can do to a product. People are like "well i can buy a Core i3 with 500GB HDD"... but from the looks of it, that C2D with SSD will run all your every day tasks better than with any HDD setup. I'm completely shocked. This isn't 2001, where we needed to update like every year because the CPU clock speeds were getting outrageous. I think the clock frequency is the most overrated value in computer today.

I think what I'm trying to say is...people should try it before they knock it. Of course, all these complainers are coming from PC users. You would think they would know a thing or two...then I realized that....they are PC users.

These aren't workhorses...they are portable computers. It's like comparing a V6 vs V12 and both are stuck at a speed limit of 40mph. Doesn't it really matter then. If you are complaining that this computer can't compute the next supernova in the other galaxies then...obviously, you were trying to floor your honda accord to 250 mph. ...it's a car nonetheless, it will though take you from point A to Point B.

+938409283849 and you are completely right about the people complaining are the ones who never owned one.

The problem is most people don't understand computers like they think they understand computers. I hear stupid comments all the time such as "a 3.0ghz processor is a 3.0ghz processor regardless of OS". Um...it is but the performance is NOT and never will be the same. A processor can't run all by itself.

Solid state drives are a HUGE upgrade and people dont understand that. They also don't understand how ram truly works in a system, or how core technologies like OpenCL will take advantage of the GPU to greatly improve things. Most people don't even understand how advanced the most basic GPU even is!

The 11 inch macbook air is a beast, so is the 2.13ghz. Anyone who tries to disagree has never owned one. My air right now is running Maya renders (I have a large project due so I'm using the Mac Pro in my sig, my parents iMac, and my Macbook Air as a render farm XD) and the Macbook air is holding its own amazingly and has rendered a ton of frames. Its a powerful computer.

Granted, it all depends on what type of work you are doing for if an air is good for someone or not but for most people and their uses its perfect.

 

[sinophilia]

I basically agree with the OP. I think flash storage and the new graphics card are what matters most in this product, and the slower CPU may well have been chosen to keep down heat and energy consumption - so it could be the best choice in the end.

It is also true that when you fork out 1000 euro or more, you would like to get the latest technology, and then this CPU becomes disappointing.

Still, an 11" notebook is probably not going to be your primary computer, at least not if you do video editing all the time. But I'm sure the overall experience for the general user is going to be great, and that's what counts.

 

[henry72]

It's just boggles my mind. I read comments on every review about the macbook air. For the 11inch computer, they are like "why would I want a slow 1.4ghz C2D". Slow.....slow...............slow.

Let's really think about that. It's like everyone is trained that in their head, you need to fastest best processor in the world....so you can update your facebook status. You need to great processor in the world.....so you can say "rofl" to someone on IM.

Yes comparing processor to process, the 1.4GHZ is not that great, but do people really forget what an SSD can do to a product. People are like "well i can buy a Core i3 with 500GB HDD"... but from the looks of it, that C2D with SSD will run all your every day tasks better than with any HDD setup. I'm completely shocked. This isn't 2001, where we needed to update like every year because the CPU clock speeds were getting outrageous. I think the clock frequency is the most overrated value in computer today.

I think what I'm trying to say is...people should try it before they knock it. Of course, all these complainers are coming from PC users. You would think they would know a thing or two...then I realized that....they are PC users.

These aren't workhorses...they are portable computers. It's like comparing a V6 vs V12 and both are stuck at a speed limit of 40mph. Doesn't it really matter then. If you are complaining that this computer can't compute the next supernova in the other galaxies then...obviously, you were trying to floor your honda accord to 250 mph. ...it's a car nonetheless, it will though take you from point A to Point B.

Agree!!!!! I guess a total PC user look at the hardware quite different to a Mac user Maybe is to do with OS X?

Typical PC User: I wanna upgrade my PC to Quad core etc... but do you really need it?

 

[Dammit Cubs]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_0 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8A293 Safari/6531.22.7)



Seems to me like you're the one who doesn't understand CPU "logic". The 1.4 ghz c2d is not only half the clock speed of the a typical pc purchase, but an entire generation behind.

So yes, maybe the speed limit is 40 mph. But the v12 SUV will get you to 40 faster than the hybrid civic, and do it while carrying your family.

And you can easily buy a *faster and better* SSD than what apple offers right off of newegg to throw into that machine with the i5 or i7.

The point isn't that the MBA is fast. It's not fast... At all. The point is that this isn't a notebook for people that are looking for speed. They don't need the SUV.

Speed is why I have an i7 desktop. The MBA's internals are horribly slow... But the form factor is unparalleled. That's they key.

Once again what are you using your computer for. For a "horribly slow" computer? I can be just as productive or even more productive doing regular day to day task as your i7 desktop. Because of the SSD. The computer isn't used for crunching movies or doing ridiculous photo edits or even playing crysis. You are trying to put your computer in something its not capable. And if all you do is web browse, do something office productivity and other tasks where you can't take advantage of the cpu upgrade then why it god's name did you waste your money. And yet you still stand here saying the processor is a P.O.S. P.O.S in cpu terms is based on reference, nothing more. To many people 1.4ghz is highly fast and highly capable.

Numbers don't liee and this "previous generation away" is keeping in some tasks (like every day) then the core i5. If this is your logic, why in god's name would people even buy ipads, the A4 is horribly slow. 1.4 seems terrible on windows, but looks as if 1.4ghz is just fine on OS X.

That's why apple made a PRO lineup.

 

[TheAngryKiwi]

Yeah, it's a harkback to the Megahertz Myth, where, what, an 800MHz G4 ran circles around a 1.7GHz Pentium 4?

 

[mark28]

Agree!!!!! I guess a total PC user look at the hardware quite different to a Mac user Maybe is to do with OS X?

Typical PC User: I wanna upgrade my PC to Quad core etc... but do you really need it?

MBP i7 are outselling MBP i5 according to a local Apple store. So no.

 

[aberrero]

Yeah, it's a harkback to the Megahertz Myth, where, what, an 800MHz G4 ran circles around a 1.7GHz Pentium 4?

No, it isn't, none of you people know what you are talking about. The CPU in the 11" Air is crap. It is a three year old design that is vastly less efficient than the latest CPUs. The "megahurtz myth" actually goes the over way, where a 1.4ghz Core i7 ULV can eat the Core 2 Duo for breakfast. It has an integrated memory controller(huge deal), hyperthreading and turbo mode, not to mention a ton of other improvements like hardware accelerated AES encryption.


Apple put cheap processors in an expensive laptop to maximize profits. That's all there is to it. I don't care, I bought one because it does what I need, but I am not so delusional that I think Steve Jobs is doing me any favors by selling me a 3 year old CPU in a $1300 laptop.

 

[aberrero]

MBP i7 are outselling MBP i5 according to a local Apple store. So no.

MBP i7 is a dual core, Apple doesn't have quad core laptops

The "i7" is just a slightly faster version of the i5. The i7QM are quad core CPUs.

 

[mark28]

MBP i7 is a dual core, Apple doesn't have quad core laptops

The "i7" is just a slightly faster version of the i5. The i7QM are quad core CPUs.

Where did I say the i7 MBP is a quad core?

Since you missed the point, Mac users do look at CPU power, else the i7 MBP wouldn't be selling.

It has nothing to do with being a "PC" user.

And Linux even runs on mobile phones, so the OS X argument of his doesn't even hold either.

 

[Pressure]

It's no different from the megapixel myth.

Processor speed is easy to grasp. 2.8 > 2.4 > 2.13 > 1.86 > 1.6 > 1.4.

Now easy to grasp doesn't mean that it is always meaningful, but for marketers, a simple number can be an effective marketing message even if the computer is cr@p. A high number instantly says to the consumer, as Clarkson likes to put it, "POWER".

To be honest processor power is quite difficult to grasp, as it clearly shows.

Yes, speed inside the same family of processors have a way of being on a linear scale. Introduce different families and generations of processor technology and you ruin that simple, clean image.

Suddenly we have speed, caches (Level 1, 2 and 3), cores, "imaginary" cores, bus speed, features this and that.

 

[Hisdem]

MBP i7 are outselling MBP i5 according to a local Apple store. So no.

Many people opt for the i7 just for the extra VRAM, and stored only carry antiglares with an i7 processor, so the speed bump mignt not be the only cause.

 

[KnightWRX]

Then why upgrade?

Might as well stick to your 7 years old 1.4 ghz computer then if power isn't important.

First of all, your 7 years old 1.4 ghz computer is probably less than half the speed of the MBA's 1.4 GHZ processor.

The Penryn-3M architecture used in the C2D that's housed in the 11.6" MBA was released in September 2009. It's used in a lot of current small form factor notebooks because it's an ultra-low-voltage part.

Now back to your assertion, 7 years old means either the Pentium III or Pentium IV. If we're talking Pentium IV, then you do understand that clock for clock, those were slower than even older Pentium IIIs. Clock for clock, the Core 2 Duos are faster that these processors by already a good margin.

The other difference of course is the number of cores. This thing has 2. It's like having 2 CPUs from 7 years ago. While that might not translate to a 100% speed increase in real world terms, it will boost the speed significantly for a multi-tasking OS with a proper scheduler.

So let's drop the "old tech" argument, this is brand spanking new tech. It's just low power tech.

It will still run Photoshop, Illustrator, Xcode, Eclipse and even your precious Final Cut and Aperture. Those run on computers that are quite older than this using quite older tech without any hiccups.

While it might not be able to do every task as rapidly as a i7 desktop will, it will still do them, while on the go, while on a battery. That's where the price is justified.

Anyway, anyone saying you can find better in a PC package. I dare you. Shop around and find something with the exact same specs or better as a MBA for a lower price. Remember kids :

- Weight is a spec
- Size is a spec

A quick list of things not to bother looking at :

- Dell. Period. (none of the ultra-portables have the right graphics/cpus)
- Sony Vaio Z (more expensive) and X (even slower processor/graphics).
- Lenovo (slower graphics all around)

Now all the complainers : Go, find this mythical "better deal" and tell us about it.

 

[robeddie]

Then why upgrade?

Might as well stick to your 7 years old 1.4 ghz computer then if power isn't important.

I'll happily drive my F1 car while you drive along in your more luxurious BMW that lacks power.

And you'll both get to work at the same time! The difference is, he'll have a smile on his face, since he had an enjoyable ride... while your noisy, big rattling-engined F1 will leave you with a headache.

Your analogy is perfect really, since 99.9% of the time, people that have a corvette do no more with their car than the guy with the miata... it's all about a vacuous testosterone laden bragging-right: My engine is bigger than yours, my '&$%" is bigger than yours... my processor is bigger than yours.

 

[Dammit Cubs]

Even if the CPU is "crap". it seems like its good enough. This will probably quite naysayers....

If this computer was announced. Both the macbook air 11in and 13in and apple did something so you couldn't see the clock speed. There was no way of finding out. You didn't run a geekbench on just the CPU and just judged the computer as a whole. Looking at performance and battery life.

You would be shocked at how fast things open and how efficient you are getting things done. You then would compare it to your macbook 2.4 C2D and you are noticing that apps are opening faster. So maybe its a 2.4 C2D. But then you also compare it to your imac and I5 and you are seeing that everyday tasks are blowing every other macbook out of the water. You have to think it a core i3 or at least a corei5. There is no way it can be a 1.4 Ghz Cpu. No way.

and then you find out.

If this computer had no cpu spec and there was no way of finding out for months, it would sell even faster and all those people who bought wouldn't complain once. ONce they find out its C2D, then they start whining.

In computer world, 1+1 doesn't always equal 2. In this case, its a 3.

 

[daleski75]

No, it isn't, none of you people know what you are talking about. The CPU in the 11" Air is crap. It is a three year old design that is vastly less efficient than the latest CPUs. The "megahurtz myth" actually goes the over way, where a 1.4ghz Core i7 ULV can eat the Core 2 Duo for breakfast. It has an integrated memory controller(huge deal), hyperthreading and turbo mode, not to mention a ton of other improvements like hardware accelerated AES encryption.


Apple put cheap processors in an expensive laptop to maximize profits. That's all there is to it. I don't care, I bought one because it does what I need, but I am not so delusional that I think Steve Jobs is doing me any favors by selling me a 3 year old CPU in a $1300 laptop.

If Intel and Nvidia ever sort out their little issue then we will see ULV i3,i5 etc inside the rest of the Macbook range until then just because it is running on 'outdated' technology does not make it redundant.

Hell I am selling my Z11 maxed out with 8gb of ram for one of these MBA's and after playing around with one in my local apple store it felt just as snappy as my Z11 with an i5-520m inside it.

CPU performance is a very small part of the over all performance of the laptop and SSD's to me are much more of a benefit then a few MHZ's

 

[colinthejanitor]

So why do benchmarks show the 2.13 13" MBA only being 10% slower than the i5 15" MBP?

Edit: https://www.macrumors.com/2010/10/27/macbook-air-ultimate-configurations-benchmarked/

 

[AAPLaday]

A little off topic perhaps but i've never understood why so many people on here buy a new laptop every year for such a small performance gain. 'Oooo new MBP out i will sell my 12 month old one for it'. There have only been a few revision over the last few years where it has been worth the upgrade from an older MBP. Much better off beefing up their current models.