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

[mark28]

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/

You are right. Just because 1 synthetic benchmark says it's only 10% slower than a i5, it must be really fast.

The i5 will blow that 1.4 C2D out of the water in real-life benchmarks. Most of the time, it's 2 times faster.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/3991/apples-2010-macbook-air-11-13inch-reviewed/7

And this is the i5 MBP without a SSD The performance will only increase if that HDD is replaced by a SSD.

 

[Jiten]

These guys can look at it this way, the 11 inch Air is about as fast as top of the line G5 Macs from several years ago.

 

[KnightWRX]

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.

Personally ? I didn't buy the Air for the performance gain. I bought it for the extra battery life (my Macbook is rated for 5 hours, the MBA 13" for 7), the better screen resolution and the added portability (I recently have been forced to drag my MacBook around much more and on the motorcycle with all my gym clothes in the backpack, you can definately feel it).

The graphics upgrade and the SSD were icing.

The i5 will blow that 1.4 C2D out of the water in real-life benchmarks. Most of the time, it's 2 times faster.

http://www.barefeats.com/mbpp30.html

The fact is, sometimes 2x faster is just wasted. Real life benchmarks are again just that, benchmarks. If the MBA 11.6" does what you need it to do in an acceptable fashion and provides added benefits of being more portable and cheaper than the MBP 15" with Core i5, then what's the point of not buying it ?

Let's face it, a lot of the hate against the MBA seems to come from nerd porn addicts. "Gotta have the moar threads!". If you want a i5 MBP instead of a MBA, that is fine. But don't piss in everyone's cereal and try to tell MBA owners that they bought crap.

I'm still waiting on those comparables I've asked for on page 1 btw.

 

[maflynn]

Yeah, I remember when apple used this logic for the PPC platform.

Its old addition by subtraction logic.

While the demands of much of todays software may not need 3Ghz octo-quad cores, its plain that the MBA is slower then an i5 based laptop. The saving grace of the MBA is the GPU they used.

 

[KnightWRX]

While the demands of much of todays software may not need 3Ghz octo-quad cores, its plain that the MBA is slower then an i5 based laptop. The saving grace of the MBA is the GPU they used.

I don't think anyone is contesting that point. But to turn "the MBA is slower then an i5 based laptop" into "Apple is ripping off its customers!" is plain wrong. The simple fact is, barely anyone really absolutely requires an i5 based laptop.

These ULVs Core 2 Duos are being used in a lot of laptop models :

- Dell's Alienware M11x. This one comes up as something that "blows the MBA out of the water!", yet there it is, using the same CPU. It's even using the 1.3 ghz version...

- Lenovo IdeaPad U150. Again, a SU7300 Processor ( 1.30GHz 800MHz 3MB ), that good old Core 2 Duo in the MBA, one clock down.

In fact, Lenovo also sells the ULV Core iX series. Look at the specs on those in the IdeaPad U160 :

Intel® Core™ i5-470UM Processor 1.33GHz 800MHz 3MB
Intel® Core™ i3-380UM Processor 1.33GHz 800MHz 3MB

So seriously, name calling the MBA because of a low clocked CPU is downright disingenious. Saying PCs offer much more performance is also quite disingenious. The fact is these processors are very much up to date and consistent with what the market is offering.

So in fact, this is not as you put it :

Yeah, I remember when apple used this logic for the PPC platform.

It is not the same situation. Apple is not selling you a lower clocked machine than the rest of the industry and claiming it's performing on par due to some IBM/Motorola pixie dust. They are selling the same processors the rest of the industry sells you and they are claiming that their version is not any slower than the ones sold by Dell, Lenovo, Sony and the rest.

 

[Pressure]

These guys can look at it this way, the 11 inch Air is about as fast as top of the line G5 Macs from several years ago.

In other words there will be some 12" PowerBook owners that will be happy

 

[bouncer1]

You are right. Just because 1 synthetic benchmark says it's only 10% slower than a i5, it must be really fast.

The i5 will blow that 1.4 C2D out of the water in real-life benchmarks. Most of the time, it's 2 times faster.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/3991/apples-2010-macbook-air-11-13inch-reviewed/7

And this is the i5 MBP without a SSD The performance will only increase if that HDD is replaced by a SSD.

hahaha, anandtech, how about posting a link that isn't coming from a teenager with too much time on his hands and a good $ allowance by intel.

Anandtech....tstststst...

 

[KPOM]

Yeah, I remember when apple used this logic for the PPC platform.

Its old addition by subtraction logic.

While the demands of much of todays software may not need 3Ghz octo-quad cores, its plain that the MBA is slower then an i5 based laptop. The saving grace of the MBA is the GPU they used.

But the MacBook Air isn't being sold as a speed demon. It's being sold as a mainstream notebook for average users. Yes, the 1.4GHz C2D is fairly slow by modern specs, but it's no different from Honda putting a 4 cylinder engine in the Civic.

Jobs has been asked about the decision to use the Core2Duo. It comes down to Apple's relationship with nVidia and the emphasis that Apple is placing on the GPU.

If you went into an Apple Store and said you were going to do a lot of video editing, I doubt they would direct you to the 11" MBA, or even the 13" MBP for that matter. The Core i5-equipped machines are better for that. I question why the 13" MBP hasn't gotten a Core i5 (or at least a Core i3) with a discrete GPU, but understand their decision to stick with the C2D in the Air. The Air is their new "mainstream" notebook, and there is currently too much of a tradeoff in GPU performance to make using the Core i3 or i5 worthwhile. Next year things will be different, and I expect Apple will find a way to get a Core i chip into a version of the Air.

 

[Hastings101]

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.

Oh hey, a sane post

 

[bouncer1]

Oh hey, a sane post

Calling others delusional, or implying they are insane won't help your case here boys.

 

[KnightWRX]

Oh hey, a sane post

If it's so sane, can you point to these comparable PCs with either better specs or lower prices ?

I think I covered a bunch earlier, yet you people keep insisting these mythical ultra portables that crush the MBA exist.

Seriously, time to backup your claims kids.

 

[soLoredd]

Jobs has been asked about the decision to use the Core2Duo. It comes down to Apple's relationship with nVidia and the emphasis that Apple is placing on the GPU.

That's interesting because for years people said Apple needed to offer discrete GPUs in the MacBook and they kept refusing. "No, for entry-level MacBooks, integrated is just fine."

Apple is stubborn as hell when it comes to the GPU.

The ultimate irony is that Jobs said Apple would never go the netbook route and the iPad was supposed to be the alternative. Looking at the 11" Air, it's a damn netbook.

 

[KPOM]

That's interesting because for years people said Apple needed to offer discrete GPUs in the MacBook and they kept refusing. "No, for entry-level MacBooks, integrated is just fine."

Apple is stubborn as hell when it comes to the GPU.

The ultimate irony is that Jobs said Apple would never go the netbook route and the iPad was supposed to be the alternative. Looking at the 11" Air, it's a damn netbook.

Times change. Snow Leopard put more emphasis on offloading to the GPU than previous versions of OS X. So it makes sense that Apple wants to use the GPU.

Also, if you consider Jobs' words more carefully, he was asked about netbooks in the context of the $300-$500 machines that were wildly popular 2 years ago. He said back then that he didn't like them because he didn't think Apple could build a decent computer for less than $500. iPad is $500 and for many people fills the role of a "netbook." Air starts at $1,000 and goes all the way up to $1,800. Sure, it's the same size as a netbook, but it uses a traditional mobile processor (albeit an aging one, but still more powerful than the current Atoms), and an upgraded integrated graphics processor. The sub-$500 netbooks don't have either.

 

[jeznav]

Looking at the 11" Air, it's a damn netbook.

So your saying that the HP Mini 1.6ghz atom netbook beats the 11" 1.4ghz MBA?

 

[KPOM]

Oh hey, a sane post

True, Apple is notorious for "under-spec-ing" their machines to maximize profits. The C2D is relegated to the back pages of Intel's web site, so they clearly want people to use the Core i3, i5, and i7, which do have a lot of nice new features (direct memory controller being one of them). They also need an excuse to up-sell next year.

Air was long overdue for an upgrade, and I'm sure a lot of people are disappointed that the top-of-the-line processors haven't been upgraded since November 2008 (June 2009 if you count the 2.13GHz). However, I'm guessing that they wanted this out in time for the holidays, and didn't want to wait for Sandy Bridge. I would not be surprised if the Air switches to an annual update like the Pro and base MacBook lines (and I wouldn't be surprised if the base MacBook disappears entirely as both the 13" Air and 13" Pro overlap it quite a bit).

Look. I'd prefer a 13" Air with a Core i3 and discrete nVidia 330m. It would be far more future-proof than a processor that is on Intel's "Previous Generation Processors" page on its website. But it isn't going to happen in the same form factor today.

 

[matrix07]

The ultimate irony is that Jobs said Apple would never go the netbook route and the iPad was supposed to be the alternative. Looking at the 11" Air, it's a damn netbook.

When did he say it? Pls give a link. The ultimate irony maybe you don't know what you're talking about. AFAIK, he just said he doesn't know how to make sub $500.00 that isn't crap.

 

[maflynn]

He didn't but he was pretty derisive on the whole netbook category and low and behold he released a netbook.

Not a first time that he was profoundly negative on a given topic only to do a complete 180 degree turn around. iOS multitasking quickly comes to mind

 

[bouncer1]

Oh it's the netbook card again, this should go into the long list of chiches here, everyone will be so sick of hearing it soon, if they are not already.

I have already suggested the mods implement a fee scheme for each time someone says netbook.

 

[matrix07]

He didn't but he was pretty derisive on the whole netbook category and low and behold he released a netbook.

Well, thank you for your honesty. His definition, your definition, my definition or Anandtech's definition may not be the same. So look like the ultimate irony really is soLoredd just doesn't know what he's talking about after all.

 

[KnightWRX]

He didn't but he was pretty derisive on the whole netbook category and low and behold he released a netbook.

Not a first time that he was profoundly negative on a given topic only to do a complete 180 degree turn around. iOS multitasking quickly comes to mind

To his credit, he derided netbooks based on low power processors (think Atom, Athlon Neos and ARM variants) and smaller sized keyboard.

The MBA 11.6" has a full sized keyboard and a Core 2 Duo processor.

None of the other vendors that sell the Penryn-3M based models call them netbooks either. Is the Alienware M11X a netbook ? The Lenovo IdeaPad U150 ? No, of course not.

 

[bouncer1]

It's a non issue for all the other companies not calling their ultra portables netbooks.

But as soon as apple doesn't, suddenly it becomes a huge issue - because of course apple hasn't let much room for them to attack it, and so bs has to be made up.

 

[KPOM]

He didn't but he was pretty derisive on the whole netbook category and low and behold he released a netbook.

Not a first time that he was profoundly negative on a given topic only to do a complete 180 degree turn around. iOS multitasking quickly comes to mind

In case you haven't figured out Apple yet, they often employ "last mover advantage." Others may come out with technology first, but Apple tends to wait until they are ready to release something that "just works."

iPod came out in late 2001, a few years after the "MP3 player wave" started. It quickly blew everything else out of the water.

iPhone was technically capable of multitasking, but Apple didn't want to implement it until they could get it right without eating up battery. A lot of people derided the original iPhone because it didn't support third party applications and 3G the way other products did in 2007. Jobs waited until 2008 and arguably blew everyone else out of the water.

It's the same with notebooks. Apple was one of the last to release a subnotebook. Air was a game-changer in terms of industrial design in 2008. Now it's a game-changer because Jobs is making it mainstream, and pushing SSDs as mainstream storage solutions.

 

[maflynn]

iPod came out in late 2001, a few years after the "MP3 player wave" started. It quickly blew everything else out of the water.

Except in this example apple was the first to use technology, new technology in a way no other competitor had. Tying a music store to a massive mp3 player. There really wasn't any MP3 players that offered a hard drive. This was not playing it safe but taking a huge chance.

iPhone was technically capable of multitasking, but Apple didn't want to implement it until they could get it right.

I disagree with this sentiment as apple was content with iOS as it was, but competition drove them to implement a hamstrung version of multitasking. I have similar batter life on my full multitasking droidx so the argument of doing it right really doesn't hold water.

Apple when they were the the underdog took chances, in some cases big gambles and those big gambles largely paid off. Playing not too lose often means just that and I see apple being much less aggressive not wanting to risk their position.

 

[talkingfuture]

A good analogy would be to compare to cars. Some people may think that a BMW M5 with 500 bhp should be faster than an Ariel Atom with 200 bhp and yet it isn't in either a straight line or a corner due to weight and grip.

I suppose the SSD could therefore be compared to removing a ton of weight or fitting super grippy tyres. People just need to realize that computer performance is governed by much more than processor speed but the marketing people told them for years that bigger numbers are automatically better.

 

[afd]

The 11 MacBook Air is no more a netbook than the 12" PowerBooks or iBooks were.