MBA 13" Stock 1.86 vs. MBA mid-2009 2.13 SSD

[jameskk]

OK, So my curiosity got the best of me today and after reading all of the glowing reviews about how super fast the new MBA was, I went to the Apple Store and picked up the $1299 stock 13" model. Sitting side-by-side with my mid-2009 MBA with 2.13GHz and 128GB SSD it seems the same... in fact, my old MBA is slightly faster at launching some apps

On the plus side, the new form factor is much more appealing and feels slimmer and more solid in your hand. And, the new screen is GORGEOUS!!!!

I think that I will keep it but I'm not seeing the huge speed increase talked about in some of the reviews. I know that my tests are unscientific benchmarks but when I click the same app on both machines and they come up at the same time or half second faster on old machine it puzzles me.

 

[hcho3]

New MBA has now one giant glass trackpad. Any old MBA has glass trackpad with single button on the bottom. This drove me nuts. This is number one reason I held off buying MBA. New MBA has 320 M graphic card and it is better than 9400 M graphic card. With better battery life, high resolution and SD card slot, I like new one better. However, stupid apple decided to be greedy and took out backlit keyboard. STUPID STUPID STUPID!

 

[M87]

I've yet to miss having a backlit keyboard. I'm a horrible typist, but even I can get around the keyboard pretty well without looking. Also, the screen provides a decent amount of illumination. I would think most of us have the keyboard layout engraved in our minds. The one thing that does annoy me is that the function keys are all shifted to the left. When I try to pause iTunes I accidentally skip to the next track.

I wouldn't think there is a huge variation in speed between solid state drives. Any Mac with an SSD is going to be nice and snappy.

 

[jameskk]

Also loving the glass Trackpad and much improved speakers.

 

[KPOM]

OK, So my curiosity got the best of me today and after reading all of the glowing reviews about how super fast the new MBA was, I went to the Apple Store and picked up the $1299 stock 13" model. Sitting side-by-side with my mid-2009 MBA with 2.13GHz and 128GB SSD it seems the same... in fact, my old MBA is slightly faster at launching some apps

When the CPU is cool, the 2.13GHz will outperform the 1.86GHz. The processors in the late 2010 13" models are exactly the same as what was in the June 2009 revisions (and the November 2008 revision in the case of the 1.86GHz). Where you will likely see performance gains is when you have a number of applications open, or are running something processor intensive like Flash or virtualization (e.g. Parallels or Fusion). In those cases, the older designs tended to heat up more quickly because the design didn't dissipate heat as efficiently as the new design.

I think what disappointed some is that, not only did Apple stick with the aging Core 2 Duo, but they didn't boost the speed, and in the case of the 11" models used slower processors.

 

[kdoug]

OK, So my curiosity got the best of me today and after reading all of the glowing reviews about how super fast the new MBA was, I went to the Apple Store and picked up the $1299 stock 13" model. Sitting side-by-side with my mid-2009 MBA with 2.13GHz and 128GB SSD it seems the same... in fact, my old MBA is slightly faster at launching some apps

On the plus side, the new form factor is much more appealing and feels slimmer and more solid in your hand. And, the new screen is GORGEOUS!!!!

I think that I will keep it but I'm not seeing the huge speed increase talked about in some of the reviews. I know that my tests are unscientific benchmarks but when I click the same app on both machines and they come up at the same time or half second faster on old machine it puzzles me.

Your 2009 2.13GHz can barely keep up with todays 1.4GHz. Sorry to say, the numbers don't lie. It's almost shocking how bottlenecked the old ones we're.
Here's a link: http://www.macworld.com/article/154596/2010/10/macbookair_benchmarks.html?lsrc=rss_main

 

[agaskew]

Your 2009 2.13GHz can barely keep up with todays 1.4GHz. Sorry to say, the numbers don't lie. It's almost shocking how bottlenecked the old ones we're.
Here's a link: http://www.macworld.com/article/154596/2010/10/macbookair_benchmarks.html?lsrc=rss_main

- Except in your linked article, they tested the new Air against an old Air with a 4200 rpm drive (not SSD).

 

[jameskk]

When the CPU is cool, the 2.13GHz will outperform the 1.86GHz. The processors in the late 2010 13" models are exactly the same as what was in the June 2009 revisions (and the November 2008 revision in the case of the 1.86GHz). Where you will likely see performance gains is when you have a number of applications open, or are running something processor intensive like Flash or virtualization (e.g. Parallels or Fusion). In those cases, the older designs tended to heat up more quickly because the design didn't dissipate heat as efficiently as the new design.

I think what disappointed some is that, not only did Apple stick with the aging Core 2 Duo, but they didn't boost the speed, and in the case of the 11" models used slower processors.

yep - this makes sense and what I am thinking too. I might let both machines get warmed up good and do another test.

 

[agaskew]

yep - this makes sense and what I am thinking too. I might let both machines get warmed up good and do another test.

- do you by any chance run Coolbook on the 2009 machine? I would be interested to see if setting that to only allow the highest clock speed - for the test duration - would have any effect? Thanks

 

[AppleGoddess]

I had both, the current one is much better and the fans being silent is a plus.