ULV Processor Speed

[bdavis89]

Hi all,

Had a question about the speed of the air with only 1.8 ghz processor? I'm currently thinking about the Dell adamo with a 1.4 ghz processor.

I know this isn't an apple, but I was interested in how fast the processor is? Is it noticeably slower than others? Will I hate going from my 2.8 quad core desktop to a 1.4 core 2 duo? Also, I only plan on using it for Internet, office documents, and watching netflix. Thanks in advance!

 

[Scottsdale]

Hi all,

Had a question about the speed of the air with only 1.8 ghz processor? I'm currently thinking about the Dell adamo with a 1.4 ghz processor.

I know this isn't an apple, but I was interested in how fast the processor is? Is it noticeably slower than others? Will I hate going from my 2.8 quad core desktop to a 1.4 core 2 duo? Also, I only plan on using it for Internet, office documents, and watching netflix. Thanks in advance!

Running Windows 7, that is plenty of processing power. I have the same thing with my new Lenovo x301 ThinkPad. And in Windows, the Intel IGP is plenty acceptable. The problem really comes down to OS X needing MORE resources for the exact same tasks. That Dell will do everything you want, as long as you don't want to run OS X.

 

[alust2013]

Running Windows 7, that is plenty of processing power. I have the same thing with my new Lenovo x301 ThinkPad. And in Windows, the Intel IGP is plenty acceptable. The problem really comes down to OS X needing MORE resources for the exact same tasks. That Dell will do everything you want, as long as you don't want to run OS X.

Whoa. That contradicts everything I have ever heard comparing the two operating systems. Win 7 always sucks up more of my resources when I run bootcamp than OS X does.

For OP, you will notice a pretty big difference going from a quad desktop to a 1.4 C2D. The desktop has approximately 4x the processing power (2x clock, 2x cores), so it will be a bit of a step back.

 

[lucifiel]

Whoa. That contradicts everything I have ever heard comparing the two operating systems. Win 7 always sucks up more of my resources when I run bootcamp than OS X does.

For OP, you will notice a pretty big difference going from a quad desktop to a 1.4 C2D. The desktop has approximately 4x the processing power (2x clock, 2x cores), so it will be a bit of a step back.

For the purposes that OP has cited, I doubt that he/she would see the 4x performance boost you claim.

 

[bdavis89]

I would be running windows 7. This would not be myprimary computer, but rather something to take to school and work. I'm an accounting student, so I won't be running any editing software or anything intensive, just the basics, plus maybe iTunes, but again I have that on my desktop too. What I love is the SSD, glass screen, and extreme portability, I was just not sure about the processor.

Would it feel snappy? Is the processor going to mainly affect multitasking and intense programs?

 

[agaskew]

Like the Air, it looks to be limited to 2Gb of memory, which is a shame.
Also its running Win7 64bit by default, so the resource usage will be a little bit higher than the 32bit version of Win7.

 

[Cabbit]

I would be running windows 7. This would not be myprimary computer, but rather something to take to school and work. I'm an accounting student, so I won't be running any editing software or anything intensive, just the basics, plus maybe iTunes, but again I have that on my desktop too. What I love is the SSD, glass screen, and extreme portability, I was just not sure about the processor.

Would it feel snappy? Is the processor going to mainly affect multitasking and intense programs?

Go to a taggert, bestbuy, pc world. Look for a laptop with similar specs and try it out.

 

[Scottsdale]

Whoa. That contradicts everything I have ever heard comparing the two operating systems. Win 7 always sucks up more of my resources when I run bootcamp than OS X does.

For OP, you will notice a pretty big difference going from a quad desktop to a 1.4 C2D. The desktop has approximately 4x the processing power (2x clock, 2x cores), so it will be a bit of a step back.

Take video for instance... until just a few months ago, Apple didn't even allow third-party low-level API access to h.264. Apple is so far behind the game on things like OpenGL, and their graphics drivers have been pathetic. Go read up on the comparison of those things, and you will see what I mean.

People want to bash Windows, but the truth is it's a more "open" system allowing hardware to be taken advantage of and fully utilized. Apple commonly closes off everything, and they underclock and throttle things. Apple is getting better with their recent driver updates to the entire graphics system, but they're years behind Windows. In addition, with Windows, each vendor can write the absolute best drivers for their specific hardware. Apple allows no such thing.

If I had a 1.4 GHz system with Intel IGP, I wouldn't want to run OS X. I would be happy all day long with Windows 7 though. Take an HD video for example, or take Flash, and you will quickly see that Windows uses far less resources for the same tasks. Before the recent Apple change of strategy allowing h.264 API low-level access, my MBA would use 4X the CPU power to run Flash in OS X versus Windows 7. Those examples can be seen all day long. Look at why gamers need a PC... Apple just doesn't maximize and take advantage of hardware, and it leaves its users wanting more and NEEDING much more power in OS X to achieve the same performance in Windows at much less power.

Don't believe the hype you read about Windows being crap and OS X is everything. Windows has had problems in the past, but honestly it was due to vendors using crap components with crap drivers using the same resources. When Windows has decent hardware, and well written drivers, it can do everything very well.