Gizmodo
Obviously, the Air is not about speed, and from the chips, we can tell its among the slowest macs you can buy right now. But we ran some real world benchmarks on the MacBook Air against an aging MacBook and MacBook Pro to see how it held up comparatively. Predictably, the MacBook Pro outperformed its counterparts in the majority of our tests. But the MacBook Air (1.6 GHz Intel, 2 GB RAM) went toe-to-toe with the MacBook (2 GHz Intel, 1 GB RAM) in many of our tests, falling just short in most. And it even bested the MacBook and MacBook Pro in one test. Synthetic benches after the jump for you robots.
We know the MacBook and MacBook Air traded off on processor speed and memory, which is why we also threw the MacBook Pro in the mix. And we know that the MacBook and MacBook Pro aren't the fastest models available. But the computers used, as well as the tests, are ones that will be more applicable to the average Mac user.
We ran 4 different tests to measure the speed differences between the computers. MP3 encoding, video conversion, transferring a .Zip file from a thumbdrive to computer, and file duplication test on the thumbdrive. No other applications were running during the test and the computer was set up for better performance.
A few notes on testing...
The Computers:
• The MacBook Air has a 1.6 GHz custom Intel processor, 2 GB 667 MHz DDR2 RAM, and an 80 GB, 1.8", 4200 RPM HDD.
• The MacBook (a generation old) has a 2 GHz Intel Core Duo processor, 1 GB 667 MHz DDR2 RAM, and a 120 GB, 2.5", 5400 HDD.
• The MacBook Pro (also a generation old) has a 2.2 GHz Intel Core Duo processor, 2GB 667 MHz DDR2 RAM, and a custom 160 GB, 2.5", 5400 RPM, Seagate Momentus HDD.
The Tests:
• For the MP3 Encoding, we used iTunes and Seu Jorge's album Cru, which is 46 minutes long. We set up custom import settings, which were 192 kbps VBR, set at high quality.
• The Video Conversion test was done using a trailer for 300 that was 1:46 in length and 73 MB (.mov). We converted using the export option in Quicktime 7.4 that used the iPhone export preset.
• The Thumbdrive to MacBook file transfer test was done using an 803 MB .zip file and a 2GB Lexar Lightning Thumbdrive (30 MB/s read, 21 MB/s write).
• The File Duplication test was done on the Lexar thumbdrive using the same zip file used in the previous test.
And if you're curious, here are the Xbench results for the MacBook Air. I'll let you do the honor of comparing it to your own computer.
Comments
I like the iphone usage here...xD
I'd like to see how the SSD model compares when you guys get a hold of one.
Well to be fair the Macbook was only running on 1 GB of RAM instead of two. I'm sure that if you give it 2 GB of RAM it will be toe to toe with the Macbook Pro and leave the Air in the dust (hehe). Another reason why this laptop sucks.
@daftrok: Yes. This laptop sucks because....
1. No built in Optical Drive
2. Carrying a portable optical drive around with this thing is more cumbersome than carrying around a bigger laptop
3. Too expensive
4. Are you kidding? $1000 more for a solid state drive--I don't think so!
5. Where is the Micro NVIDIA graphics chip???
6. (insert your comment here and continue if you like)
Result: It gets the job done regardless. It's like people who speed vs those who don't ... They eventually catch the red light and wait along like everyone else. Do people really have to be somewhere 1-3 seconds faster?
@Earthslide: Yes. Yes I do.
7. Johm Mayer has an advance copy, and I don't
PS.
The relationship between John Mayer and Steve Jobs is like the relationship between Gizmodo and Technology....
It's just Unnatural!
@daftrok:
Seems fair since that's the standard RAM for a MB and a MBA.
@daftrok: That's excatly what I was about to mention. And even when you add another 1 gig of RAM to the Macbook (making it a total of 2 gigs) and upgrade the HD to 120 gigabytes, you still come out about $450 cheaper than the Macbook Air.
I dunno... I'm still not sold on this thing. It's definitely for people with a heck of a lot more disposable income than I have :)
@daftrok: I tend to agree. What kind of benchmark gives one of the competitors an extra gig of memory?
Damn, the keyboard makes the MBA hideous once it's opened.
Does anybody else think the Macbook Air isn't necessary for Apple? Look at it this way. It was not necessary for Apple to create a third iteration of their Apple notebooks. They really should have just updated the Macbook Pro to be thinner (while keeping the Superdrive), like we all wanted while updating the specifications of the notebook. Hell, I would like to have seen Apple incorperate Penryn processors rather to make it thinner (I want an iMac with Penryn inside).
I'll say it once and I'll say it again, there is a difference between ultraportable and ultrathin and this laptop is ultrathin. It would have been much more logical to make a 12" laptop with those same specifications (maybe even a touchscreen) at that price.
If the Macbook didn't exist then this laptop would have been interesting, but seeing as there is a much more affordable Mac (which is laughable because the Macbook is overpriced) with much more capabilities.
BTW, was it just me or were people hoping for a replacement for the Macbook with a 13" Macbook Pro (some of these features would be nice on their 15" and 17" models too):
1) Aluminum casing
2) LED backlighting
3) 45nm Penryn C2D processors
4) Possibly an 8400M GT card that comes standard
5) Superdrive standard
6) 2 GB standard (for people that want to run Vista)
7) Introduction to Hybrid HDD technology (standard?)
8) Optional upgrade to 32, 64 or 128 GB SSD
9) $1099 price tag
There would have been something in the air. The sound of a standing ovation.
So far this is the first MBA post I've seen where the comments weren't filled with redundant annoying griping and complaints that it's been posted to much. Good work people.
I've come to a conclusion about the MBA. The product itself as it exists now is not particularly interesting to me and isn't very useful for most people. Yet I still find it very exciting. I think it's exciting for what it will mean for future laptops. I can't wait to see what Apple does to the Macbook Pro's with what they've learned from this and what other manufacturers will do to compete with it and an how they'll use the new smaller chip design. Give me a full powered, as thin/small as possible update and I'll be thrilled.
The MBA is a step in a smaller and greener direction...eventually, this tech will trickle down to a laptop we might want to actually buy. so, for now, it is for chicks and guys that like chick stuff (you know who you are)....oh! and for people that travel blah, blah, blah
i may go for one...i need to replace my 12" powerbook, and want something similarly small and light.
i do most of my real work on a desktop mac,so this is mostly for writing, email, safari...and some Reason work (reason 4.0, which sucks enormously on my pb).
what i REALLY want is a 12" macbook pro...but years are passing by, and seems highly unlikely (dammit).
faster then i thought it would perform. still wouldnt get one though...
In short, pay $1800 for the slowest mac you can buy and no, you can't upgrade anything....just cause it's so slim. wooohoooo.
@warknight10: If my eyes deceive thats an iPod
In other news this page doesn't render correctly.
The computer industry has done waaaaaaaaaay too good a job convincing people they need the latest and greatest processor. I was doing full-blown video editing jobs on a G3 powerbook with something like a 6 gig hard drive and something like a 300 megahertz processor nearly 10 years ago. There's nothing 99 percent of the population are ever going to do that requires half the processing power the MBA or any other computer out there offers.
You call these benchmarks?
Ripping a CD?
WTF?
What kind of "test" was that? at least keep the same amount of RAM of all models.
Again...
I'd like to point out that 1000$ is cheap for a 64GB SSD.
All other manufacturers charge more.
In fact HP juste released a PC with a 16GB SSD option yesterday for 328$....328*4=1300$
I'm not fanboy, and sure it's expensive...but stop bashing it b/c it's a Mac. The MBA is priced normally even very FAIRLY versus its competition!
@nosauten: This may have been mentioned in Gizmodo comments already, but have you shopped around for a 64GB 1.8" solid state drive? $1,000 is about $700 cheaper than I'm seeing it elsewhere.
I guess they could have just not offered it. Would that make you happy?
To all of those people who can't see an audience for this - I write for a living, like a lot of people with desk jobs do, and it's basically the perfect, minimal computer for my work needs.
You can't game on it, you can't play DVDs on it, you can't plug in three peripherals at once, and you can't plug a camcorder into it. In other words, finally I can get some work done.
Oops, petrogk beat me to it.
benzido...hear ya!
@diku:
saying gizmodo doesn't have "journalistic integrity" (or saying they do sarcastically . . i think) is like saying that your comment doesn't follow the chicago manual of style.
My last comment on the MBA and probably the last post I read about it. My comment is as follows:
Meh
Maybe I missed something, but this is the first time I've heard of a machine that can wirelessly send EVERYTHING from your old Mac onto the MBA including applications. . . that is (in the famous words of Beavis) the coolest thing I have ever seen!
Ripping and encoding CDs are fine real world benchmarks. So are video conversions and file transfers. Diku, bye.
@object.session: Your point?
@SchruteBuck: THE kind that has some machines around his house. Look the Macbook standard is from 2 years ago when 1GB was par. The pro is a little more recent. This gives you an idea, but no one is calling this a solid race between the most modern machines. What do you have at home? A 2 week old Macbook pro and a macbook? That's not realistic. What is realistic is comparing this to stuff people might actually own.
@daftrok: Doubt it. Core solo 2.0 ghz is not going to dust a core 2 duo Pro with 2.33 and the same RAM. @hhaller: Agreed.
@itchytooth: That's a good post.
I love it. Everybody was bitching about how underpowered the MBA is, but when the benchmarks show it to pretty much be in the same ballpark as both the Macbook and Macbook Pro all of a sudden people find excuses.
"But the Macbook only has 1GB of RAM! blah blah blah". Yes, because that's how Macbooks are sold. Adding RAM increases the price and thus starts negating the macbook price advantage.
@Brian Lam: Does the MBA "feel" sluggish in any noticable way? Or if you didn't know beforehand would you never even know that you are using a 4200 RPM hard drive?
how come the macbook pro boot time is faster than the iMac?
I definitely wouldn't get it as my primary machine (would want something with more ports & speed), but for those that already have a desktop, it seems like a great laptop for commute/travel.
And for those wanting a smaller form factor (ie a 10 or 12 inch), what? This won't fit in your purse? I like a screen & keyboard big enough to be useable, and any bag i've got is big enough for a vanilla envelope. The thinness makes a difference though. I'd much rather carry around something magazine sized rather than oxford dictionary sized...
This is my perfect travel laptop for email, web, photo editing, etc. I wasn't looking to get a laptop before they released this. Now i'm considering it.
@YOYI2K
At least this "lame ass" test gives me numbers that actually mean something in the real world...
I don't want to have to extrapolate to figure out how much of a difference this is going to make for me when I transfer a file.
@SchruteBuck: not to mention the Core 2 Duo vs. Core Duo. i noticed a decent jump in performance going from one processor to the other... at the same Ghz rating.
per the external superdrive...
when something costs $99 extra, we don't usually say it "comes with it".
PANTS IT!!!
"I was doing full-blown video editing jobs on a G3 powerbook with something like a 6 gig hard drive and something like a 300 megahertz processor nearly 10 years ago."
same here. on a 1998 "Wallstreet" 300Mhz G3 with 96MB RAM / 8GB hard drive. encoded on the Avid (no Firewire Powerbook until 2000... shot on Beta SP anyway.) then dumped the footage to the laptop via SCSI disk mode or over the 10-BaseT network.
made literally hundreds of commercials and several dozen longform productions on it using After Effects then rendered back out in Avid format.
was perfectly acceptable in everyway. even with 720p HD i can't see doing video work on the Air being a huge catastrophe. but then i remember when you had to actually wait on renders. and also when you actually had to create motion effects from scratch vs. clicking a preset.
forgot to add : get off my lawn!
@itchytooth: Sorry. I wasn't referring to Apple's pricing--I was refering to the price of such a drive in general, costing that much. (After reading my comments, I see I wasn't too clear on that:)
@squirgle: Yeah, doofus, but the software becomes more complex as the hardware gets better. I used to video edit on a G4/450 too. Try running FCP HD on one of those, and see what happens.
@Brian Lam:
The Macbooks run on the Santa Rosa Motherboard and therefore run on the same processors that exist on a Macbook Pro. Macbook is 2.0 GHz and 2.2 GHz whereas Macbook Pro is 2.2GHz and 2.4GHz. The only thing that the Macbook Pro trumps the Macbook on is the video card. Other than that they are equals (specs wise)