The 11-inch MacBook Air: Faster than the old 13-inch MacBook Air

On paper, the new 13-inch MacBook Air shouldn’t be any faster than the old 2008 MacBook Air - at least in CPU bound tasks. The 2010 model gets a faster GPU but the CPU is literally the same 1.86GHz Core 2 Duo. Memory sizes and speeds haven’t changed either. While the SSD is faster, if you’re running a CPU bound benchmark there shouldn’t be any performance difference. If you assumed the same thing I did, you’d be very wrong.

Take a look at Cinebench 11 comparing the 2008 13-inch MacBook Air to the two 2010 models:

Cinebench 11 - Multithreaded CPU Benchmark
  11-inch MacBook Air (2010) - 1.4GHz Core 2 Duo 13-inch MacBook Air (2010) - 1.86GHz Core 2 Duo 13-inch MacBook Air (2008) - 1.86GHz Core 2 Duo
Cinebench 11 Score (Higher is Better) 0.81 1.1 0.70

Not only is the 2008 13-inch MBA slower than the new 13-inch model, it’s actually slower than the 11-inch model running at 1.4GHz. Something is amiss. Perhaps it’s just this benchmark?

I turned to our Handbrake H.264 encode test to verify my sanity:

Handbrake 0.94 - H.264 High Profile Transcode
  11-inch MacBook Air (2010) - 1.4GHz Core 2 Duo 13-inch MacBook Air (2010) - 1.86GHz Core 2 Duo 13-inch MacBook Air (2008) - 1.86GHz Core 2 Duo
Average Frames per Second (Higher is Better) 1.14 fps 1.55 fps 0.96 fps

Once again, a similar situation. The old MBA is actually slower than the new 11-inch, despite the advantage in CPU speed.

It looks like what we’ve stumbled upon is a combination of Apple aggressively throttling the clock speed of the older MacBook Air CPUs to meet thermal requirements, and the CPUs used in the new MacBook Airs being far better behaved from a voltage/power consumption standpoint.

The 45nm process these Core 2s are built on is as mature as it’s going to get. I’m guessing yield on these parts is as high as can be and as a result, power consumption is probably consistently lower than the original 1.86GHz parts Apple shipped back in 2008. The peak thermal specs themselves haven’t changed, but the actual power characteristics have.


The 2008 MacBook Air under Load

Maximum temperature, at least reported by the MBA’s sensors, isn’t any lower on the new 13-inch than the 2008 I compared it to. Both CPUs hit roughly 84C (183F) under full load. But look at what happens to the chips after a minute at that load:


2010 13-inch MacBook Air

2008 13-inch MacBook Air

iStat Menus reports the 1.86GHz Core 2 Duo in the 2008 system consuming only 7.59W, while the same CPU in the 2010 machine is drawing 11.45W. The 2008 machine is throttling back to reduce overall temperature while the 2010 system keeps going.

As a result, even the 11-inch MacBook Air will probably end up being as fast, if not faster than the 2nd generation 2008 13-inch MacBook Air. And our performance results confirm that:

11-inch MacBook Air (2010) vs. 13-inch MacBook Air (2008)
  Application Launch Test Adobe Photoshop CS4 Aperture RAW Import Cinebench R10 - 1CPU Cinebench R10 - XCPU Quicktime H.264 Transcode
Apple 11-inch MacBook Air (2010) - 1.4GHz Core 2 Duo 27.8 seconds 72.4 seconds 1.29 PPS 1612 2967 33.1 fps
Apple 13-inch MacBook Air (2008) - 1.86GHz Core 2 Duo 26.4 seconds 71.3 seconds 1.20 PPS 2046 2882 30.1 fps

You'll notice the less CPU intensive tasks are quicker on the old 13-inch system as the CPU isn't able to get hot enough to trigger Apple's throttling. The single threaded Cinebench test is the best example of this. The 26% performance advantage jibes with the 33% increase in CPU clock speed (it's actually a little low, most likely because the old CPU still isn't running at full speed even in this test). But now look at the heavier tests - the multithreaded Cinebench test and the Quicktime encode. Both of these stress both cores and drive TDP up, which forces Apple to pull clock speed back down. We wondered how Apple was able to cram such a high speed CPU into such a thin chassis as early as it did, now we know.

In practice I found the 2008 13-inch MBA launched applications quicker (short bursts of full clock speed), but after prolonged use or completing CPU intensive tasks it was tough to tell apart from the new 11-inch. What's even more troublesome is that Apple's aggressive clock throttling went relatively undetected until now. This is something I'm going to have to devise tests for and pay more attention to in future reviews. Sneaky, Steve, sneaky.

External Temperatures and Noise

The old MacBook Air chassis had a few dozen slits cut out of the aluminum for ventilation. The new MacBook Air chassis hides the ventilation slits between the base of the unit and the hinge. You can’t see them, but they’re there.

The slits are smaller than they were on the old chassis, which means moving air through them at the same rate sounds louder than before.


The 11-inch MacBook Air under Load

The CPU in the 11-inch model, even when under heavy loads, likes to stay at or below 72C (162F). At that temperature, the internal fan doesn’t spin above 4000 RPM (usually down below 3400). The 13-inch MacBook Air however is far more likely to generate noise. Running our simple Handbrake test the CPU will peak at over 82C (~180F) and the system’s internal fan will ramp up to over 6K RPM to compensate. Not only does the chassis get hot, but the fan gets audible. It’s still too small of a fan to really be considered loud in the grand scheme of things, but it’s loud enough to be annoying.


The 13-inch Macbook Air under Load

The surface temperature of the new 13-inch MacBook Air easily gets as high as the 2008 model. I measured a peak of 38.9C (102F) on both the 2008 and 2010 13-inch models. The 11-inch never broke 38C (100F).

Even casual use can ramp up temperatures pretty quickly. Just having a few websites open in the background that use Flash or other CPU intensive elements can slowly cause the MBA’s internal temperatures to rise. And now you’re beginning to see why Apple doesn’t install Flash on these things by default.

The danger zone is the upper left corner of the system, near the hinge. There’s only a single fan that cools both the CPU and GPU in the Air’s very tight enclosure. This is where that fan sits.

The Screen: Very Good Performance
Comments Locked

185 Comments

View All Comments

  • iwodo - Wednesday, October 27, 2010 - link

    Well i write a 100 word pieces but in the end i deleted it.

    Netbook is not an defined term anyway, so i wont bother arguging. Every one has different view on that is an notebook ultraportable and what is an netbook.
  • mcnabney - Wednesday, October 27, 2010 - link

    FTA
    "For me, I’d have to own the 11-inch, plus a 15-inch MacBook Pro plus my desktop."

    Ah yes, the $5000 total computing solution.
  • iwodo - Wednesday, October 27, 2010 - link

    I am amazed that on one brought the question up. How could a MUCH faster MBP with faster CPU, and a FASTER SSD. ( Two important factor ) boot up slower then MBA?

    It even start application quicker then MBP when the SSD inside MBA is like 50 - 70% slower then Sandforce and Intel SSD.

    When i read a pieces on techcrunch mentioning that MBA feels just as fast if not faster then MBP when browsing and doing most light weight working, i thought it was an biased review. When Macworld released a test result showing MBA is just as fast as MBP in day to day usage. I thought the the test was not thoughtful enough.

    Now Anand has REAL numbers, and number of other reviewing showing the same results. It could not be false. A MUCH SLOWER SSD and a MUCH SLOWER CPU Wins!!!! How could this be possible?

    Firmware Optimization? What exactly did they optimized? Why didn't this optimization show up in any of the IOMeter test or other Speed test? The Sandforce and Intel SSD Wins in EVERY SINGLE BENCHMARK test done.

    I really hope Anand find this out.
  • tipoo - Wednesday, October 27, 2010 - link

    I was wondering this too. Any insights?
  • B3an - Thursday, October 28, 2010 - link

    Yeah can we get an answer on this??
  • iwodo - Thursday, October 28, 2010 - link

    No one is putting out the questions? It seems people are more interested in what is bargain priced, what is better value of hardware, and what is an netbook more then the technical aspect of an SSD.
  • blufire - Thursday, October 28, 2010 - link

    Keep in mind that the chipset is different. MBA is using the NVIDIA GeForce 320M while the 15" MBP is using the associated Intel chipset.
  • iwodo - Saturday, October 30, 2010 - link

    Then it would have effected the outcome of benchmarks. The point is, it didn't. And a MBA SSD still perform the best
  • pieterjan - Wednesday, October 27, 2010 - link

    Why is there an SD card reader? There are a lot of camera's that won't work with SD cards. Replace it with 2 extra USB ports! For those who actually need a card reader: how much does a 9000-in-1 USB reader cost? $15? Or better yet: make it an Apple accessorie at $ 50...
  • crimson117 - Wednesday, October 27, 2010 - link

    <blockquote>For me, I’d have to own the 11-inch, plus a 15-inch MacBook Pro plus my desktop. That’s three machines, plus a smartphone and I’d be set. I’d carry the 11-inch on most business trips, the 15-inch for big shows that I’d have to cover and any heavier work I’d do at home on the desktop. I don’t mind the setup, it’s just a costly setup to have.</blockquote>

    How do you keep all your data in sync across those machines?

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now