The 2013 MacBook Air Review (13-inch)
by Anand Lal Shimpi on June 24, 2013 12:01 AM ESTDisplay
When I reviewed the 13-inch MacBook Pro with Retina Display, I viewed it as the true Retina MacBook Air that everyone was waiting for. With modest increases in thickness and weight, the rMBP13 gave you a much better screen and a larger battery to drive it. Apple’s lineup made sense.
After being in Taiwan earlier this month and checking out all of the 13.3-inch 2560 x 1440 displays being used on notebooks similar in size to the 13-inch MBA, I was beginning to reconsider my position.
To hit an aggressive schedule, you have to mitigate risk. In the case of the 2013 MBAs, Apple kept the chassis spec unchanged in order to do just that. As a result, the displays too, remained unchanged. We’re talking about TN panels (admittedly higher quality than most) and traditional pixel densities. Compared to the Retina Displays deployed across the rest of Apple’s product lines, these panels just aren’t as good. Compared to what you typically find elsewhere, they’re still among the best.
There are two aspects to deploying a Retina Display in a MacBook Air that are worth discussing. The first is power consumption. Greater pixel density requires a more powerful backlight to drive the panel at the same brightness, which in turn reduces battery life. Apple’s solution is to deploy Retina Displays on products it can outfit with a sufficiently large battery. I’d argue that given the battery life of the 2013 MBAs, Apple could move to a Retina Display and still deliver reasonable battery life - but it would be a regression.
The second thing to consider is price. I don’t know just how much more a Retina Display would add to the cost of a MacBook Air, but it’s clear it would be non-negligible.
There’s no real solution to the first problem, but the second one should be less of an issue as panel prices come down. I don’t know where Apple will eventually land on all of this, but today what happens is we get a well defined separation between MacBook Air and MacBook Pro with Retina Display.
Professional users who need greater color accuracy and/or additional desktop resolution really should go for the MacBook Pro with Retina Display. If you don’t need either, the MacBook Air will suffice.
In practice, the MBA’s display isn’t bad by any means. I’ve been staring at it non-stop since WWDC and don’t mind using it at all. The biggest visual issue for me is actually the shifting contrast at off-center vertical angles. It’s not a problem once you properly adjust the display angle but it’s something you don’t have to deal with on the rMBPs. When I'm not in crazy work mode, the lack of resolution isn't a huge deal - but when putting together big articles like this one, I find myself missing the rMBP quite a bit. I guess that's why the rMBP has Pro in the name.
My review sample featured a Samsung panel (LSN133BT01A02), although I’m sure the usual panel lottery is in full effect this generation as it has been in the past. Brightness and contrast are both comparable to what we had last generation (my Samsung panel this year was a bit better than last year's). The brightness/contrast results are very comparable to Acer's 1080p S7, just to show you how far Ultrabooks have come.
I ran the 2013 MBA through Chris Heinonen’s new display workflow using CalMAN to give you an idea of color accuracy vs. the rMBP:
| CalMAN Display Comparison | ||||||||
| Apple iPad (3rd gen) | Apple iPhone 5 | 13-inch rMBP (uncalibrated) | 13-inch 2013 MBA (uncalibrated) | Google Chromebook Pixel | ||||
| Grayscale 200 nits Avg dE2000 | 3.7333 | 3.564 | 1.7825 | 3.348 | 7.132 | |||
| CCT Avg (K) | 6857K | 6925K | 6632K | 6809K | 6442K | |||
| Saturation Sweep Avg dE2000 | 3.193 | 3.591 | 2.1663 | 5.3608 | 7.0927 | |||
| GMB Colorchecker Avg dE2000 | 3.0698 | 4.747 | 2.4521 | 3.9883 | 5.7664 | |||
The 13-inch MacBook Air isn’t bad, but Apple’s Retina Display is just better.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
233 Comments
View All Comments
doobydoo - Tuesday, June 25, 2013 - link
Sigh @ Ignorant people who compare processors of different architectures by GHz.TheinsanegamerN - Sunday, June 30, 2013 - link
the boost clocks are similar, and the haswell boosts way more than ivy bridge did. look at the cpu scores, which are similar, despite the 400 mhz reduction.Krysto - Monday, June 24, 2013 - link
Disappointing to see that even Apple has started being misleading about its battery life for laptops.It seems unlike Steve Jobs, Tim Cook is more of a "regular manager" who prefer spec lists and bullet points, over being truthful to customers. Now they're just lying about battery life numbers just as every other PC OEM out there - 12h of battery life! (but you might actually get only half of that).
And all that with a CPU that is 20 percent slower than last year, and a GPU that's twice as big but only 10-20 percent better than last year.
Also, the dual core Haswell chip alone costs $350? Yikes. So you still think these chips have any chance of competing in the tablet space, Anand? The whole of iPad Mini costs less than that, with a sub $30 chip. Intel is as behind as always when it comes to competing in the mobile space.
madmilk - Monday, June 24, 2013 - link
Sheesh, at least read the review. The battery life is 11 hours on the light workload, which is certainly more than half of the advertised 12. This difference is easily accounted for by the higher screen brightness and Flash. The 1.3GHz Haswell is not 20% slower either than the comparable 1.7GHz Ivy. More like 5% at worst, and in several cases faster. The GPU is 20% faster in a _much_ lower TDP, once the FIVR and PCH are accounted for, which contributes to the very impressive battery life on the heavy workload as well. As for Haswell pricing -- ULV i5/i7 are in another league compared to any ARM offering on the market. Atoms and Celerons are more appropriate for the toy tablet market.Sushisamurai - Tuesday, June 25, 2013 - link
... If you read the fine print on apple's website, they increased the benchmark demands on the MBA compared to previous battery tests just to make the 12 hrs seem more realistic. CNET and a few other sites posted their battery tests of the 13" to be rated for 14+ hours. I think anand already made a point about this...And if you compare ARM A9's & ARM A15's performance to intel's haswell platform... You would know ARM processors really can't compete on the same level. There's a reason for that price difference
lyeoh - Monday, June 24, 2013 - link
OK, so which review site is better? So that we can go read it as well...whyso - Monday, June 24, 2013 - link
You know what would be nice. GPU benchmarks for the rmbp 13" or HD 4000 from a standard voltage part to see how it compares to the HD 5000.tipoo - Monday, June 24, 2013 - link
Agreed. It can be confusing when the ULV parts have the same name as normal TDP parts and perform significanlty differently.tecsi - Monday, June 24, 2013 - link
Could these MBAs support external 4k displays given the Intel 5000? There appears to be a new Thunderbolt part—is this Thunderbolt 2? I am surmising that this support could be turned on in MBAs when the Mac Pro arrives with Mavericks, along with potentially Apple 4k displays.tipoo - Monday, June 24, 2013 - link
Not Thunderbolt 2. Only the new Mac Pro has that right now.