Final Words

Five years after its introduction, the MacBook Air really has grown into a very polished, mature platform. The 2013 model is really the epitome of what Apple set out to build back in 2008, we just finally have the right hardware available to realize the vision. Nearly every component has been perfectly selected. The chassis remains excellent. The keyboard and trackpad are non-issues. CPU performance is good for a mainstream PC and GPU performance is literally the highest you can offer in a 15W TDP. The SSD is no compromises, and Apple has implemented the fastest WiFi available as well. Only the display is beginning to show its age, not because it's substantially behind the similarly priced competition but because Apple has given us Retina Displays nearly everywhere else.

The MacBook Air's display really defines whether or not this notebook is for you. I suspect for most users it's fine. What you lose compared to the rMBP is a bit of color accuracy, more extreme vertical viewing angles and the ability to run at higher scaled resolutions. The perfect combination of portability and high display resolution for a workhorse remains the 13-inch rMBP in my opinion. If you don't need the resolution though, the MBA's weight/size really can't be beat.

Rarely in these reviews do I get the chance to talk about OS X, but that really is such a big part of the experience here. OS X remains my work OS of choice and it's really evolved quite nicely. With the announcement of OS X Mavericks earlier this month, it's good to see continued improvements to the platform. That being said, I have noticed more bugs in Mac OS X over the past couple of releases; something I assume is related to an increased focus on iOS. Apple needs to be very careful here not to slip too much on the OS X front. Windows 8 may have gotten off to a rocky start, but I'm expecting things to only get better over the next couple of releases.

Quite possibly the most controversial aspect of the new MacBook Air is its CPU performance. Just as it has in the past, Apple made a conscious decision to forego improving CPU performance this generation in lieu of delivering better battery life, GPU performance and overall experience. MacBook Air pricing in 2013 either stayed the same as in 2012 or went down, but look at the laundry list of improvements: 802.11ac, PCIe SSD, and the largest dual-core Haswell die Intel offers. Intel's pricing on the CPU alone is 50% higher than the default i5 in last year's model. All of this comes at a cost: the 2013 MacBook Air ranges from just as quick as the 2012 model, to a bit slower, in CPU bound tasks. I wouldn't consider the degree of performance regression obviously noticeable, but it's there. Annual upgraders who demand a performance upgrade each time will have to opt for the admittedly reasonable $150 Core i7 CPU upgrade. This is only really an issue for those who upgrade anually though. Anyone using anything older than a 2012 MacBook Air will move not only to a faster CPU, but a much faster overall platform. Haswell continues to be an interesting performer. In some of our tests the 1.3GHz Core i5 couldn't keep up with last year's 1.7GHz part, while in others it was less than 2% off of the 2012 2.0GHz upgraded SKU. Haswell does boast higher IPC than Ivy Bridge, which when it surfaces can do more than make up for any differences in clock speed.

I'm glad to see Apple spend the extra money on Intel's HD 5000 across all of its MacBook Air CPUs. What's most interesting about Haswell GT3 in a 15W power envelope is just how hard the chip has to work in order to get added performance without running into thermal limits. In order to get a 15 - 30% increase in performance on the same process node, at a lower TDP, Intel had to more than double the size of the GPU. I don't think there's ever been such a perfect example of how power limited we are these days than looking at HD 5000 vs. HD 4000. Although the story at relatively unconstrained TDPs is one of multiple times better GPU performance than Ivy Bridge, in a chassis like the MacBook Air we're seeing gains that are far more modest. In terms of actual usefulness, the added performance of HD 5000 vs. HD 4000 is noticeable but don't expect it to dramatically change the type of titles that are playable on the MBA.

The move to 802.11ac feels like a game changer once more notebooks get there. The 2x2:2 implementation in the 2013 13-inch MacBook Air is capable of up to ~533Mbps if you're close to your 802.11ac AP. Speeds in immediately adjacent rooms should still top the rMBP's 3x3:3 802.11n implementation with peak rates well over 300Mbps. Anyone looking to splurge and move to a full blown 802.11ac setup with the 2013 MacBook Air should hold off though - OS X doesn't presently support 802.11ac transfer speeds over AFP/SMB shares. I'm expecting we'll see an OS X update in short order here to address the issues I found but until then you'll be limited to 802.11n speeds for copying files over your new 802.11ac network.

I'm very pleased with Apple's PCIe SSD, at least based on Samsung's new PCIe controller. Sequential performance is up considerably over last year's 6Gbps SATA drive. Go back any further and the difference will be like night and day, especially if you were one of the unfortunate few with an older Toshiba drive. Internal transfers are quicker, but to actually use the new SSD to its potential you'll really need a very fast external Thunderbolt array - even USB 3.0 can't completely tax it. There's still a lot more investigating that I want to do on Samsung's new controller, but my early results look very promising. It's sort of crazy that Apple now ships a mainstream consumer notebook with a PCIe SSD capable of almost 800MB/s. Now that Apple is off SATA, scaling storage performance should be much easier to do going forward. 

The increase in battery life is intoxicating. For light work, I'm so much less worried about running out of power during the day on the new 13-inch MacBook Air. As a writer's aid, the new MBA's battery life is perfect. Last year I spoke about blurring lines within Apple's MacBook lineup, but now I'm beginning to see those lines blur between MacBook Air and iPad...

Once you start diving into heavy photo and/or video work, the difference between generations shrinks quite a bit. I can't stress enough how important it is that you pay attention to Apple's wording in its battery life estimates. Up to 12 hours is just that, a maximum. It's all about matching the notebook to your usage model. It's through exploiting periods of platform idle time that Haswell ULT and the MacBook Air can hit its lofty battery life claims. Until OS X Mavericks arrives, you'll have to make sure to pay attention to things like background web browser tabs running Flash from killing your battery life.

Can I also add that I'm beyond excited for the new 13-inch rMBP? If Apple indeed is using Intel's 28W Haswell ULT part (with on-package PCH), we might really get the best of both worlds with that notebook - incredible battery life and a Retina Display. Admittedly I do fall into more of the pro user category. For its customers looking for a good, mainstream notebook PC, the new MacBook Air is really quite awesome. Even I'm tempted by the machine thanks to its battery life alone. If I didn't feel like we were a few months away from an rMBP update and wasn't so hell-bent on sticking with a single machine as my notebook and desktop, I'd probably cozy up to a new 13-inch MacBook Air.

Display
Comments Locked

233 Comments

View All Comments

  • seapeople - Tuesday, June 25, 2013 - link

    Brightness is pretty much the number one power consumer in a laptop like this (which is actually mentioned in the review). If you expect to run anything at 100% brightness and get anywhere near ideal battery life then you are bound to be disappointed.
  • name99 - Monday, June 24, 2013 - link

    "802.11ac ... better spatial efficiency within those channels (256QAM vs. 64QAM in 802.11n). Today, that means a doubling of channel bandwidth and a 4x increase in data encoded on a carrier"

    This is a deeply flawed statement in two ways.

    (a) The modulation form describes (essentially) how many bits can be packed into a single up/down segment of a sinusoid wave form, ie how many bits/Hz. It is constrained by the amount of noise in the channel (ie the signal to noise ratio) which smeers different amplitudes together so that you can't tell them apart.
    It can be improved somewhat over 802.11n performance by using a better error correcting code (which essentially distributes the random noise level over a number of bits, so that a single large amount of noise rather than destroying that bit information gets spread into a smaller amount of noise over multiple bits).
    802.11ac uses LDPC, a better error correcting code, which allows it to use more aggressive modulation.

    Point is, in all this the improved modulation has nothing to do with spatial encoding and spatial efficiency.

    (b) The QAM64 and QAM256 refer to the number of possible states encoded per bit, not in any way to the number of bits encoded. So QAM64 encodes 6 bits per Hz, QAM256 encodes 8 bits per Hz. the improvement is 8/6=1.33 which is nice, but is not "a 4x increase in data encoded on a carrier".

    We are close to the end of the line with fancy modulation. From now on out, pretty much all the heavy lifting comes from
    (1) wider spectrum (see the 80 and 160MHz of 802.11ac) and
    (2) smaller, more densely distributed base stations.
    We could move from 3 up to 4 spatial streams (perhaps using polarization to help out) but that's tough to push further without much larger antennas (and a rapidly growing computational budget).

    There is one BIG space for a one-time 2x improvement, namely tossing the 802.11 distributed MAC, which wastes half the time waiting randomly for one party or another to talk, and switching to a centrally controlled MAC (like the telcos) along with a very narrow RACH (random access channel) for lightweight tasks like paging and joining.
    My guess/hope is that the successor to 802.11ac will consist primarily of the two issues I've described above (and so will look a lot more like new SW than new DSP algorithms), namely a central arbiter for a network along with the idea that, from the start, the network will consist of multiple small low-power cells working together, about one per room, rather than a single base station trying to reach out to 100 yards or more.
  • bittwiddler - Monday, June 24, 2013 - link

    • The keyboard key size and spacing is the same on the 11 and 13" MBAs.
    • The 11" MBA is exempt from being removed from luggage during TSA screenings, unlike the 13.
    • The 11" screen is lower height than most and doesn't get caught by the clip for the airplane seat tray table.
    • When it comes to business travel computing, I'm not interested in a race to the bottom.
  • Sabresiberian - Monday, June 24, 2013 - link

    One thing I would NOT like is for Apple to make a move to a 16:9 screen. I'd certainly rather have 1440x900 on a 13" screen than anything denser that was 16:9. I mean, I'm one of the guys that has been harping on pixel density and refresh rates since before we had modern smart phones (the move to LCDs set us back a decade or more in that regard), but on a screen smaller than 27", 16:9 is just bad. In my not-so-humble opinion.

    4:3 is better for something smaller than 17", but I can live with 16:10. :)
  • Kevin G - Monday, June 24, 2013 - link

    Re-reading trough the review I have a question about the display: does it use panel self refresh? I recall Intel hyping up this technology several years ago and the Haswell slides in this review indicate support for it. The question is, does Apple take advantage of it?
  • Kevin G - Monday, June 24, 2013 - link

    I think that I can answer my own question. I couldn't find the data sheet for the review panel LSN133BT01A02 but references on the web point towards an early 2012 release for it. Thus it looks like it appeared on the market before panel self refresh was slated for wide spread introduction alongside Haswell.
  • hobagman - Monday, June 24, 2013 - link

    Hi Anand & all -- could I ask a more CPU related question I've been wondering about a lot -- how come the die shots always look so colorful and diverse, when isn't the top layer all just interconnects? Or are the die shots actually taken before they do the interconnects, consisting in the top 10-15 layers? Would really appreciate an explanation of this ...
  • hobagman - Monday, June 24, 2013 - link

    I mean, what are we actually seeing when we look at the die shot? Are those all different transistor regions, and if so, we must be looking at the bottom layers. Or is it that the interconnects in the different regions look different ... or ... ?
  • SkylerSaleh - Tuesday, June 25, 2013 - link

    When making the ASIC, thin layers of glass are grown on the silicon, etched, and filled with metal to build the interconnects. This leaves small sharp geometric shapes in the glass, which reacts with the light similarly to how a prism would, causing the wafer to appear colorful.
  • cbrownx88 - Monday, June 24, 2013 - link

    Please please please revisit with the i7 config - been wanting to make a purchase but have been waiting for this review (and now waiting on the update lol).

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now