The 2013 MacBook Air: Core i5-4250U vs. Core i7-4650U
by Anand Lal Shimpi on July 4, 2013 8:00 AM ESTFinal Words
Simplicity permeates Apple from design and software all the way down to the purchasing experience. The 2013 MacBook Air offers only two choices of CPUs, and honestly for the vast majority of the population, that's all you really need. The default Core i5 1.3GHz (4250U) delivers the best overall battery life regardless of workload. Its performance is often somewhere in between a 2011 and 2012 MacBook Air depending on workload, although in some cases it's possible to see equivalent performance to an upgraded 2012 MBA. If you need more performance however, the 1.7GHz Core i7 upgrade (4650U) delivers. In most situations you get more than a 20% increase in performance, bringing the platform up to somewhere in between last year's 1.7GHz Core i5 and 2.0GHz Core i7 options. Once again, with the right workload you could even see performance as much as 20% better than a 2GHz Core i7 from last year. Although I didn't publish any results here, GPU performance seemed roughly unchanged compared to the Core i5 option.
The tradeoff in battery life is pretty easy to understand. In mostly idle workloads, I wouldn't expect any real degradation in battery life compared to the Core i5. Both configurations are equally capable of hitting the same max battery life number. More active workloads however will likely show a 15 - 20% decrease in battery life when paired with the faster CPU. It's possible that you'll see a larger drop with a very aggressive CPU-bound usage model, but at that point I'd assume that you'll probably want to be plugged in regardless of what system you're using.
In previous MacBook Airs, the choice of what CPU to buy was almost always a difficult one. Do you opt for the in-between upgrade or go all the way to the top? With this year's model, the decision is greatly simplified. If you want ultimate battery life regardless of usage model, stick with the base Core i5. If you need performance, the Core i7 upgrade is absolutely worth it. My personal choice would be for the Core i5, but that's because I tend to fall on the battery life side of of the battery life vs. performance fence when it comes to the MacBook Air. If the MacBook Air is going to be your only machine however, I can definitely make a case for opting for more performance.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
127 Comments
View All Comments
abazigal - Friday, July 5, 2013 - link
And yet for all their money, Sony still can't make a proper working trackpad.deasys - Friday, July 5, 2013 - link
The Viao Pro 11 weighs less, is the SAME thickness, and has significantly LOWER battery life than the MacBook Air 11". It also lacks 802.11ac WiFi, has a flexy keyboard, poor trackpad, and shaky screen. Read the reviews.Finally, Boot Camp *officially* supports Windows 8.
solmaker - Saturday, July 6, 2013 - link
Moreover, the Viao Pro 11 has the old-gen Intel HD 4000 series graphics, not the spiffy new HD 5000 like the MBA.mikael.skytter - Friday, July 5, 2013 - link
Hello!As always, thank you for the insights.
Just a question or rather I am curious about your thoughts on the race to sleep vs battery life using the faster processor.
I can see that under full load it draws much power. But do you have any thoughts regarding the "normal" usage scenario where the processor is powering up, performing a task and then goes back to sleep on the faster/slower processor?
Best Regards,
Mikael
abazigal - Friday, July 5, 2013 - link
It would seem that Apple is further trying to differentiate between its air and pro lines. The macbook air's processor likely suffices for most everyday tasks, and you can't go wrong with longer battery life. They are also quite affordable, for those shopping on a budget.The retina pros come with faster processors and a vastly superior screen for those with deeper pockets and are willing to spend on quality. I won't be surprised if the 13" pro comes later this year with up to 16gb ram possible, to distinguish it from its 13" air cousin.
ananduser - Friday, July 5, 2013 - link
Those shopping on a budget will not drop 1000$ or more for an underpowered coffee shop computer. Anything else other than browsing and video(tasks for which the latest Intel chip is highly optimized) kills the battery life and makes the entire kit reach 90 degrees.deasys - Friday, July 5, 2013 - link
"Ananduser," you really should read the article before commenting on it…In this particular case, see the tests on Lightroom and Photoshop uses as well as the heavy workload tests. Not many would be doing that sort of stuff in a "coffee shop" and under that heavy workload, I don't think any reasonable person would characterize over 5 and half hours of battery run time as "killed."
And by the way, "the entire kit" does not reach 90 degrees, only the CPU itself.
ananduser - Saturday, July 6, 2013 - link
I read the comment but apparently you didn't read mine. Budget shoppers(to which to OP made a reference), you know people that don't have 1000$ to spend on a cramped 11" ULV chipset, definitely have better laptop options to choose from, with just as much battery(thanks to Haswell). Those options aren't as portable but certainly don't need adapters to expand the port selection or expensive software licenses(Windows8 or VMWare).FwFred - Friday, July 5, 2013 - link
The i7 MBA is pretty close in many benchmarks to the 35W 13" rMBP. It's only "underpowered" compared to quad core i7's. Can you name a tablet/PC/whatever where you wouldn't kill the battery if you keep the CPU pegged?It seems to me you have a very capable PC with the portability and battery life of an iPad.
ananduser - Saturday, July 6, 2013 - link
Budget shoppers, to which the OP made a reference, have better machines to spend 1000$ on. Not as portable but plenty portable still.