The 2011 MacBook Air (11 & 13-inch): Thoroughly Reviewed
by Anand Lal Shimpi on July 28, 2011 3:25 AM EST- Posted in
- Apple
- Mac
- Intel
- Sandy Bridge
- MacBook Air
- Laptops
The Optional 1.8GHz Core i7
In the usual Apply fashion, in order to get the faster CPU options you have to buy the more expensive default configuration. That means the $999 11-inch MacBook Air can't be upgraded to a faster CPU at order, while the $1199 version can. The same goes for the $1299 13-inch model, you need the $1599 configuration for that.
If you're buying the 11, I'd say it's worth while to get the 1.8GHz option. There's a big enough performance difference between the base 13 and base 11 that the CPU upgrade makes sense.
I didn't have a 1.8GHz system on hand but luckily I knew someone who did. Mark Rein is VP of Epic Games and happens to live a few minutes from my house. Mark also happened to be driving down to the Apple store on Friday to pick up a fully optioned (the only way Mark rolls) 13-inch MacBook Air with a 1.8GHz Core i7. I hitched a ride with him and borrowed his system for a couple of benchmark runs.
Let's look at the clock speed differences between the parts:
| 2011 Apple MacBook Air CPU Comparison | |||||
| 1.6GHz Core i5 | 1.7GHz Core i5 | 1.8GHz Core i7 | |||
| Base Clock Speed | 1.6GHz | 1.7GHz | 1.8GHz | ||
| Max SC Turbo | 2.3GHz | 2.7GHz | 2.9GHz | ||
| Max DC Turbo | 2.0GHz | 2.4GHz | 2.6GHz | ||
Compared to the 1.7GHz chip in the 13, you're looking at around an 8% performance increase in applications that scale perfectly with clock speed. The extra MB of L3 cache is good for a little more performance as well. Compared to the 1.6GHz chip in the 11 however, the gains on paper are pretty substantial. What about in the real world?
| 2011 Apple MacBook Air CPU Comparison | |||||
| 1.6GHz Core i5 | 1.7GHz Core i5 | 1.8GHz Core i7 | |||
| Cinebench R10 - Single Threaded | 3154 | 3770 | 4083 | ||
| Percent Increase with 1.8GHz i7 | 29.5% | 8.3% | - | ||
With only a single heavy thread active the i7 is nearly 30% faster than the 1.6GHz Core i5 found in the 11-inch MacBook Air. The advantage over the 1.7GHz Core i5 is only 8.3% however.
| 2011 Apple MacBook Air CPU Comparison | |||||
| 1.6GHz Core i5 | 1.7GHz Core i5 | 1.8GHz Core i7 | |||
| Cinebench R10 - Multithreaded | 6496 | 7609 | 8234 | ||
| Percent Increase with 1.8GHz i7 | 26.8% | 8.2% | - | ||
Crank up the threads and the performance advantage drops a bit over the 1.6GHz Core i5 but we're still talking about a nearly 27% advantage here. The i7 is still only around 8% faster than the 1.7GHz part.
| 2011 Apple MacBook Air CPU Comparison | |||||
| 1.6GHz Core i5 | 1.7GHz Core i5 | 1.8GHz Core i7 | |||
| Cinebench 11.5 | 1.93 | 2.20 | 2.46 | ||
| Percent Increase with 1.8GHz i7 | 27.5% | 11.8% | - | ||
Cinebench R11.5 shows the biggest gain over the 1.7GHz Core i5 at 11.8%. Heavier workloads will make better use of the extra cache on the i7.
| 2011 Apple MacBook Air CPU Comparison | |||||
| 1.6GHz Core i5 | 1.7GHz Core i5 | 1.8GHz Core i7 | |||
| iPhoto Import | 38.3 | 44.4 | 47.7 | ||
| Percent Increase with 1.8GHz i7 | 24.5% | 7.4% | - | ||
Overall the performance gains aren't super huge over the 13's 1.7GHz Core i5, however if you care about performance the upgrade is worth it for the 11-inch MacBook Air. Unfortunately I didn't have an upgraded 11-inch system on hand to get a good idea of the impact on battery life. In idle workloads I wouldn't expect a huge drop in battery life, but under load we could see the 11 take a hit.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
103 Comments
View All Comments
name99 - Thursday, July 28, 2011 - link
"The WLAN solution in the Air is capable of up to two simultaneous spatial streams, topping out at 270Mbps.
In practice this results in peak performance over 802.11n at around 128.8Mbps.
"
This is a horribly misleading way of stating the issue. It implies that Apple or the chipset or something are somehow defective, in only delivering 50% of the available performance.
The ACTUAL problem is the 802.11 MAC & protocol, which wastes about 50% of the available bandwidth doing god knows what. The packets that go out, go out at of order 270Mbps, but 50% of the time packets are not going out.
This would be a good topic for a future AnandTech article --- just what the hell is the 802.11 MAC doing that wastes so much airtime?
A useful issue to discuss in the same article is the following:
I read once that there was an advanced option in the 802.11n MAC that reduced this wasted time to only (hah!) about 25%, but I have never seen details on this (and I have looked). Is it real? If it is real, does anyone support it?
ninjaquick - Thursday, July 28, 2011 - link
The relevance of SSDs is really only synthetics and low ram high cache situations. I do like seeing these get beat out squarely by an i3 in pretty much everything else in the win7 tests.bji - Friday, July 29, 2011 - link
How do you draw that conclusion about SSDs?KPOM - Friday, July 29, 2011 - link
They only get beaten out by the i3 in the 3D tests, which are driven by the GPU, so it's more fair to say that the HD 3000 gets beaten out by a discrete graphics adapter, which is no surprise. The Airs handily beat out the i3 in the CPU-intensive benchmarks.I've used an SSD since November 2008 and won't go back. I still need to use a HDD-equipped machine at the office, and I can't stand how long it takes to restart, shut down, or do anything disk intensive. The SSD made the Core 2 Duo-equipped MacBook Air tolerable in a world of i3s, i5s, and i7s. The Sandy Bridge-equipped MacBook Air with SSD makes it that much better.
Baron_Fel - Thursday, July 28, 2011 - link
When are you guys going to review the new Vaio Z? I want to know if that external GPU is worth anything.TwoStreetCats - Thursday, July 28, 2011 - link
I'm a very happy owner of the 2010 11" version and have to say that the form factor was the primary draw for me as I travel quite a bit. It fits quite nicely in the hydration pocket of my backpack and I hardly know that I have it with me.The only thing that is occasionally frustrating is the vertical resolution as the article mentions.
However, I use Mac Screen Rotate to rotate the screen and touchpad for portrait viewing when browsing or viewing pdf's and this problem is solved. If size and weight are serious factors for you, I highly recommend trying this out with the 11" before you decide that you need the 13".
www.macscreenrotate.com
bji - Friday, July 29, 2011 - link
If the TDP of the processor + graphics is 17W, why does the Macbook Air even need a fan?My Panasonic Y2, which I still use because I can't find a laptop I like better (just sold a Sager NP5160 that I only owned for 2 months because I couldn't stand the fan noise or the horrible keyboard), has a 22 W max TDP on just the Pentium M 1.4 Ghz processor. Probably the crummy Intel integrated graphics doesn't add more than a few watts but together they must be at least 25 W.
And yet, the Macbook Air, with a 17 W processor + graphics combined, has a fan. There is plenty of aluminum in the body of the Macbook Air to act as a heatsink, why does Apple even need to put a fan in there? If the Y2 can go fanless, surely the Air can.
bji - Friday, July 29, 2011 - link
OK, turns out the Pentium M in my Panasonic Y2 is the 10 watt Pentium M 738, not the 22 watt Banias Pentium M.The Intel 855 GME chipset is listed at 3.2 W.
Is it really the case that 10 W can be fanless but 17 W cannot?
tipoo - Friday, July 29, 2011 - link
Might be possible in 17w, but it already gets pretty hot WITH a fan.hellknight - Friday, July 29, 2011 - link
I couldn't believe that Intel included AES instruction set in such low voltage chips. Even the base model has those.. This is something very great.. It would be great for all Truecrypt users..