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

  • lilo777 - Monday, June 24, 2013 - link

    It would help if you disproved something that was so wrong in my post. Perhaps people using OSX in their names are simply incapable of recognizing any Apple bias?
  • akdj - Thursday, June 27, 2013 - link

    In the ultra book market... and this price point....there aren't a lot of excellent choices right now for displays. If you step up to $1500-$1800...yes, one or two of the UltraBook vendors are selling 1080p IPS panels. At this price though...in the 'true' UltraBook sense of the word....go shopping at Best Buy sometime. Take a look at what Dell, Toshiba, Samsung and others are offering....again @ $1099. Asus is honestly the only one, in my opinion...that you can buy odd the shelf that competes. Period. You're right...it's time we get a 'better' panel. Perhaps 2014 will bring IGZO technology and production up to speed...IPS prices drop a bit...and Apple decides to equip a higher quality display. I'm all for it. But the current displays don't suck. They're excellent for what they are and at the current 'price point' you can't get that killer high rez panel from Sony. As well...at this size 11"), unless you double the resolution and pixel double as in the rMBP...raising the default resolution too much and text, icons, etc become to small. I'm always amazed at how much real estate I actually DO have on my 11" Air (2011)....in apps with 'full screen' capability....and until I bought the rMBP 15" last summer...I only used 17" MBPs!
  • TheinsanegamerN - Sunday, June 30, 2013 - link

    everyone overlooks something else with the 13 inch air's display...it's 16:10. which is amazing. i'd gladly take this over 16:9 anyday. wish more oems would go back to 16:10. and having seen the screen, and with a bias against macs...i kinda want one of the new airs.
  • darwinosx - Monday, June 24, 2013 - link

    The display is not glossy. Read the article you are commenting on.
  • lilo777 - Monday, June 24, 2013 - link

    You do not need to read the article to know that all Apple displays are glossy. It seems you do not even know what matte display looks like.
  • Sm0kes - Monday, June 24, 2013 - link

    Apple's Macbook Air lineup, while not as "glossy" in appearance as the Retina Macbook Pro's do still have a glossy coating. As a long time hater of glossy displays on notebooks, I have no issue with my Air.
  • amrs - Tuesday, July 23, 2013 - link

    No WWAN either. I think I'll upgrade my Thinkpad X201 to an X240s when those come out if it's any good. With matte display and 3G/4G inside too. Just the basics for mobile usage really.
  • Strulf - Monday, June 24, 2013 - link

    1920 x 1200 certainly would be nice. I want to upgrade my 2009 MBA but I'm gonna watch for the next revision - hopefully with a higher resolution then.
  • thinkpanda - Monday, June 24, 2013 - link

    I would like to share a few experience regarding to WiFi performance.

    I am using late 2011 MBP 13", which should support 3x3 802.11n. I connect home devices with Asus RT-AC66U router. I have a home server of Ubuntu Server 12.04 LTS, with Realtek 8168 GB Ethernet chip connected to the router. The home server has netatalk service installed to support AFP so that I mount the home server storage from MBP using AFP.

    When I copy file from server to my local SSD (just by dragging the file at Finder), I get file transfer rate of 39MB/s! This is not even an AC network, just N network.

    So I am curious that is it the server size TCP windows size settings affect the performance, and the OS X as client device is not affect at all ?
  • mikk - Monday, June 24, 2013 - link

    "It’s hilarious that Intel refused to give out die photos for anything other than quad-core Haswell GT2, citing competitive concerns, yet at Apple’s WWDC launch of the new MacBook Airs we got to see the first die shot of a dual-core Haswell GT3"

    Anand you are plain wrong here. Bad job! ULT GT3 photos are available from Intel since weeks!!!

    http://download.intel.com/newsroom/kits//core/4thg...
    http://download.intel.com/newsroom/kits//core/4thg...

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now