The MacBook Air: Thoroughly Reviewed
by Anand Lal Shimpi on February 13, 2008 12:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Mac
Performance Summary
Quite possibly the most surprising results we saw in our tests were those that compared the MacBook Air to the original Core Duo based MacBook Pro. The MacBook Pro is two years old now and in that time, Apple has managed to offer the same if not better performance as the first MBP in the MacBook Air. Battery life of the first MacBook Pro is also equalled by the Air.
Comparing the top of the line MacBook Pro from 2 years ago to the highest end MacBook Pro today shows the other side of the Moore's Law coin: performance and battery life improves tremendously over time. While Apple can now cram the performance of the first MacBook Pro into the Air's chassis, it can also offer nearly twice the performance and battery life into the same size chassis as the original MBP. Obviously the improvements come from more than just a faster, more efficient CPU (LED backlight, newer hard drive tech, etc...), but the culmination is tremendous.
When looking at the MacBook Air as a 1 - 2 year purchase, the performance difference between a 2 year old MacBook Pro and a present day one is great enough that we'd almost say the somewhat disposable nature of the Air isn't such a big deal. So what if you have to toss it and buy a new one in 2 years? Chances are, you'll probably want to anyways thanks to the sort of performance gains you'll see.
A two year upgrade cycle also puts you in sync (byebyebye) with Intel's major CPU architecture refreshes, theoretically giving you major increases in performance and power each time you snag a new notebook. I honestly didn't realize how slow my MacBook Pro had become until I benchmarked the latest model, the performance/battery life figures speak for themselves.
It's also nice to wonder if the MacBook Air 2 years from now will offer performance similar to the 2.6GHz MacBook Pro we compared to today. With a much faster SSD and 45nm Nehalem based CPU, I think that may actually be a conservative estimate.
Subjective Performance
I've been using a MacBook Pro and a Mac Pro, both originals (that's Core Duo and Core 2 Duo based respectively) ever since their release. The Mac Pro gets regular usage while the MacBook Pro is more for trips or when it's really nice outside. Compared to both of these systems, the MacBook Air doesn't feel sluggish at all.
I opted for the 1.8GHz Core 2 Duo because of the lack of a CPU upgrade path, unlike my Mac Pro which gladly accepted 3.0GHz Xeons when I asked it nicely. For its intended purposes, the MacBook Air performs admirably - and as you'll see from the performance results, it actually does surprisingly well compared to the original MacBook Pro.
By far the most noticeable performance issue has to do with the mechanical disk drive. Spotlight searches, application launches and even boot time are all noticeably slower than I'd like and it's all thanks to that 1.8" 4200RPM HDD.
Sequential transfer speeds of large files isn't a problem, but random small file access (e.g. a Spotlight search) is hard on the drive. Simultaneous reads and writes will also make the disk choke, especially if they are moderately strenuous. Basic web browsing and downloading isn't a big deal, but add some file copies and reading of 10MP images and then you're looking at a frustrating time. The SSD fixes these issues for the most part because of its much improved random read/write performance, thanks to the lack of rotational latency.
Overall I'd say the MacBook Air is the perfect speed for its intended use, even taking into account the disk performance issues. Usually I'm left disappointed by the performance of the ultra portables I've used, but that's because they are generally relying on very low clock speed ULV processors to do all the work. Apple's use of a 1.6 - 1.8GHz Core 2 was the right decision in my opinion.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
41 Comments
View All Comments
sprockkets - Wednesday, February 13, 2008 - link
I don't get it. I can use my Pioneer laptop slot loading burner on an external enclosure and it be powered solely via the one usb port and works just fine, even while writing to dvds.For that matter, I can do the same with notebook laptop drives. Rarely do I need both usb ports connected in order for it to work.
sprockkets - Wednesday, February 13, 2008 - link
Only about 16mbits per second on the xfer rate on wireless? Wow. Were you using n?JarredWalton - Thursday, February 14, 2008 - link
I don't know what Anand used, but I've seen everything from 3MBps to 12MBps on an 802.11n network... all with laptops in the same room, and many using the same chipset (Intel 4965AGN). Overall, N tends to feel about half as fast as 100Mbit Ethernet - or about twice as fast as 802.11G. Router choice unfortunately still has a major influence on 802.11N performance.Imaginer - Wednesday, February 13, 2008 - link
It is what the overall feel and message of the article indicates to me. It is a bit expensive, non-expansive, lacks most utility to be used in most mobile situations, and it is purely for computing on the bare minimum.Kind of like that so called weekend car. I don't think I myself will have ANY need for such a device. Give me a powerful desktop and a versitle yet remaining non cumbersome notebook anyday.
Most people in the market for a laptop usually would use it like their normal away from home computer and because of this, the air really disappoints. (not that I would invest in a new computer anytime soon).
jedmitchell - Wednesday, February 13, 2008 - link
hey, so good review overall -- kept it very even handed considering the difficulty of reviewing a niche product like this. one hardware point I'd like to mention though is the info you give on the X3100. certainly the idea behind it is that as an integrated controller it won't provide very fast graphics, but there's a trick here: most of the things it's not rated to run... run. at least on the older macBook (santa rosa). final cut pro, maya, and photoshop actually all run pretty seamlessly on the X3100, both in OSX and windows (fcp is more memory/drive limited there than GPU). the only small problems are in windows where the X3100 drivers by intel are actually lacking several openGL 2.0 features present in apple's version.the X3100 even plays older games on windows without much trouble -- I can run the Orange Box games at 1024x768 with high quality settings and see a fairly regular 30fps, less a few texture memory glitches. anyway, it would be interesting to see how that performance in the same chipset scales from the macBook to the air.
jdwango - Wednesday, February 13, 2008 - link
However I wish you had also tried to install Windows XP/Vista via boot camp and reported your thoughts.joey2264 - Wednesday, February 13, 2008 - link
This would be a fairly good review if you would just mention the fact that most of the sacrifices Apple made to create the Macbook Air simply weren't necessary. If you look like at a notebook like the Fujitsu Lifebook S6510 of the Lenovo X300 this becomes clear. Looking at these two notebooks, it is obvious that each of the manufacturers could have come up with a 13.3 in, 1 spindle notebook that didn't make hardly any other compromises (decent keyboard, decent port selection, replaceable battery, upgradeable memory, standard 2.5" hard drives (Lenovo could have probably fit a 2.5" hard drive in there if they had used a 13.3" screen, with the requisite larger footprint, although it would have been a little heavier), etc).michael2k - Wednesday, February 13, 2008 - link
The S6510 you mention is heavier (by a pound) and nearly twice as thick! It is much more comparable to a MacBook (5 pounds and an inch thick vs 4 pounds and 1.42 inches thick).The X300 is also not available yet, so a comparison will have to wait until we find out about price and build quality.
mlambert890 - Thursday, February 14, 2008 - link
OK, so then the Sony TX, the Fujitsu P7k, the Toshiba Portege, the Dialogue Flybook, the Panasonic Toughbook, the Dell XPS1210, the Sony SZ, The LG XNote....There's a pretty long list of notes that are smaller and ligher or as light or slightly heavier with a lot more features than the MBA.
The MBA is THINNER. Last I checked thinner is a BS feature. When someone can explain to me WHY thinner means ANYTHING beyond looking cool at Starbucks, maybe Ill be interested.
The Sony X505 was pretty much the same situation as the MBA except it had a removable battery and more ports and that was 3 years ago. I think the MBA was like .2" thinner than the Sony *at its thinnest point* and about the same at the thickest.
The MBA is big news for the cult of Mac which lately is including PC sites like this.
michael2k - Friday, February 15, 2008 - link
Fujitsu P7230: Too slow (one core at 1.2GHz vs two cores at 1.6GHz), half as much ram (1GB vs 2GB) for the same priceDell XPS 1330: You can't get a 1210 from Dell.com (one pound (33%)heavier) for 2/3 the price
Sony TZ250N: You can't get a TX from Sonystyle.com, too slow (2 cores at 1.2GHz vs 1.6Ghz), too expensive ($600 more)
Sony SZ750N: Too big and heavy (1 pound (33%) heavier and twice as thick) for the same price
You argue against thinner: Thinner is only a measure of weight. Compare to 3 pounds (2.7 to 3.2 pound) and you already eliminate the toughbook, the Dells, the Portege, and the SZ. Compare to the CPU speed and you eliminate the Fujitsu and Sony TZ.
So what is left? The Lenovo X300, which is still more expensive, but for that extra expense you get an optical drive.