Text Size

MacBook Air benchmarks: not quite a MacBook

updated 01:25 am EST, Mon February 4, 2008

MacBook Air benchmark

The MacBook Air has caused quite a stir with its slender packaging and minimalist features, but many have wondered what they are giving up in terms of performance by trading in their MacBooks and MacBook Pros for the ultraportable. Primate Labs recently benchmarked the miniature laptop, and found that performance was around 80- to 85-percent of that of a 2GHz MacBook. While the Air pulled ahead slightly in memory and stream performance, it was lacking in other areas.

The Air dragged behind the generation-old MacBook in integer and floating point performance, which the tester admits it is somewhat to be expected, since the Air has a slower clock speed.

Primate Labs found that while there is a bit of performance difference between the MacBook and MacBook Air, most users wouldn't notice the change. The tester also vindicates the ultraportable for PowerPC users, saying "the MacBook Air will feel a lot faster (and lighter, too)."


 
Previous Comments

This just in...

02/04, 05:19am reply

This just in...

Ford Focuses not as fast as Ford Mustangs.

Spacemoose

Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Feb 2004

0

news?

02/04, 05:20am reply

Newsflash...a 1.6 or 1.8 Ghz processor is slower than a 2.0 or 2.2 Ghz processor. How is this news?

Feathers

Forum Regular

Joined: Oct 1999

0

shocked i tell you!

02/04, 06:06am reply

water is wet! fire is hot! sky is blue!

a more useful test would have been between the 1.8Ghz MacBook and the 1.8GHz MacBook Air (SSD & HD versions). as to see if when CPU is equal whether the architecture itself makes it any slower.

010111

Junior Member

Joined: Aug 2002

0

Ack...

02/04, 07:03am reply

I'm glad I'm not the only one that finds the article headline and subject amusing.

ShALLaX

Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Sep 2007

0

1.8Ghz

02/04, 07:58am reply

There's be quite significant differences in the benchmarks between an old 1.8Ghz MacBook and the Air, as the Air CPU has the new faster FSB, so will be faster in that respect, but has a far slower HD (slower than anything we've seen in a portable Mac in years).

The default 2Gb RAM config, on the other hand, also offsets that, in terms of 'out of the box' performance.

JulesLt

Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jul 2005

0

The word you're looking 4

02/04, 08:29am reply

is "Duh".

jpellino

Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Oct 1999

0

dumb-o-rama

02/04, 08:47am reply

And again - MacNN beats its own record in providing the LEAST relevant news, published in the LEAST professional journalistic manner... and with a REALLY dumb headline to boot. Woo-hoo.

Jeronimo2000

Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Aug 2001

0

re:dumb-o-rama

02/04, 09:23am reply

You forgot to mention that this story is also listed in the 'top stories' section!

FastAMX79

Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Sep 2000

0

ha

02/04, 09:30am reply

will someone stop wasting there time with tests that have answers typed out right in front of all of our faces? someone do a test comparing the reg hard drive versus that $3,000 machine w/ the solid state drive to see if it is "just really worth it." I know i love my mbp but this thing is sweet and im curious to see what the solid state drive has to offer.

shaunymac

Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jan 2008

0

Pointless Article

02/04, 10:26am reply

I have to agree with everyone else. This is an incredibly worthless "news" story. The quality of the articles on MacNN does seem to be heading downhill lately.

Onceler

Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Mar 2006

0

Popular News