First benchmarks: MacBook Air is the slowest Apple machine on the block
By Ryan Block 
posted Jan 24th 2008 5:43PM
posted Jan 24th 2008 5:43PM
- All machines tested with Xbench 1.3. Sorry, we didn't have a Mac Pro around.
- All machines tested were using Leopard (except the MBP in the center). Also, MacBook uses 1GB RAM.
- You can check the bold Xbench scores to compare the cumulative results for each test.
| Air (1.6GHz Core 2 Duo) | MBP (2.16GHz Core Duo) | MBP (2.2GHz Core 2 Duo, Tiger) | MacBook (2.2GHz Core 2 Duo) | iMac (2.4GHz Core 2 Duo) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CPU | 79.98 | 90.06 | 112.93 | 126.66 | 138.58 |
| GCD Loop | 9.67 Mops/s | 14.89 Mops/s | 13.17 Mops/s | 13.43 Mops/s | 14.91 Mops/s |
| Floating Point Basic | 2.03 Gflop/s | 2.34 Gflop/s | 2.96 Gflop/s | 2.95 Gflop/s | 3.23 Gflop/s |
| vecLib FFT | 1.71 Gflop/s | 1.68 Gflop/s | 2.98 Gflop/s | 3.36 Gflop/s | 3.66 Gflop/s |
| Floating Point Library | 12.82 Mops/s | 15.78 Mops/s | 14.15 Mops/s | 17.80 Mops/s | 19.43 Mops/s |
| Thread Test | 148.81 | 185.75 | 219.18 | 186.4 | 208.77 |
| Computation | 2.77 Mops/s | 3.36 Mops/s | 4.04 Mops/s | 3.58 Mops/s | 3.56 Mops/s |
| Lock Contention | 7.04 Mlocks/s | 9.07 Mlocks/s | 10.47 Mlocks/s | 8.48 Mlocks/s | 11.06 Mlocks/s |
| Air (1.6GHz Core 2 Duo) | MBP (2.16GHz Core Duo) | MBP (2.2GHz Core 2 Duo, Tiger) | MacBook (2.2GHz Core 2 Duo) | iMac (2.4GHz) | |
| Memory Test | 140.42 | 129.56 | 137.1 | 150.23 | 150.82 |
| System | 143.51 | 139.25 | 126.92 | 158.95 | 151.56 |
| Allocate | 718.86 Kalloc/s | 731.25 Kalloc/s | 401.22 Kalloc/s | 856.78 Kalloc/s | 657.80 Kalloc/s |
| Fill | 5770.30 MB/s | 5565.31 MB/s | 6490.47 MB/s | 6480.99 MB/s | 6606.88 MB/s |
| Copy | 2802.78 MB/s | 2652.96 MB/s | 2954.03 MB/s | 2914.92 MB/s | 3014.12 MB/s |
| Stream | 137.46 | 121.14 | 149.05 | 142.41 | 150.08 |
| Copy | 2621.64 MB/s | 2400.99 MB/s | 2923.94 MB/s | 2799.64 MB/s | 2926.68 MB/s |
| Scale | 2602.03 MB/s | 2412.90 MB/s | 2918.16 MB/s | 2797.66 MB/s | 3022.24 MB/s |
| Add | 3230.58 MB/s | 2703.93 MB/s | 3359.19 MB/s | 3196.17 MB/s | 3364.41 MB/s |
| Triad | 3199.37 MB/s | 2681.42 MB/s | 3368.41 MB/s | 3211.97 MB/s | 3328.48 MB/s |
| Air (1.6GHz Core 2 Duo) | MBP (2.16GHz Core Duo) | MBP (2.2GHz Core 2 Duo, Tiger) | MacBook (2.2GHz Core 2 Duo) | iMac (2.4GHz) | |
| Quartz Graphics Test | 96.89 | 144.23 | 141.5 | 154.32 | 193.4 |
| Line | 6.94 Klines/s | 8.84 Klines/s | 9.23 Klines/s | 9.69 Klines/s | 11.64 Klines/s |
| Rectangle | 32.23 Krects/s | 49.67 Krects/s | 51.59 Krects/s | 51.66 Krects/s | 70.02 Krects/s |
| Circle | 7.22 Kcircles/s | 11.31 Kcircles/s | 13.30 Kcircles/s | 11.54 Kcircles/s | 15.29 Kcircles/s |
| Bezier | 2.49 Kbeziers/s | 3.58 Kbeziers/s | 3.71 Kbeziers/s | 3.79 Kbeziers/s | 4.51 Kbeziers/s |
| Text | 5.53 Kchars/s | 9.12 Kchars/s | 6.65 Kchars/s | 10.39 Kchars/s | 12.66 Kchars/s |
| OpenGL Graphics Test | 17.26 | 175.06 | 129.88 | 23.36 | 152.66 |
| Spinning Squares | 21.89 frames/s | 222.08 frames/s | 164.76 frames/s | 29.64 frames/s | 193.65 frames/s |
| User Interface Test | 105.81 | 217.79 | 303.98 | 244.28 | 335.18 |
| Elements | 485.60 refresh/s | 999.54 refresh/s | 1.40 Krefresh/s | 1.12 Krefresh/s | 1.54 Krefresh/s |
| Air (1.6GHz Core 2 Duo) | MBP (2.16GHz Core Duo) | MBP (2.2GHz Core 2 Duo, Tiger) | MacBook (2.2GHz Core 2 Duo) | iMac (2.4GHz) | |
| Disk Test | 24.05 | 27.59 | 38.13 | 39.64 | 80.72 |
| Sequential | 42.21 | 49.22 | 59.81 | 66.07 | 115.15 |
| Uncached Write | 30.96 MB/s [4K blocks] | 31.32 MB/s [4K blocks] | 42.60 MB/s [4K blocks] | 53.34 MB/s [4K blocks] | 72.17 MB/s [4K blocks] |
| Uncached Write | 31.19 MB/s [256K blocks] | 28.37 MB/s [256K blocks] | 39.19 MB/s [256K blocks] | 47.63 MB/s [256K blocks] | 66.51 MB/s [256K blocks] |
| Uncached Read | 7.27 MB/s [4K blocks] | 12.11 MB/s [4K blocks] | 11.59 MB/s [4K blocks] | 10.83 MB/s [4K blocks] | 27.81 MB/s [4K blocks] |
| Uncached Read | 30.42 MB/s [256K blocks] | 28.65 MB/s [256K blocks] | 39.37 MB/s [256K blocks] | 49.62 MB/s [256K blocks] | 69.83 MB/s [256K blocks] |
| Random | 16.81 | 19.16 | 27.99 | 28.31 | 62.13 |
| Uncached Write | 0.57 MB/s [4K blocks] | 0.65 MB/s [4K blocks] | 1.08 MB/s [4K blocks] | 1.03 MB/s [4K blocks] | 2.67 MB/s [4K blocks] |
| Uncached Write | 18.35 MB/s [256K blocks] | 17.49 MB/s [256K blocks] | 19.24 MB/s [256K blocks] | 22.73 MB/s [256K blocks] | 48.45 MB/s [256K blocks] |
| Uncached Read | 0.35 MB/s [4K blocks] | 0.46 MB/s [4K blocks] | 0.41 MB/s [4K blocks] | 0.48 MB/s [4K blocks] | 0.63 MB/s [4K blocks] |
| Uncached Read | 13.28 MB/s [256K blocks] | 15.08 MB/s [256K blocks] | 16.33 MB/s [256K blocks] | 19.31 MB/s [256K blocks] | 27.08 MB/s [256K blocks] |
But hey, uh it's thin. Doesn't that make up for every one of its disadvantages?
Maybe everything but the price tag
why the hell did you take that seriously
lol
oh, and its sexy. again, that must make up for all the shortcomings, right?
MacBook Air is Palm's Foleo in Apple disguise.....
.....and Engadget seems to be having lots of fun today driving nails into MacBookAir's coffin...
Anyone reading Engadget today will probably cancel their plans to buy one...
well, look at the bright side
its the one day engadget goes all anti-apple fanboy on apple
Wow... someone went to all that trouble to figure out that a 1.6Ghz Core 2 Duo is slower than 2Ghz+ Core 2 Duos processors. How about battery life tests?
Thats a STUPID test.. the slowest compared mac had a 500mhz faster processor.. its ~25% faster to begin with!
@Satish
Too good to be true. People are dumber than you might think.
I reckon you forgot to benchmark the Mac Mini and tell us whether or not it was faster than the Air.
@ vcx & David
The clock isn't what's important. Even the MIPS is that important. Only performance comparison yields accurate results of power and speed.
The 2.66 GHz Pentium D 805 is half as fast as the 2.4 GHz C2D E6600. It's because of other factors, such as FSB, CPU Cache, and memory timings. http://www.bcchardware.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=2869&Itemid=40&limit=1&limitstart=2
Yes, all the processors in Mac's test are C2D, but the sockets, motherboards, and RAM are all different.
I don't mean to make you look like n00bz, but you aren't helping.
"Even the MIPS is that important."
Even the MIPS isn't that important.
well, it's not supposed to be a blazing fast machine. i am not getting one, but if i was traveling, doing lots of presentation, i probably would. it's a marketing machine for business users. i am sticking with plans to purchase a macbook pro after its next upgrade, when gestures are added to the trackpad.
Hey, it's ultra thin, but I hope Ryan would do some drop tests and tell us if the MBA would still work after a drop from waist high, chest high, and about eye-level high. For such a device, speed does not matter, but durability.
Wow, the reasons to not buy this just keep coming.
it's an ultra portable?
13 inches are NOT Ultra portable
Ultra thin ≠ Ultra Portable.
I think it wouldn't have matter if the thing had a 7"~10" screen on it with the same small motherboard and a form factor around the size of an EEE or Cloudbook. IMHO!
...and cost around 1300 dollars less
Cloudbook rules! In fact I request a "shoot out" between the MacBook Air, the Eee PC and my beloved CloudBook. Conducted by Ryan Block, hyper nerdy performance stats, snotty comments, et al.
Agreed. Apple's lost a great opportunity to jump into the ultraportable bandwagon. I myself am a PC junkie, but my cousin, who's a real Mac-head, was waiting anxiously for the 'ultraportable Macbook El-Stevo's gonna present' on Macworld to replace his 12" G4. He's one disappointed fellow, I can tell you, and so are many other Mac-evangelistas out there.
JAmerican: This would have been what I personally expected from this year's Macworld. If it had tablet style functionality with some if hhe iPhone's interface elements, I would have preordered one by now...
But maybe it's just me, .00001% of the market...
Actually, ultra-thin does equal ultra portable. Imagine the vast majority of users for this... they'll have their MBA in their briefcases with several documents, spreadsheets, project plans, etc. all printed out on A4 (or Legal, for our imperial cousins!). That's the same footprint as an MBA (give or take -- both will fit in a manilla envelope, anyway).
The day all the documents I need to deal with are in A5/whatever the half-legal size is, will be the day a consider the smaller footprint of an Eee PC to be important.
@ Richy
Briefcases are for geezers. I can't imagine a geezer buying a MBA.
Thanks Engadget!
Note to self: slower processor = slower computer.
I think I speak for all of us when I say that that needed clearing up.
The 1.8" drive + graphics matter too you know.
There's more to the MBA's poor performance than just the slower processor.
I was interested to see just how horrible the hard drive is, but I'd have to say that the real surprise here is how the MBA scored less than half of what the $500 cheaper MacBook scored on the "User Interface" test.
Obviously, the processor doesn't help, but it's not just that. If it was just a slower processor, that might be OK for some people. Unfortunately, as these tests show, everything in the MBA sucks much more than the much cheaper MacBook.
Drive access speed is a huge factor in Mac OS X's performance. Testing with the 80 GB iPod drive is going to be hellishly slow. I would much prefer a 32 GB SSD in there for a $300 bump than the 80 1.8", or the $1000 64 GB SSD.
Am I the only one who was disappointed to see my $2k MBP beaten by a $1k Macbook in everything but Open-GL? Even when the processors were the same...
Did we seriously not expect this?
Yeah, I mean I think it would be strange if it outperformed other computers. I can definitely sense that the reason most people love to hate this product isn't because it's slow... Or because network adapters don't fit without a short extension cable... It's because it's EXPENSIVE for all the opportunity cost that comes with it. And, though I'm an Apple fan and stockholder, that's definitely understandable.
Why not benchmark against other ultraportables using BootCamp so we can get an idea as to how it stacks up against the competition?
The Air is an ultra-portable?
Wow. Buggy comment system. It put my first reply in the wrong place. To repeat and make it clear who I'm replying to:
The Air is an ultra-portable?
Because it's not an ultraportable.
Twice. Great. Those are supposed to be replies to pop. (So is this one.) Is there a way to file a bug report for the comment system?
Because it's not an ultraportable.
Now, you'd have to take into consideration that loading Windows using BootCamp would not yield the most accurate number because Win is not running natively. I'm assuming here. I've never used BootCamp, so I don't know the particulars of it.
No contest. The base XPS M1330 would kill this piece of junk. If you bump up the M1330 to the price of the MBA, it's performance would be on par with the MacBook Pro (2.2GHz, 4GB RAM, 320GB HD, 128MB GeForce).
Wireless broadband is an option on the 1330. Also, the 64GB SSD is only a $675 option on the Dell. Sure it's a 2.5" instead of 1.8", but whatever.
I really don't understand why anyone would buy a MacBook Air. Even the richest Mac fanboy in the world should be able to see that it's just a bad deal.
Because everyone else messed this up:
Its not an ultraportable.
Oh right! Because it ISN'T an ultraportable. It's a thin laptop. Yes, there's a difference. My eee fits places better than the Air would, even if it is 3 times as thick. Oh, it also weighs less, boots faster, and costs less than a quarter of the low end air. hmm. The air had better win with that sort of price difference.
Testing the broken comment system to say that it's not an ultraportable.
Doesn't matter - you can still slice cheese with it. That's what it's for, right? Wealthy yuppies who go to Napa Valley on the weekend?
Woah, please blogsmith, fix the comment system.
Rob - bootcamp runs windows natively. It's basically a set of native windows drivers for the mac hardware, plus a way to boot windows -- OSX never loads. Parallels is a hosted virtual environment, and would be the one you would not want to use as a comparison.
Why would you make a slim notebook thats not REALLY an ultra-portable (given the 13.3" screen, full keyboard, etc), price it up the wazoo, only to have it run dog shit slow??
Because once you make it pretty and slap the Apple logo on it, people will buy it.
dog feces has a speed?
yes it does, and MBA is slower than that
@wookee88
Man that cracked me up. Thanks!
What about the mini? They're always a step or two behind the macbooks, wonder how they compare to the air.
Processor
Mini 1.83Ghz
Air 1.6Ghz
RAM
Mini 1GB 667Ghz
Air 2GB 667Ghz
FSB
Mini 667Ghz
Air 800Ghz
FSB
Mini 667Ghz
Air 800Ghz
HDD speed
Mini 5400rpm
Air 4200rpm
Graphics
Mini GMA950 w/ 64mb
Air GMA3100 w/ 144mb
pretty sure they suck equally good!
Damn, I want some of that 667Ghz RAM and FSB.
My C2D mini has much better scores.
Not that I'm in the market for one, but I'd like to see benchmarks with the SSD, just out of curiosity.
I don't really care about gen 1 of this device, I want gen 3 with a souped up proc, the new integrated graphics intel is working on, and zippy 128gb ssd. That's when this device will get interesting. Someone hit the fast forward button please.
REALLY NOW? YOU DON'T SAY! THE LOWEST SPECED MAC SCORED THE LOWEST?
Mike, dude, you'll want to turn off Caps Lock. People don't like that too much because people seem angry when they do that.
Sorry I forgot the tags.
WHAT?!?!?!? I put sarcasm in < > tags and its not included in my post?
CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
or be cool like me and do double caps lock: caps lock and holding caps!!! weeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
I am too cool for cruise control!
where is that CAPSLOCK guy when you need him...
"Please, just take the purse. Don't hurt me..."
Getting real close to overcoverage on one product here guys. We get it - it's overpriced, underfeatured, underpowered... Apple's cranked out a probable flop.
Let's move on.
I'd cut it a break if it were an ultra-portable.
An OQO is an ultra-portable. An EEE PC is arguably an ultra-portable.
The Air is larger in X and Y than a Macbook. It is really thin though.
I think the machine is mostly for poseurs.
Oh, and from what I can tell: no Front Row (no IR sensor).
yes, IR sensor, yes front row. Its part of OS X.
I just read the "what comes in the box" and it doesn't come with a remote. If it had an IR sensor, wouldn't it come with a remote too?
There's no rule that says just because Mac OS X has Front Row in it a machine has to have an IR sensor. The Mac Pro doesn't have an IR sensor.
"Yes, you can officially call the MacBook Air the slowest machine Apple makes -- but you already figured as much, right? No one buys an ultraportable for its real ultimate power."
hehe, you guys can't even rip a terrible Apple product without making an excuse for it at the end... for that price, yes... I would expect it to have at least average performance.
This is no different than those tiny gadgets (for example, mp3 players) you guys rip apart on a weekly basis that come out of China. The only difference is, when those Chinese companies come out with a tiny gadget that is completely stripped down in comparison to mainstream products (like the iPod), its price reflects it.
Your bias makes me sad :( lol
You're right...why all the China hate on engadget...and here's a question why are ultra portables so expensive? And really engadget it is ok for you to not like an Apple product and make it known without making excuses for them.
hah! Boring grey laptop. I'm over it.
"No one buys an ultraportable for its real ultimate power."
Correct, for real ultimate power.. you have to go to this website :)
http://www.realultimatepower.net/
Its got to be the 1.8" hdd that kills general usage the most.
its still dead sexy
No.. Its ONLY dead sexy.
No.. Its ONLY dead sexy.
You may be on to something there...
It's dead?!
Has anyone benchmarked the 1.8 with SSD yet? I'm not willing to drop from a 2.2 to a 1.6 and 4Gb ram to 2, but if that SSD is so fast it makes up for other areas....maybe.
Haven't benched it, but I've used it.
It's not a revolution. I mean, I'm sure in some ways it's faster than a drive, but it's not so different that you'd notice in regular use.
Err, SSDs have slower sustained speeds than hard drives, they just have insane random seeks. So it probably wouldn't help much. It's more for the power savings than anything else I think.
How exactly does a Macbook, with graphics that doesn't match the discrete, true nature of the ATi/nVidia stuff in the MBPs, beat them both in the Quartz Graphics test?
...
What makes me wonder is that the MacBook Pro is in nearly every aspect slower den the MacBook, or what is it I'm getting wrong here?
Yeah. What's up with that?
These speed reports put a damper on it for me under my price vs. performance logic tree. But that is the key "for me". Some might find the performance enough of a trade-off for the physical size and styling of the thing. If you like the looks and got the $$$ go for it! The first iPod was pretty pricey, but I caved on that ;)
If it were meant to perform better, The Steve would have put more power into it.
If The Steve thinks we need the extra performance, The Steve would have given to us.
All hail The Steve.
Amen.
I'm surprised at the lack of "hot air" type jokes.
@paul
Its more fitting to call it a MacBook Error....
"MacBook Error where Apple style meets complete and utter impracticality"
The MacBook Air is sexy. People are complaining about the MacBook Air's performance/cost ratio, but it's just a sexy computer. You pay for sexy. I pay for sexy prostitutes all the time, and they cost a hell of a lot more than the ugly-ass ones, who are far more experienced.
Plus, what the hell are people complaining about? Apparently everyone is rendering quadrillion polygon Maya animations all of a sudden. What the hell can't a 1.6Ghz Core 2 Duo do, that a 400Mhz G4 can? No one needs this fast shit-- most people complaining about computer speeds don't even need anything current. There's only so fast one can send an e-mail, pirate media, and download porn.
If this came out 5 years ago, everyone would be shitting themselves and committing suicide, because it's a marvelous engineering feat. Nobody's really complaining in the comments for this article, but in general people need to calm down. Including me, cuz I just ordered the new high-end MacPro, and all I do is type poems in TextEdit.
It should have come out 5 years ago, so it could actually compete.
And the prostitute example and how you related it to computers is wrong on so many levels.
i, for one, don't pay for prostitutes. predominantly because my self-esteem isn't proportionately correlated with what computer i use.
If it came out 5 years ago it wouldnt have no stinkin Cor2Duo in it...prolly a P4 1.8! Even slower!
well now, you don't say
Maybe Steve put the Air out to make the iphone look even better.
I'm buying one, and judging from this crowd, that's probably a dumb idea. However, I do have a Dell D830 which I hate. It's new, it locks up constantly, it shocks me when I touch it (common issue apparently).
I do want it so thin it can slice cheese.
I do want to open it up at a presentation and have it be an ice-breaker - I have no plans of playing some hyper power eating game, that's what my Xbox 360 is for. I need a slick presentation device that can do e-mail, write reports, and travel with ease. The Dell will remain on my desk and be used for the occasisonal heavy lifting.
My question is - what would the performance delta be between the 1.6 and 1.8 CPU?
I for one look forward to Engadget's explanation on why water is wet.
funny..:)
funny..:)