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] |
@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..:)