First benchmarks: MacBook Air is the slowest Apple machine on the block

No one should be surprised, but if you were looking for a speed freak of a laptop, you're going to want to glaze those lustful eyes over the MacBook Air. While the new hotness has a speedy memory bus, overall its performance is dramatically smushed by its integrated graphics, anemic 1.6GHz Core 2 Duo processor, and 1.8-inch hard drive. 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.

• 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]

[Dan @ Jan 24th 2008 5:55PM]

What about the mini? They're always a step or two behind the macbooks, wonder how they compare to the air.

[CosterMonger @ Jan 24th 2008 7:11PM]

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!

[iofthestorm @ Jan 24th 2008 8:22PM]

Damn, I want some of that 667Ghz RAM and FSB.

[JohnPQ @ Jan 24th 2008 9:31PM]

My C2D mini has much better scores.

[schtum @ Jan 24th 2008 5:58PM]

Not that I'm in the market for one, but I'd like to see benchmarks with the SSD, just out of curiosity.

[Barry @ Jan 24th 2008 6:01PM]

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.

[mike @ Jan 24th 2008 6:02PM]

REALLY NOW? YOU DON'T SAY! THE LOWEST SPECED MAC SCORED THE LOWEST?

[sk8rpro @ Jan 24th 2008 6:09PM]

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.

[mike @ Jan 24th 2008 6:14PM]

Sorry I forgot the tags.

[mike @ Jan 24th 2008 6:15PM]

WHAT?!?!?!? I put sarcasm in < > tags and its not included in my post?

[sinai @ Jan 24th 2008 6:38PM]

CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

or be cool like me and do double caps lock: caps lock and holding caps!!! weeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

[mike @ Jan 24th 2008 7:31PM]

I am too cool for cruise control!

[Josh @ Jan 24th 2008 7:51PM]

where is that CAPSLOCK guy when you need him...

[Hung @ Jan 24th 2008 9:39PM]

"Please, just take the purse. Don't hurt me..."

[Jeff Lewis @ Jan 24th 2008 6:03PM]

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.

[why not the LS2LS7? @ Jan 24th 2008 6:03PM]

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).

[Christopher @ Jan 24th 2008 11:33PM]

yes, IR sensor, yes front row. Its part of OS X.

[why not the LS2LS7? @ Jan 24th 2008 11:37PM]

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.

[anonymouspimp @ Jan 24th 2008 6:04PM]

"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

[Joel Stephen @ Jan 24th 2008 6:59PM]

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.

[ScooterDe @ Jan 24th 2008 6:05PM]

hah! Boring grey laptop. I'm over it.

[humphrey @ Jan 24th 2008 6:09PM]

"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/

[austin @ Jan 24th 2008 6:09PM]

its still dead sexy

[John Bailey @ Jan 24th 2008 7:11PM]

No.. Its ONLY dead sexy.

[John Bailey @ Jan 24th 2008 7:11PM]

No.. Its ONLY dead sexy.

[Josh @ Jan 24th 2008 7:51PM]

You may be on to something there...

[Kyanges @ Jan 24th 2008 9:06PM]

It's dead?!

[Robert @ Jan 24th 2008 6:11PM]

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.

[why not the LS2LS7? @ Jan 24th 2008 6:31PM]

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.

[iofthestorm @ Jan 24th 2008 8:25PM]

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.

[Reginald @ Jan 24th 2008 6:23PM]

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.

[luzzio @ Jan 24th 2008 6:43PM]

Amen.

[paul34 @ Jan 24th 2008 6:23PM]

I'm surprised at the lack of "hot air" type jokes.

[kal326 @ Jan 25th 2008 11:31AM]

@paul

Its more fitting to call it a MacBook Error....

"MacBook Error where Apple style meets complete and utter impracticality"

[peepeepants @ Jan 24th 2008 6:24PM]

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.

[Ruben @ Jan 24th 2008 6:42PM]

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.

[sinai @ Jan 24th 2008 6:42PM]

i, for one, don't pay for prostitutes. predominantly because my self-esteem isn't proportionately correlated with what computer i use.

[retro77 @ Jan 24th 2008 6:48PM]

If it came out 5 years ago it wouldnt have no stinkin Cor2Duo in it...prolly a P4 1.8! Even slower!

[applefreak @ Jan 24th 2008 6:30PM]

well now, you don't say

[oliver @ Jan 24th 2008 6:31PM]

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?

[Seung-Hwan @ Jan 25th 2008 3:02AM]

Yeah. What's up with that?

[atomicmatt @ Jan 24th 2008 6:32PM]

Maybe Steve put the Air out to make the iphone look even better.

[aeden@ @ Jan 24th 2008 6:32PM]

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?

...

[Bill Hennan @ Jan 24th 2008 6:32PM]

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 ;)

[007baf @ Jan 24th 2008 6:32PM]

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?

[Joe @ Jan 24th 2008 6:33PM]

I for one look forward to Engadget's explanation on why water is wet.

[ron @ Jan 25th 2008 9:36AM]

funny..:)

[ron @ Jan 25th 2008 6:28PM]

funny..:)

[why not the LS2LS7? @ Jan 24th 2008 6:33PM]

The disk tests show "uncached read" twice, with two vastly different speeds. I presume the faster group of two was supposed to be cached?

[sinai @ Jan 24th 2008 6:40PM]

physicists are still trying to answer that one. nice try. better luck next time.