The MacBook Air: Thoroughly Reviewed

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.