MBA vs MBP '11

With the new 13 inches out and the new airs has any one made some benchmarking comparisons?

 

I don't know why you would compare the two as in benchmarking.
It's a bit like testing a Corolla against a Camaro.
Two classes that have different strengths.

Obviously the new MBP 13 is going to blow it (the Air) away in processor and GPU related tasks. While the Air will perform admirably in tasks that favor utilization of disk access (e.g. boot).

But overall, if benchmarks are your sole source of comparison, the MBP was nearly always better, which is why you would never consider the Air for the benchmark alone.

See below and compare.

http://www.macworld.com/article/157893/2011/02/2011macbookpro_benchmarks.html

http://www.macworld.com/article/154596/2010/10/macbookair_benchmarks.html?lsrc=rss_main

 

Well my concern between the two is the GPU I have read a lot lately that the old 320 is better than the 3000HD
Basically I'm looking for an ultra portable system that can do some light gaming and the last Mac I had did the trick and fell in love with snow leopard
So I'm kicking around getting a Mac and waiting if Asus refreshes the U36

 

Not true at all.

 

Real world example please.

 

MacBook Pro (2010) vs MacBook Pro (2011) | Techy Alert

 

Under "Overall Observations" is this:

You don't think the Air, with a lesser CPU than the 2010 MBP will introduce more than a tad bit more of disparity in graphics/games performance?

 

That link pretty much proves what SP was saying except when running Windows 7 (likely due to poor Windows drivers which is nothing new as you can take the same hardware, slap it in a Dell, and see better performance under Windows). We also know that you don't buy a MacBook Pro to run Windows. While it can, that is still not something that people are going to solely do with their systems.

Under Mac OS X, the Intel HD 3000 has been performing better than the 320m when it comes to video playback, efficiency, and gaming.

 

"(likely due to poor Windows drivers"
So does this mean over time as drivers change the mac can see better performance?
This is only my second mac so I still like my windows "safety net"

 

Maybe, I don't know as I am going off of what all of my MacBook Pro friends are saying (all four of them). Based on their experiences, Windows 7 doesn't perform as well as Mac OS X with the same hardware and they believe (which I agree with based on other statements I have read) that Apple uses inefficient drivers for their hardware under Windows. I guess the main reason for doing this would be to show how well Mac OS X performs over Windows.

It is a sneaky move but at least the MacBook Pros can run Windows if need be. I am never going to use that feature but I can see how complete switchers (ie people who are only going to have one computer) would want a safety net. Not everything out there supports Mac OS X.

 

SP's original comment stated that the MBP would blow the Air away in GPU related tasks. I said that's not the case which is 100% correct.

Your comment about poor Windows drivers is also incorrect, it's actually the other way around. It's the drivers in OSX and OpenGL which are very poorly optimised. That is why you see the real performance of the 320M in Windows with DirectX.

Anything other than low graphics settings is consistently topped by the 320M. That's because most of the low benchmarks are limited by the CPU. There are posts and articles all over the net (including this forum, just a few posts down) which show the HD 3000 is a clear downgrade over the 320M.

 

Your comment was off topic. First I was specifically addressing the OP's question. Not Old MBP versus new MBP.

Second, I said CPU and GPU related tasks. There is no such real world application that a user will have that uses just the isolated GPU, except benchmarking. I wouldn't call benchmarking a "task".


Context, context context.

 

The difference between the 300HD and 320 was the main point of the post, and from what it sounds like the reason there is a performance difference is due to what operating system, and what is being done with the card. For games the 320 is usually better cause most games are windows while movies and non games would see better numbers from the 3000. Do I got that right?

 

Understood. I erroneously took the thread literally.

 

No problem
I was trying to find out what of the two machines would be better
And I was just thinking that the video card differences would really hamper the MBP but from what everyone mentioned
It sounds like the MBP will blow the MBA away with everything except windows

 

My comment was not off topic in the slightest. What you stated was incorrect.

You have now confused the OP into thinking the "MBP will blow the MBA away with everything except Windows" which again is not the case at all.

Anyway, have fun with whatever you choose OP.

 

Well, yes and no. The MacBook Air will have better boot times under Mac OS X along with various other enhancements that all lean on the SSD drive. The processor inside of the MacBook Air is considerably slower than the MacBook Pro (even the Core i5 version) and, based on what I have seen, both will perform relatively the same graphically under Mac OS X (though the HD 3000 is pulling ahead as shown in the link iaTa provided and various other reviews testing gaming under Mac OS X). Keep in mind that the 320M is actually better when it comes to handling higher resolution Mac OS X games. For example, it can run Call of Duty 4 at the 1280X800 with 4AA at ~20 fps while the Intel HD 3000 is stuck down in the 7 fps range. The Intel HD 3000 actually pulled ahead when running Call of Duty 4 at 1280X800 with no AA. So take it for what you will.

Overall performance shows that the 13" MacBook Pro (even with the Core i5 processor) does in fact blow the 11" and 13" MacBook Air away. The MacBook Air has faster boot and resume times (again, due to the use of SSD instead of a hard drive) and similar GPU performance but the MacBook Pro has a much better processor (in fact, the dual-core Core i7 13" MacBook Pro outperforms last generation's 15" Core i7 $2400 MacBook Pro), you can stack it with more RAM, you can always upgrade to SSD down the line, it has a backlight keyboard, it has better battery life, and the Intel HD 3000 is at least on par with the 320M for lower resolution games without too much detail.

Windows performance is an entirely different story as it appears that the 320M runs better under Windows though 3D Mark 06 scores for both the 320M and HD3000 are about the same (within the 5,000-6,000 range). As I said before, the general concensus is that Apple's Windows drivers for their computers are not fully optimized (many other sites say this so I don't know where iaTa is getting their information from) so things tend to run a little slower under Windows when compared to Mac OS X.

In fact, Cnet said that the 13" Core i7 MacBook Pro was the second fastest notebook they have ever reviewed right behind the 2.2GHz Core i7 15" MacBook Pro. So that definitely makes it the most powerful 13" notebook currently on the market. Of course, this will all change when more Sandy Bridge equipped notebooks comes out but most won't get out until mid to late March.

 

Apple MacBook Pro 13-inch (2011) Review - A Review of the Apple MacBook Pro 13-inch (2011) - a good read... mentions MBP '11 vs MBP '10 vs MBA