updated. But if you were hoping for enough CPU muscle in the new models to keep a bunch of Flash-addled webpages from bringing the entire portable to its knees, then you’re going to be sorely disappointed—the Core 2 Duo is still with us in the new models. In fact, the 11? Macbook Air actually trails its predecessor in clockspeed, while the 13? model hasn’t changed at all.

Given that Apple really went all-out to upgrade the rest of the Air package, the choice of a geriatric CPU is a giant slap in the face to Intel’s latest portable processor options. Apple looked at Arrandale, Intel’s 32nm CPU with a northbridge/GPU combo integrated into the same package, and said, “No thanks, but do you have any more of the really old chips?” Ouch.

We hate to say we told you so, but we told you so—twice, even.

When Intel unveiled the Arrandale ULV parts for ultraportables a few months back, it was obvious that they were not destined for the Macbook Air. The problem wasn’t so much the CPU part of Arrandale—even though the ULV variant is indeed deficient in the cache and clockspeed departments when compared to the Core 2 Duo—the problem is the GPU.

The multicore GPU integrated into the NVIDIA 320M handily spanks the (admittedly improved) Intel integrated graphics glued onto the Core i-series processors. And it’s also compatible with OpenCL, something Intel has yet to support in its IGPs. Apple argued that the improved graphics power of the 320M was more important than improved CPU processing power when designing the recent 13? MacBook Pro update—that same logic (though you may disagree with the decision) still applies here.

That’s not the only problem. The dual-chip packages are considerably larger than the small-outline packages for the low-voltage Core 2 Duos originally introduced on the first MacBook Air. Even with the integrated northbridge and GPU, Arrandale processors still require a separate controller. The combination simply couldn’t fit on the MacBook Air’s minuscule logic board. Instead of giving up room to shoehorn in updated processors, Apple instead chose to improve the MacBook Air’s battery capacity. With seven hours of promised life without any need for an external battery, it can be argued that this is a useful trade-off.

Finally, we have to consider the 11? MacBook Air. While its bigger brother offers a 1.86GHz or 2.13GHz CPU, the smaller sibling is left with just 1.4GHz or 1.6GHz options. The reason for the difference here is simple: thermal design. The slower processors clock in at just 10W TDP (7W less than those used in the 13? models) making it much easier to cool the inside of the tiny 11.6? casing.

The combination of Core 2 Duo processor and NVIDIA 320M graphics is more powerful than the Atom and Intel IGP combo used in notebooks of similar size. While some comparable ultraportables use newer Arrandale chips in them, most also cost significantly more than the revised MacBook Air models. Apple decided to trade maximum performance for increased battery life and portability and still offer a lower price than the previous generation. Whether that tradeoff is worth it (and we’ll be checking this as we review the new models) is up to users to decide.

This story originally appeared on Ars Technica.

Photo by Brian X. Chen / Wired.com.

See Also:

• Apple Unleashes New MacBook Airs
• Hands-On With Apple's New MacBook Airs
• Thank You Apple, for Killing the Optical Drive at Last
• Mobile-Inspired Upgrades Define Apple's PC Strategy

Authors: Chris Foresman, Ars Technica

to know more click here