1.2 Ghz Turbo boost is 2.1Ghz ????

Discussion in 'MacBook' started by bibyfok, May 8, 2015.

  1. bibyfok macrumors 6502

    bibyfok

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2012
    Location:
    France
    #1
    Hello,

    I tried to make my Macbook throttle so I started many task consuming in parallel but I can't make it turbo boost past 2.1Ghz. Wtf is wrong with my computer??

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
     
  2. Alekto macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2012
    Location:
    Tokyo
    #2
    Does it affect it's operation in any noticeable way to you?
     
  3. bibyfok thread starter macrumors 6502

    bibyfok

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2012
    Location:
    France
    #3
    Well I have it since less than 24h so I can't tell... But could someone test that on his Macbook and tell me if i'm the only one with that problem?
     
  4. Queen6 macrumors 603

    Queen6

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2008
    Location:
    Enjoying Better Things
    #4
    Nope see here http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1877288 seriously doubt it`s a fault, more a design criteria, no fan and all...

    Q-6
     
  5. bibyfok thread starter macrumors 6502

    bibyfok

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2012
    Location:
    France
    #5
    Thanks for the input, it seems to be normal then.
    I tried the Yes command, this CPU is crazy: its thermal limit is at 95°C and it manage to sustain a full load for few minutes and then goes up and down but its super acceptable.
    It goes from 95°C to 60°C in 3sec after killing the processes.

    [​IMG]
     
  6. bmustaf macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2007
    Location:
    Telluride, CO
    #6
    TurboBoost is not a switch, it is not "on or off", it is a range, a gradient, based on many factors like workload, thermal dynamics (ambient temp, core temps, system temp, skin temp, etc), battery/mains power status, and dual-core vs. single-core workloads, etc.

    Bottom line, 2.9GHz is the max it will Turbo to when there is:

    1) Single-core work
    2) All temps are low enough
    3) On mains (if configured to clock down on battery)
    4) Enough work to justify it

    Likely, the temps aren't ideal for 2.9GHz, and, most of the time, boosting up to 2.9 vs a slightly lower speed isn't actually going to help anything (esp in dual core work).

     
  7. PhilhasaMac macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2015
    Location:
    Switzerland
    #7
    I assume you expect 2.6ghz turbo on your 1.2ghz rMB...
    As far as I know that 2.6ghz is only for the single core turbo (if there is a task that only uses a single core, the proccesor can temporarely shut the other core down and apply all of the voltage to one core....) dual core turbo is lower (this does not only apply to the core m). Nothing is wrong with your rMB! :)

    ----------

    The new rMB with 1.2ghz has 2.6ghz turbo, not 2.9ghz. The BTO 1.3ghz rMB has 2.9ghz.
     
  8. bmustaf macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2007
    Location:
    Telluride, CO
    #8
    Yup, yes, you are right, the 1.2 goes to 2.6, had it in my head this thread was about the 5Y71 1.3GHz model, sorry, yeah, 2.6 = max here.

     
  9. bibyfok thread starter macrumors 6502

    bibyfok

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2012
    Location:
    France
    #9
    Thanks for all your answers guys ! Happy to sleep less idiot tonight :D
     
  10. Queen6 macrumors 603

    Queen6

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2008
    Location:
    Enjoying Better Things
    #10
    Current technology as it is there is no way the Core M can remain at it`s lofty upper limits for more than a matter of seconds, even on a single core without active cooling.

    Q-6
     
  11. ZipZap macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2007
    #12
    Put it in the fridge and then run the tests for a while.
     
  12. spaz2841 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    May 9, 2015
    #13
    Curious

    I have only used intel power gadget a couple times so have no idea what its supposed to read, but i have a 1.3 which is supposed to turbo to 2.9 and when i try to max mine out it will only read 2.6 for IA and .3 for GT so i figured they were additive, and i notice that if you add those 2 together on yours you basically come up with the 2.6 that you are supposed to have. Is this just a coincidence?
     

Share This Page