Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
1.2 Ghz Turbo boost is 2.1Ghz ????
- Thread starter bibyfok
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
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?
Nope see here https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1877288/ seriously doubt it`s a fault, more a design criteria, no fan and all...
Q-6
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.
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).
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Q-6
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?
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?