Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'MacBook' started by JLEW700, Aug 14, 2015.
Im purchasing the new MacBook this weekend and was wondering if the 1.3GHz worth the extra $135?
1.2 Checking in. Probably not...I'm extremely happy with my 1.2
I've been using the 1.1 and been quite pleased with its performance, so I think the 1.2 should be just fine.
I've had both the 1.1GHz and 1.2GHz. I really debated getting the 1.3GHz model, but didn't want to wait for it. I've been VERY pleased with the 1.2GHz model and haven't regretted buying it one bit. I triple boot Yosemite(256GB), El Capitan(128GB), and Windows 10(128GB), and it runs great on all of them.
It depends on your use. The 1.2 is about 10% faster than the 1.1 and the 1.3 is about 10% faster than the 1.2 from a CPU perspective. Each step also seems to be a bit more efficient, which improves battery life, generates less heat etc but I've seen no scientific quantitative measurements published.
I just bought the fastest one available since I knew this was a fairly limited processor to begin with. Rapidly moving your cursor around can take CPU from an idle 5% to 35% so it doesn't take a lot to "consume" this CPU. The 1.3 feels a little snappier than my 2012/2013 MBA i7/8gb/512gb in bursty (most) activities but in sustained activities its about 15% slower. Thats a good trade off for me but I don't think I would have been happy with the 1.2 which would have been about 25% slower in sustained activities.. So it depends on where you are coming from and what your are using it for.
There are many happy customers (and some unhappy customers) which each of the three speeds.
btw, Im currently using a Late 2008 13in aluminum MacBook with a 2.4GHz intel core 2 duo processor, and and upgraded 500GB SSD.
I've mentioned this before, but if performance is a concern for you, you should keep in mind the max turbo speeds of the different processors. The differences in idle clock speed are much smaller (1.1, 1.2, 1.3), but when you compare the max turbo clock speeds (2.4, 2.6, 2.9 respectively), there's a significantly bigger gap. I think it's true that in everyday use, it's really tricky to tell the difference between them - I got the 1.3 and it doesn't especially feel any faster than the 1.1 demo models I was playing around with in the Apple Store. But, if you run apps that will push the CPU to do some hard work relatively frequently, I suppose the higher turbo speed will be the actual CPU speed you'll be actually experiencing more frequently.. so it's something to keep in mind. I also have heard that the 1.3 model generally runs cooler and somewhat counterintuitively may give slightly better battery life performance. Haven't really seen much evidence of this but from my experience of the 1.3, my own machine does seem to last quite a long time on a charge.
The last thing I'd keep in mind is the storage size you want. If you are set on getting a 512GB model, then (at least in my case), it felt like a reasonable extra step to add on an extra 150 bucks from that point to just get the top model and be done with it. It's not a whole lot more money to add once you're committed to the 512 model anyway, so my reasoning was to just go for a bit of extra future proofing. My use-case for my rMB was not at all as my primary work machine, but I still wanted to use pixelmator and possibly FCPx and Logic Pro from time to time.. so it was not too hard to decide that 150 extra was not too bad an idea to get that extra turbo speed just shy of 3 GHz. Also, the main "work"-ish thing I use the rMB for is to edit my site on squarespace, that interface can be sluggish even on a fast machine so I wanted to best experience I could get for that use.
I have the 1.3 and have tested against the 1.2.
During heavy tasks (hand break) both the 1.2&1.3 hover around the same boost levels once they have warmed up. Encode times are roughly the same give or take.
The advantage is general computing when the cpu sporadically boosts up. But it really depends on your work load. Unless you have the two side by side you really wouldn't notice a difference.
You may as well get the 1.3GHz because when the new ones come out next year, the 1.3Ghz will probably be the lower tier model like the 1.1GHz models are today.
Interesting info, thanks. I don't use the rMB for many transcoding crunching-style tasks, so mine is never really being pushed to its thermal limits by having to work hard for a sustained period. If I edit photos with filters etc, sure a bit of crunching happens but so far nothing that takes so long as to heat it up much. Haven't done an FCPx render yet, I'm sure in that case it would probably be a similar case to what you described with handbrake... but when I do one, I might run the intel power gadget tool at the same time if I remember, just to see how it heats up and what clock speeds it settles on. I'd only ever be likely to do a bit of light editing of video shot with my iPhone anyway, so again, nothing outrageous and certainly not 4K.
Can anyone confirm if the different CPU choices also affect the integrated GPU? Is the graphics performance also clocked up on the faster chips or is it the same across all of the models? When I work on my squarespace site, I wanted to have the best CPU/GPU performance I could get out of a small portable machine (hence my going with the 1.3) because it feels like the squarespace editor site can use all the juice it can get to remain reactive. Certainly on my iMac, working on my site is pretty good, jumping around to different pages and editors seems to be as snappy as could be expected, taking into account my moderate internet connection. So far, it seems pretty snappy on the rMB too, and unless I'm kidding myself, it feels like it's a little more responsive than it was when I played around with it on 1.1 machines in store.. On Monday I'm finally getting 500Mbit fibre optic internet, so we'll see if that makes working on squarespace a better experience, or if it's still bottlenecked by what the rMB itself can handle...
The 1.2/1.3 use the same chip with the same gpu clock
With the CPU / GPU being the weak point, I'd say going for the 1.3 was definitely worth it for me.
Considering that it's not upgradable and that the price difference is quite small I think it's a no-brainer.
The 1.2GHz is fine. Since there is no fan, if you run anything CPU intensive for an extended period of time, it throttles down. AnandTech ran some tests, and in some cases, the "slower" versions of Core M completed tasks more quickly because of this.
To me, the performance differences between 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3 weren't big enough to worry about. I bought the one with 512GB of storage and got a 1.2 GHz processor as a bonus.