Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Any reviews of 1.3 Ghz model made by professionals

N

Nemomagic

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Apr 21, 2015
15
0
Thinking of buying 1.3 rMB, waited till middle of may to read any reviews on IT sites in Internet or other professionals...
Everyday look them and can not find:
1. All reviews only about Base model (1.1 or 1.2)
2. 1.3 is described only by us simple buyers.

Maybe you know any reviews of 1.3 to read?
 
As you look for reviews, what is your intended use of the rMB? Perhaps folks here can chime in on what they think may or may not be a good fit.
 
In every day use I defy anyone to quantify the benefit of the 1.3. Other than, "I have the money and want to spend it on max out devices".

Perhaps over the 1.1 you could perceive a performance gain or heat difference. I doubt any perceivable difference from 1.2 to 1.3.

Just my opinion.
 
There are plenty of reviews out there, ie Gizmodo, CNET etc. Get on the Google machine and read the forums - and have a play in store.

Views differ, but if you're not an intensive graphics or video editor (ie photoshop) or gamer, I think you'll love it.

For basic editing, views suggest it is fine although I cannot comment from personal experience.

Good luck!
 
The OP is asking for a review of the 1.3 GHz model. I don't know of any big website reviews of this model, they are all of the standard configurations.
 
Nemomagic said:
Thinking of buying 1.3 rMB, waited till middle of may to read any reviews on IT sites in Internet or other professionals...
Everyday look them and can not find:
1. All reviews only about Base model (1.1 or 1.2)
2. 1.3 is described only by us simple buyers.

Maybe you know any reviews of 1.3 to read?
Click to expand...

I know how you feel, but the only difference in the 1.3 is the slight bump in processor (and SSD size in comparison to the 1.1). So everything in the many current "professional" reviews not dealing with performance, heat, and battery life will be the same and the improvements in the 1.3 in performance/heat/battery will be less than 10% compared to 1.2 or 20% compared to 1.1.

I've read or watched every review on the rMB I could find. Generally battery life where objective measurements were made are favorable (and the 1.3 may be a bit better). There was no widespread objective comments on heat and subjective commentary was generally positive (and the 1.3 may run a bit cooler). Performance opinions are much more varied but the small differences between 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 would likely not have significantly changed the commentary.

Coming from a 2013 11.6 i7 1.7/8gb/512gb MBA, I can say I'm very happy with the rMB 1.3/8/512. The rMB benchmarks about 15% slower than the MBA. But in my everyday real use the rMB seems to have snappier graphics, as good or better burst performance, and is only a bit slower (around the 15% benchmarked) under sustained load or running intensive processes in the background.

At some point you will just have to see for yourself. Your individual preferences and usage patterns will impact how much you like a rMB than the relatively small differences between the three processor speeds.
 
  • Like
Reactions: thitiv
bcaslis said:
The OP is asking for a review of the 1.3 GHz model. I don't know of any big website reviews of this model, they are all of the standard configurations.
Click to expand...

Yes, that is the point. Plenty of Base model reviews, but no of top.
Of course I am not interested in simple emotional reviews, I am looking for wide and informative, with many software tests on many applied programs.

Of course people on this forum he their opinion and I read it all three last monthes, that is why I am asking question about any good online review of 1.3 model
 
Yep, I've also been regularly searching (Google search "MacBook 2015 1.3), pretty much every day just to find some information and reliable testing!

The reason why I'm interested in going for the 1.3 is pretty simple: I want the 512GB storage model in any case. Once you're already committed to that configuration, going the extra cost for the 1.3 upgrade is pretty insignificant from that point.

In terms of why I would actually want it and not just get the 1.2 and be done with it isn't really so much about expecting amazing performance... It's mostly because there has been a lot of anecdotal talk that this model runs cooler and has noticeably longer battery life. It's reportedly a different version of the core M, whereas the 1.1/1.2 are differently clocked versions of the same chip. I'm curious as to why apple chose to do this - there must have been a reason why they thought it represented a step up at a premium price... but we can't really have any idea of what it amounts to unless there are good reviews and properly conducted tests to show what it really represents. For example, if it turns out that yes they are a smidge faster but run super hot and don't perform any better battery-wise, then the upgrade really would be of low value.

The last reason I'd want to get one is for a minimal amount of future-proofing... Since it's only 150 bucks more than the model I would be getting regardless, it feels like a small amount now that could keep me happier for longer in the future. I tend to hang on to machines for a long time, so after a few OS updates, having at least the 1.3 machine might not feel so unbearably out of touch in a couple of years. Or if I resell it in a year or two, it might retain a little extra value. But again, hard to know for sure since there is next to no actual tested information about these models...

I'd love it if some owners of the 1.3 model would post some real-world battery life tests. Perhaps we could come up with a standard test and then get some 1.3 owners vs some 1.2 and 1.1 owners to post their results?
 
theSeb said:
Professionals in what trade?
Click to expand...

This confused me at first too... I think if you read his post, he means professional computer reviewers (the likes of CNET or ArsTechnica or something like that)

Not professional pilots, garbage collectors, alcoholics or lawyers among others.
 
  • Like
Reactions: theSeb
From the max frequency of each model (2.4, 2.6, 2.9), it appears that the MacBooks are using the 5Y31, 5Y51, and 5Y71 processors. Looking at the specs for these here:

http://ark.intel.com/compare/84666,84669,84672

it looks like all three are being run at a higher frequency than the base, which are 0.9, 1.1, 1.2 GHz. If the base model is indeed using the 5Y31 processor, running at 1.1 GHz would be using 6W (compared with 4.5W at 0.9). The other two would be, again according to the spec sheet, running at less than 6W, since their respective TDP-up frequencies are 1.3 and 1.4. This would seem to imply that both the mid-level and high-end "1.2" and "1.3" models are more efficient than the base model.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chrissybear and Roman2K~
mathpunk said:
From the max frequency of each model (2.4, 2.6, 2.9), it appears that the MacBooks are using the 5Y31, 5Y51, and 5Y71 processors. Looking at the specs for these here:

http://ark.intel.com/compare/84666,84669,84672

it looks like all three are being run at a higher frequency than the base, which are 0.9, 1.1, 1.2 GHz. If the base model is indeed using the 5Y31 processor, running at 1.1 GHz would be using 6W (compared with 4.5W at 0.9). The other two would be, again according to the spec sheet, running at less than 6W, since their respective TDP-up frequencies are 1.3 and 1.4. This would seem to imply that both the mid-level and high-end "1.2" and "1.3" models are more efficient than the base model.
Click to expand...

Nice bit of detective work :)
 
mathpunk said:
From the max frequency of each model (2.4, 2.6, 2.9), it appears that the MacBooks are using the 5Y31, 5Y51, and 5Y71 processors. Looking at the specs for these here:

http://ark.intel.com/compare/84666,84669,84672

it looks like all three are being run at a higher frequency than the base, which are 0.9, 1.1, 1.2 GHz. If the base model is indeed using the 5Y31 processor, running at 1.1 GHz would be using 6W (compared with 4.5W at 0.9). The other two would be, again according to the spec sheet, running at less than 6W, since their respective TDP-up frequencies are 1.3 and 1.4. This would seem to imply that both the mid-level and high-end "1.2" and "1.3" models are more efficient than the base model.
Click to expand...

Yep, and I'm recommending the mid 1.2 model to my people on this first rev. No need to Dot One better on round 1. The only real upgrade is the Flash Drive size IMO.

Round 1 is the design - Round 2 will be performance, ala Air Year 1 vs the later years.

History tells us much. Pay Attention
 
I'll be happy if the next update will have 512GB as the base model and 1TB on the upgrade. I'm tired of this 256GB crap. We should be at least 4TB on laptops now. It's all just transfer speed upgrades rather than capacity, especially in the last several years of laptops.
 
squirrrl said:
This confused me at first too... I think if you read his post, he means professional computer reviewers (the likes of CNET or ArsTechnica or something like that)

Not professional pilots, garbage collectors, alcoholics or lawyers among others.
Click to expand...
Thanks for comments, sorry if I was not exactly. And thanks for Humor)
 
I just don't understand what you are looking for. None of the "professional" reviewer have really done any useful benchmarking. If you want to see some benchmarks, go to barefeats.com, they have a number of links with the rMB. However they have not tested the 1.3. But the results in these benchmarks isn't going to be huge and nobody is doing side to side battery testing.

The user impressions here are more valuable. I had a 1.2 for two weeks, then the 1.3 for the past four weeks. There may be battery life and heat differences between them but without exact side by side testing the differences are too small to notice. There's probably a tiny advantage to the 1.3, but it's probably just wishful thinking. If you can afford the 1.3 and can wait for one, then get it. At least you will know you got the better performing one.
 
bcaslis said:
I just don't understand what you are looking for. None of the "professional" reviewer have really done any useful benchmarking. If you want to see some benchmarks, go to barefeats.com, they have a number of links with the rMB. However they have not tested the 1.3. But the results in these benchmarks isn't going to be huge and nobody is doing side to side battery testing.

The user impressions here are more valuable. I had a 1.2 for two weeks, then the 1.3 for the past four weeks. There may be battery life and heat differences between them but without exact side by side testing the differences are too small to notice. There's probably a tiny advantage to the 1.3, but it's probably just wishful thinking. If you can afford the 1.3 and can wait for one, then get it. At least you will know you got the better performing one.
Click to expand...

I have to disagree... while benchmarks tell you certain things about the processor, it does not tell you how hot the 1.1 vs 1.3 gets with the same load, what the battery life is like under different ircumstances, what the UI lag (if any is between the two).

I also think, because of binning (and we've seen this in the benchmarks) one person's 1.3 may be slightly different that the next person's 1.3. This is the main reason I think 1.1 vs 1.3 comparisons would be the most useful (as opposed to comparing the 1.2s) because, at least in average benchmarks there's a 20% difference which could be noticeable in battery/heat/lag tests that are more quantitative than quantitative.

I have a feeling that's what the OP is looking for more so than benchmarks, the averages of which are easily obtained.
 
Wallabe said:
I'll be happy if the next update will have 512GB as the base model and 1TB on the upgrade. I'm tired of this 256GB crap. We should be at least 4TB on laptops now. It's all just transfer speed upgrades rather than capacity, especially in the last several years of laptops.
Click to expand...

I hear you though for my money I'd rather a boost to 16GB of ram as in my experience it's these jumps rather than processor speed that allow for the longest useful life for a given computer. I understand you're talking about storage, which beyond speed differences among SSDs doesn't really impact performance all that much.
 
did the OP look at everymac.com if they have the geekbench score already? there is a comparison site, too, there.
But Geekbench actually is no good real life indicator.
 
squirrrl said:
...

I have a feeling that's what the OP is looking for more so than benchmarks, the averages of which are easily obtained.
Click to expand...

You are quite right! Benchmarks are anywhere to find now, but it's just synthetics digits.
I think time should pass for some really good reviewrs to buy / order to test 1.3 for themselves.
The difficulty with this model - it's build to order, so wait is always necessary.

My questions are rhetorical and all of them were many times answered here on forum, BUT:
I am still waiting for good 1.3 review.

Maybe for Macs it is usual (I'm new to Macs) and not all line of model being tested/reviewed - what do you think?

Are there any reviews of MBP 13" 2014 test of i7 3.1 Ghz version
Or MBA 13" 2014 i7 2.2 Ghz version ?
 
squirrrl said:
I have to disagree... while benchmarks tell you certain things about the processor, it does not tell you how hot the 1.1 vs 1.3 gets with the same load, what the battery life is like under different ircumstances, what the UI lag (if any is between the two).

I also think, because of binning (and we've seen this in the benchmarks) one person's 1.3 may be slightly different that the next person's 1.3. This is the main reason I think 1.1 vs 1.3 comparisons would be the most useful (as opposed to comparing the 1.2s) because, at least in average benchmarks there's a 20% difference which could be noticeable in battery/heat/lag tests that are more quantitative than quantitative.

I have a feeling that's what the OP is looking for more so than benchmarks, the averages of which are easily obtained.
Click to expand...

I agree it would be useful. What I'm saying is none of the "professional" sites have done this and they aren't going to it. The professional reviews in my experience are getting sloppier over time. The only really technical one remaining (at least for Macs) is Anandtech and their review doesn't cover comparisons between different MacBook speed grades.
 
bcaslis said:
I agree it would be useful. What I'm saying is none of the "professional" sites have done this and they aren't going to it. The professional reviews in my experience are getting sloppier over time. The only really technical one remaining (at least for Macs) is Anandtech and their review doesn't cover comparisons between different MacBook speed grades.
Click to expand...
Agreed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back