Clarifying the question of "if both turbo boost to 3.3Ghz, what's the real speed?"

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by Doward, Jul 6, 2013.

  1. Doward macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2013
    #1
    Let's clear this up :)

    Processor A: 1.7Ghz, turbo boost up to 3.3Ghz
    Processor B: 2.8Ghz, turbo boost up to 3.3Ghz

    Thermal differences:
    Processor A will not have the thermal headroom that Processor B does.

    In other words, expect a smaller cooling assembly on Processor A. That's why it clocks down so low. (Less clocks = less heat, in this case). Thanks to the 3.3Ghz Turbo Boost, the system will feel plenty snappy, and run 'basic' workloads VERY well.

    Processor B will have a beefier cooling system, to run all available cores at a *minimum* of 2.8Ghz (provided the Processor isn't forced into thermal throttling due to lack of craftsmanship, but that's another article altogether).

    This means that Processor B will churn through heavier multithreaded work loads *much* faster than Processor A.

    That's why the base clock on the MBA is much lower than the base clock on the MBP, even though they both hit near the same theoretical turbo boost mode.

    Hope that helps :)
     
  2. LoMonkey macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2008
    #2
    And when comparing the MBA(1.7) and rMBP(2.8), one is dual core while the other is quad core. Also, don't the quad core i7s turbo up to 3.8GHz?

    Edit: the 13" cMBP runs a 2.9GHz i7 turbo boosted to 3.6GHz and is dual core as well, so that's a better comparison (which I realize now is probably the one you were making :) )
     
  3. B... macrumors 68000

    B...

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2013
    #3
    The base clock is so low on the MBA because it allows for the great battery life (in part) under low work conditions.
     
  4. Doward thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2013
    #4
    Yes, sorry I wasn't clearer on that :)

    ----------

    Yes, better life and less heat = win/win!
     
  5. snaky69 macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2008
    #5
    And the fact that ultra low voltage chips such as the one in the MBA cannot push as many clock cycles.
     

Share This Page