Core M why the 5y10 can beat the 5Y71

Discussion in 'MacBook' started by Souli, Apr 8, 2015.

  1. Souli macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2010
    #1
    http://anandtech.com/show/9117/analyzing-intel-core-m-performance

    This is an awesome article from anandtech about the Core M structure and why the Asus UX305 with only a 800 Mhz CPU outperforms the other Core M laptops with a 5Y71 at 1.2 Ghz and can even be faster than the i5 Broadwell-U cpu.
    So it all comes down to how well Apple is able to dissipate the heat and how good their new design of the MB is. To find the optimal CPU for the new MB will require a few reviews and comparing them with each other.
     
  2. Theophil1971, Apr 8, 2015
    Last edited: Apr 8, 2015

    Theophil1971 macrumors 6502

    Theophil1971

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2015
    Location:
    USA
    #2
    Looks good, though I've not yet taken the time to read the full article.
    Are we sure exactly which chips Apple will be using for the 3 trim lines of the rMB? I've read (on these forums) speculation that they will be 5Y51, 5Y70 and 5Y71 for the 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 GHz models, respectively. So the 5Y10 won't even be an option.
    I've also read that Apple is using the 5Y70 for the 1.1GHz model, and the 5Y71 for both the 1.2 and 1.3 GHz models, with the 1.3 up-clocked by Apple.

    From the chart on the first page of the Anandtech article, however, it seems that neither of those may be accurate, given the turbo-boost ceilings. Apple's models are: 1.1-2.4Ghz, 1.2-2.6GHz, and 1.3-2.9GHz. None of these match up with the Intel chart. It almost appears that Apple will be using 5Y31 for the base model, and up-clocking to 1.1GHz from the native .9. For the middle tier, they may be using the 5Y51 or 5Y70 (though 5Y70 has no cTDP up listed, so maybe not), up-clocked to 1.2GHz from the native 1.1. And, for the top end, BTO model, they may be using the 5Y71, notched up to 1.3 from 1.2.

    If I were guessing, I'd say Apple is doing this:

    1.1 Model = 5Y31 @ 1.1 GHz
    1.2 Model = 5Y51 @ 1.2 GHz
    1.3 Model = 5Y71 @ 1.3 GHz

    Not sure which scenario to believe. Maybe no one actually knows yet, and won't until an I Fixit tear-down or something.
     
  3. newellj macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2014
    Location:
    Boston, MA, US
    #3
    On top of that, the article makes clear that device design =really= matters with Core M. We'll see how Apple did soon.
     
  4. Souli, Apr 8, 2015
    Last edited: Apr 8, 2015

    Souli thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2010
    #4
    If you go by the turbo boost numbers you should get this:
    1.1->2.4 probably 5Y31
    1.2->2.6 can be either 5Y51 (more realistic) or 5Y70
    1.3->2.9 is definitely 5Y71
     
  5. PDFierro macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2009
    #5
    I'm buying 1.3GHz no matter what. Not going to do too much thought process on if a lesser processor could actually be better.
     
  6. Theophil1971, Apr 8, 2015
    Last edited: Apr 8, 2015

    Theophil1971 macrumors 6502

    Theophil1971

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2015
    Location:
    USA
    #6
    Exactly. And it seems that the chart in this article indicates that the 5Y70 has no cTDP up option, so it's base can't be increased to 1.2. Thus the 1.2 model is, as you say, most realistically probably the 5Y51.

    At any rate, having now read most of the article, the point is that with CoreM, much of the performance bottom-line comes down to thermal management. Aluminum cases seem to be important to the design of these particular chips. Hopefully Apple's cases and the use of anisotropic graphite under the logic board make for optimal cooking for this chip.
    But the 5Y71 may actually be most prone to heat and subsequent throttling.
    It all makes me think I'll be purchasing the 1.2GHz version.
     
  7. Souli thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2010
    #7
    I really hope we will see a few benchmarks before Friday so there are some indications how Apple handled it. Before I read the article I was basically set on the 1.3 version but not anymore. This also explains the different "leaked" benchmarks we saw so far.
     
  8. matt2053 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2012
    #8
    My guess is the MacBook will have all the benefits of the higher-clocked Yoga Pro, and all the benefits of the better-cooled, less throttled Zenbook, meaning it will handily out-perform all these other Core-M devices.
     
  9. PTLove macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2014
    #9
    May I ask why? The macbook is thinner and fanless. Im worried the machine will either heavily throttle or get very warm.

    The Yoga 3 Pro has a fan for goodness sakes, I dont see how Apple can do better.
     
  10. dexterbell macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2015
    #10
    The review says "Intel lists all of the Core M processors at $281". Apple is charging $250 for an upgrade from the 5Y31 to the 5Y71 even though it doesn't cost them anymore money for the chip. Ive about had it with Apple and their ridiculous, greedy pricing.
     
  11. PDFierro macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2009
    #11
    Software. Apple can basically do things to maximize the performance of the Core M and tweak it to their needs.

    ----------

    I do agree with that. If anything, it should only cost $50 for each processor upgrade...since they have to charge something. I'll still pay it, though. I wouldn't pay more than 2 grand after taxes for the rMB, so I'm still undercutting that.
     
  12. noobinator macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    #12
    The cable company charges you different prices for more channels but everybody gets similar equipment.
     
  13. dexterbell macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2015
    #13
    That makes no sense. Terrible analogy and no, everyone doesn't get the same equipment. I'll play your game though. An SD cable box is cheaper than an HD box and a DVR HD box is more expensive then both. The Core M chips all cost the same amount of money.
     
  14. Theophil1971, Apr 8, 2015
    Last edited: Apr 8, 2015

    Theophil1971 macrumors 6502

    Theophil1971

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2015
    Location:
    USA
    #14
    Pretty sure I'll go for the 1.2GHz / 512Gb option. At least my extra $300 will also get me double the SSD.

    CPU-monkey shows 5Y31, 51, & 71 all being about 10% performance differentials. Middle of the road definitely seems like the best value.
     
  15. noobinator macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    #15
    So zero work and time go into configuring the chips to run at different speeds?
     
  16. iRun26.2 macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2010
    #16
    Apple could have paid Intel to bin them according to operating voltage. Who knows.
     
  17. matt2053 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2012
    #17
    The Yoga 3 Pro, despite having a fan, limits SoC temp to 65 degrees because it's a tablet. The Zenbook, being a laptop, can afford to get much hotter, and doesn't throttle until 90 degrees.

    The Macbook, as you know, is a laptop, and not a tablet, so is likely to get much hotter than the Yoga before throttling. Probably at 90, same as the zenbook.
     
  18. nksk macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    May 7, 2014
    #18
    It's right there in the article. The Yoga 3 Pro needs to maintain a lower skin temperature because it's also a tablet. The Macbook and UX305 can let themselves get hot above the keyboard.

    And compared to the UX305, the Macbook will have a better CPU and probably a slightly better design.

    This is looking pretty promising. It won't need to drop from turbo immediately, and the fact that it can outperform an i5 in short workloads is pretty damn good.
     
  19. dexterbell macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2015
    #19
    Did you read the article? All it takes is upping the TDP from the standard 4.5 W up to 6.0 W. Im no computer expert but I seriously doubt that adjustment is very difficult or requires the man power to justify a $250 price hike :rolleyes: The jump from a 2.7Ghz i5 to the 2.9Ghz in the MBP is only $100 for God's sake and those are more expensive processors than the Core M chips. Even the jump from the 1.6Ghz i5 to the 2.2Ghz i7 in the MBA is only $150 and thats a completely different chip. Its just Apple becoming even more greedy.
     
  20. noobinator macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    #20
    Ok so since Apple pays the same for the 3 chips then would you be ok if they just charged say $1599 for the cheapest model and left it at 1.3ghz? They scale it down to offer cheaper alternatives.
     
  21. dexterbell macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2015
    #21
    You obviously didn't read the article, they are "scaling" them up, not down. I can understand charging $200 more for more SSD and even $100 for a processor bump, but $250 for the same chip that costs them the same price is robbery. Especially when it only costs $150 to jump from an i5 to an i7 in the MBA.
     
  22. KPOM macrumors G5

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2010
    #22
    Processor updates are pure profit for all manufacturers, not just Apple. The $250 jump is a bit rich, but exactly what I expected since it is $150 more than the "base" processor in the 512GB model. Based on the AnandTech article I'll probably just stick with the base 512GB model.
     
  23. mi7chy macrumors 68040

    mi7chy

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2014
    #23
    This is not news. It's already been known that a CPU that's performs consistently without throttling is faster overall. That's why I replaced an actively fan cooled Haswell i5-4300U with Core M 5Y10 a quarter ago. Now ready for Skylake.
     
  24. dexterbell macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2015
    #24
    So why did the 1.3Ghz 5Y71 bury the 1.1Ghz 5Y31 in benchmarks? It wasn't even close.
     
  25. spaceballl macrumors 68030

    spaceballl

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    #25
    Apple could be getting specially binned 1.3 ghz chips, which would (somewhat) justify the price increase over the 1.2g ghz model, as it doesn't look like a standard chip.
     

Share This Page