Not too good with computers here...but if I would upgrade to the 1.2gHz model, would it make it noticeably faster???
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.
Does a 0.1 gHz upgrade changes anything?
- Thread starter ByteTheBooty
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
If you are considering buying a computer based solely on that difference, you would be wasting money, in my opinion.
A lot of times, bench scores in tests are not the same thing as real world use and application.
A lot of times, bench scores in tests are not the same thing as real world use and application.
0.1 GHz is equivalent to 100 MHz.
If you were talking the difference between a 100 MHz CPU and a 200 MHz CPU the difference would be considerable.
But in a 1.2 GHz range, it's so negligible that you won't feel it.
That said, I think the reversal we're seeing in CPU speed is laughable. It's time to go back to the high end and work at efficiency. Not go backwards and rely on slow speeds to increase battery life.
The notebooks I can understand the balancing act to a point. Desktops like the mini, the reversal is an insult.
The trend Apple seems to be following is going backwards. If Intel offered a 800 MHz CPU, Apple would have dropped back there too.
The new MacBook is really just a cost reduced production model with a high price tag. It's about profit margins.
If you were talking the difference between a 100 MHz CPU and a 200 MHz CPU the difference would be considerable.
But in a 1.2 GHz range, it's so negligible that you won't feel it.
That said, I think the reversal we're seeing in CPU speed is laughable. It's time to go back to the high end and work at efficiency. Not go backwards and rely on slow speeds to increase battery life.
The notebooks I can understand the balancing act to a point. Desktops like the mini, the reversal is an insult.
The trend Apple seems to be following is going backwards. If Intel offered a 800 MHz CPU, Apple would have dropped back there too.
The new MacBook is really just a cost reduced production model with a high price tag. It's about profit margins.
The Intel Core M is actually available in 800mhz. But Apple took a wise decision to use one of the faster CPU of the lineup...
this thread reminded me of year 2000 when AMD and intel were arguing who is the first with 1Ghz cpu ... lol
are we back 15 years?
just kidding ... hope Core-M is fast enough, buying one!
are we back 15 years?
just kidding ... hope Core-M is fast enough, buying one!
Except that Core M can turbo boost to 2.9GHz, so not exactly year 2000 level performance.
That's what I'm going to do. I figure that since I'm already going to get the higher-end config, might as well max it out too. I'm sure it won't cost more than $100, unless Apple is crazy.
Not too good me neither...
I wondered if an upgrade to 1.2 or 1.3gHz would prevent/postpone thermal throttling f.e. when exporting iMovie projects, which is one of the most intensive things I will do on it.
The faster it does the job, the shorter time to run (too) hot. Or are there any other things that I don't see that are more important for throttling?
What will be the real world benefit to a user of the rMB? We are not talking high end video encoding or genomic sequencing here - people using it for word processing, email, Facebook etc. - the supposed "target audience" for the rMB. Is there any perceivable benefit beyond a spec brag on a synthetic benchmark?
"If Intel offered a 800 MHz CPU, Apple would have dropped back there too. "
Wow, where do these ideas come from?
The only problem with upping the CPU frequency is battery use. When battery life is important the goal is to run the slowest frequency at the most acceptable standard of performance.
If 800 mhz was acceptable performance yes Apple may have had that as the base cpu, but it isn't.
"We are not talking high end video encoding"
Actually if you go and check the Intel 5300 video in this model it does have native decoding capabilities the 5000 doesn't.
Wow, where do these ideas come from?
The only problem with upping the CPU frequency is battery use. When battery life is important the goal is to run the slowest frequency at the most acceptable standard of performance.
If 800 mhz was acceptable performance yes Apple may have had that as the base cpu, but it isn't.
"We are not talking high end video encoding"
Actually if you go and check the Intel 5300 video in this model it does have native decoding capabilities the 5000 doesn't.
You're an advertisers dream. More GHz = better! That's what they told you for years and it seems it worked with you.
It sounds more like you don't even know what the GHz even means.
It's the difference a turbo boost that makes the difference, so given performance figures I've seen you should see the CPUs performance of the 1.3 model approach that of the base 2014 13" air model, however GPU will be a lot less 50% slower. Just shows you that CPUs sit around idle most of the time.
unfortunately you can't rely on those benchmarks either because the cpu turboboosts during those.
play a game for 2 minutes and it will break down because of no fans. on mba or entry imac you can go for a few minutes more and then the fans will get horribly loud and 10 mins later the fps break down.
mba and mb and entry imac are for light tasks for short durations.
you probably can't even play 1080p youtube videos for more than 10 mins. certainly not the 60fps ones that are becoming more common now.
You literally made all of this up. There's no merit to almost every statement here.
LMAO. #
It takes not much time to search how Core M performs in practice and what are the implications of a fanless processor.
I would say the same about you. You were told, you beleive, you follow and you buy. Pretty simple in your case as well.
The posters above are right - you seem to have no idea what you're talking about.
H.264 video playback is GPU-accelerated these days, and any Mac since 2012 has no problem playing 1080p video for as long as your heart desires. HD5300 that rMB comes with is designed to support 4K video at 60Hz, so it's silly to think it'll have any trouble with 1080p playback.
...and so i will say this again: let's wait for the benchmarks. PLUS...let's see how user's real-world experiences go.
facts are so much more useful than guesses and speculation (altho, to be fair, guessing & speculating are fun things to do).
facts are so much more useful than guesses and speculation (altho, to be fair, guessing & speculating are fun things to do).