Is 1.3GHz upgrade worth it?

[terencedriver]

Is the option to upgrade the CPU to 1.3GHz worth it?

I ask because if the power and heat envelope needs to be enforced, then a faster CPU will spend most of its time throttles down. And not be much better than a 1.1GHz option for real world tasks?

Is it just a marketing options?

 

[Theophil1971]

Is the option to upgrade the CPU to 1.3GHz worth it?

I ask because if the power and heat envelope needs to be enforced, then a faster CPU will spend most of its time throttles down. And not be much better than a 1.1GHz option for real world tasks?

Is it just a marketing options?

I guess it depends on what you mean by "real world tasks". It MIGHT be better for video editing, gaming, and other high-end graphics applications. Or it might not be that much better... If you're just using your computer for office-type work (documents, web, email, etc...) you won't notice any difference, IMO.

 

[scabello]

Faster CPU is always going to generate more heat!!! more clock speed = more cycles = more heat. The idea that it runs super-fast for a shorter period of time and thus it creates less heat is wrong. You will dissipate at best the same amount of heat. So it cannot run cooler by any definition. Will it run hotter? yes,if you tax the CPU it will create more heat.

1.1 @ 100% and 1.3 @ 100% the 1.3 will generate more heat.

now.. which to buy? i would have bought 1.3 if it was in stock. but it isnt, so the decision was easy.

 

[pasadena]

Faster CPU is always going to generate more heat!!! more clock speed = more cycles = more heat. The idea that it runs super-fast for a shorter period of time and thus it creates less heat is wrong. You will dissipate at best the same amount of heat. So it cannot run cooler by any definition. Will it run hotter? yes,if you tax the CPU it will create more heat.

1.1 @ 100% and 1.3 @ 100% the 1.3 will generate more heat.

now.. which to buy? i would have bought 1.3 if it was in stock. but it isnt, so the decision was easy.

But you will use the turbo boost less often, and they also have a lower TDP.

 

[leman]

Faster CPU is always going to generate more heat!!! more clock speed = more cycles = more heat. The idea that it runs super-fast for a shorter period of time and thus it creates less heat is wrong. You will dissipate at best the same amount of heat. So it cannot run cooler by any definition. Will it run hotter? yes,if you tax the CPU it will create more heat.

1.1 @ 100% and 1.3 @ 100% the 1.3 will generate more heat.

This is not that simple. It depends on case by case. CPUs are a bit like people — every one is unique (different random impurities etc.). So some CPUs will generate less heat and some more — when running at identical settings. Every overclocker knows this. While the 1.1 and the 1.3 ghz Core M are the same processor die, the higher-rated models are those exemplars that are deemed (after rigorous testing) by Intel to be more stabler and run cooler.

 

[terencedriver]

Thanks for the replies so far.

I think I wasn't clear in my question.

If the thermal envelope needs to stay the same in the body of a macbook, for both 1.1 and 1.3ghz CPUs ... Then the 1.3 will always be throttled down to effectively the same speed as the 1.1.

If it wasn't the 1.3 would generate more get than the 1.1 (physics).

So there is no benefit to the 1.3. Because the design of the macbook doesn't have the spare thermal room for anything above the performance of the 1.1.

Am I wrong?

I could be if the 1.3 does more processing than the 1.1 for the same amount of heat. Which I don't think it does because it is the same 'class' of CPU.

 

[terencedriver]

This anandtech article is deep but doesn't address this question.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/9117/analyzing-intel-core-m-performance

 

[dugbug]

Thanks for the replies so far.

I think I wasn't clear in my question.

If the thermal envelope needs to stay the same in the body of a macbook, for both 1.1 and 1.3ghz CPUs ... Then the 1.3 will always be throttled down to effectively the same speed as the 1.1.

If it wasn't the 1.3 would generate more get than the 1.1 (physics).

So there is no benefit to the 1.3. Because the design of the macbook doesn't have the spare thermal room for anything above the performance of the 1.1.

Am I wrong?

I could be if the 1.3 does more processing than the 1.1 for the same amount of heat. Which I don't think it does because it is the same 'class' of CPU.

IMHO the 1.2 with 512GB storage would be better than 1.3 at 256, but I got the big one (1.3 @ 512). Less heat at similar workload (the two CPUs being used here are not identical models with tweaked clock rates). I had an early air and now pay attention to such things

I don't believe the value proposition here is much at all, so if you are on the fence...

 

[terencedriver]

Thanks dugbug... But can you explain why 1.3 would have less heat for the same workload?

 

[cbautis2]

Thanks dugbug... But can you explain why 1.3 would have less heat for the same workload?

Easy. Lower voltage per clock. That's how some overclockers can cool their 5 GHz chips without doing a phase change cooling system.

If you can undervolt the chip and be stable at that lower voltage, CPU will generate less heat and can stay longer in Turbo.

 

[terencedriver]

Easy. Lower voltage per clock. That's how some overclockers can cool their 5 GHz chips without doing a phase change cooling system.

If you can undervolt the chip and be stable at that lower voltage, CPU will generate less heat and can stay longer in Turbo.

So why not under volt the 1.1? To get even longer battery life and lower heating? Why only the 1.3Ghz?

Sorry to be really thick about this.

 

[cbautis2]

So why not under volt the 1.1? To get even longer battery life and lower heating? Why only the 1.3Ghz?

Sorry to be really thick about this.

The 1.1 GHz is already determined to be a less binned chip per voltage. The 1.3 GHz BTO is determined to be stable at higher clocks at the same voltage applied as the 1.1 Ghz model. Undervolting is an end user choice (not manufacturer and BTW, Apple does not undervolt the CPU but rather upping the TDP so that the chip can perform at 1.3 GHz or above within TDP limits) and Intel has an app for Windoze that allows undervolting the CPU. Search "Intel XTU".

FYI, undervolting will LEAD TO CRASH ISSUES when the chip goes to very low power mode!

Also, both 1.1 and 1.3 GHz will get about the same battery life regardless due to having the same SDP and TDP and 1.3 GHz will even get better battery life than 1.1 at a much higher loads.

 

[squirrrl]

I really want to see some reviews of the 1.3GHz compared to 1.1GHz before I buy. I realize that even if I ordered it now, it would be several weeks before I get it, but I'm afraid that will also be the case with those reviewing it, that we won't see reviews of the 1.3 until a month or two from now.

 

[iRun26.2]

The 1.1 GHz is already determined to be a less binned chip per voltage. The 1.3 GHz BTO is determined to be stable at higher clocks at the same voltage applied as the 1.1 Ghz model. Undervolting is an end user choice (not manufacturer and BTW, Apple does not undervolt the CPU but rather upping the TDP so that the chip can perform at 1.3 GHz or above within TDP limits) and Intel has an app for Windoze that allows undervolting the CPU. Search "Intel XTU".

FYI, undervolting will LEAD TO CRASH ISSUES when the chip goes to very low power mode!

Also, both 1.1 and 1.3 GHz will get about the same battery life regardless due to having the same SDP and TDP and 1.3 GHz will even get better battery life than 1.1 at a much higher loads.

Then won't the 1.3GHz rMB run warmer?

 

[DarwinOSX]

We aren't going to know until we see benchmarks. Not just geek bench either since that only shows cpu but the overall speed increase.

 

[squirrrl]

We aren't going to know until we see benchmarks. Not just geek bench either since that only shows cpu but the overall speed increase.

I'd like to see a user review in addition to the benchmarks as well.

 

[scabello]

It would be interesting if there was a blind test with average users (not sophisticated like people on this forum) just doing what they do every day. video games, internet, photo editing. And have them rank the 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 in terms of performance. I am willing to wager the result would be statistically insignificant that the 1.3 is the fastest notebook.

 

[mutsaers-vr.nl]

Chances are enormous that you will never see the 1.3 GHz at all because there will be a skylake update sooner when it turns out that this rMB is way underpowered !!!!

I really want to see some reviews of the 1.3GHz compared to 1.1GHz before I buy. I realize that even if I ordered it now, it would be several weeks before I get it, but I'm afraid that will also be the case with those reviewing it, that we won't see reviews of the 1.3 until a month or two from now.

 

[MyopicPaideia]

Is the option to upgrade the CPU to 1.3GHz worth it?

I ask because if the power and heat envelope needs to be enforced, then a faster CPU will spend most of its time throttles down. And not be much better than a 1.1GHz option for real world tasks?

Is it just a marketing options?

Your assumption is most likely off base. Check this thread:

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1864244/

The 1.1 is the 5Y31 in the maxed out configuration @ 6W TDP

The 1.2 is the 5Y51 running @ 5W TDP (its max configuration is at 1.3 @ 6W TDP)

The 1.3 is the 5Y71 also running @ 5W TDP (its max configuration is at 1.4 @ 6W TDP)

Thus the 1.2 & 1.3 should have more thermal headroom than the 1.1 under the same workload, in theory being actually less prone to throttling than the base model.

 

[squirrrl]

Chances are enormous that you will never see the 1.3 GHz at all because there will be a skylake update sooner when it turns out that this rMB is way underpowered !!!!

That doesn't make any sense. Skylake M, if on time, will be at Q4 of this year. Apple, especially lately has not been the first to come out with products with Intel chips right after they are released, So I don't expect Skylake MB to come out until Feb 2016 or later.

As for being underpowered, according to the reviews, for what I'll be using this machine for (travel, writing, internet, light photoshop use) the 1.1 isn't underpowered at all for me. I'm thinking that the 1.3 might be worth it if the rMB with it can open up programs faster and improve overall experience with the light tasks that I do.

But to think that reviewers won't have their hands on the BTO by the end of the month is just silly. You can wait and wait and wait forever for the "next thing to come out" and you'll be waiting for months using an old machine that is much worse than what you'd be able to get now. You could get hit by a truck and never make it to the skylake update.

 

[ctyrider]

That doesn't make any sense. Skylake M, if on time, will be at Q4 of this year. Apple, especially lately has not been the first to come out with products with Intel chips right after they are released, So I don't expect Skylake MB to come out until Feb 2016 or later.

Skylake is the new "fanless". People just heard the word, and they just parrot it without any real understanding what it is and what it means..

"Just wait for Skylake" - the new cure for world hunger.. and merely weeks away!

 

[cbautis2]

Then won't the 1.3GHz rMB run warmer?

Not if the voltages on 1.3 GHz is on average lower than the 1.1 due to being more efficient.

See some examples here: http://ultrabooknews.com/2012/02/07/intel-core-ulv-vs-lv/

It's related to how a core M at 2.4 GHz will use more voltage and power than the 1.3 GHz model at both running at 2.4 GHz.

 

[iRun26.2]

Not if the voltages on 1.3 GHz is on average lower than the 1.1 due to being more efficient.

But I've not heard that the chips that go in the 1.3GHz are somehow 'sorted'/'binned' in any way. I'd like to believe I get more computing power for the same amount of heat with the 1.3GHz but I am afraid the 1.3GHz version will just run hotter than the others (reaching thermal throttling sooner).

 

[Theophil1971]

But I've not heard that the chips that go in the 1.3GHz are somehow 'sorted'/'binned' in any way. I'd like to believe I get more computing power for the same amount of heat with the 1.3GHz but I am afraid the 1.3GHz version will just run hotter than the others.

I think what earlier posters were suggesting is that the base frequency of the 5Y31 chip that Apple has set to 1.1GHz has been achieved by Apple using a higher voltage than is being used for the 5Y51 (1.2GHz) and 5Y71 (1.3GHz) chips. Those chips achieve their base frequencies with a lower voltage (4.5) than the low-end chip (6), so the low end chip, while marginally slower at the bottom end, may actually run hotter during regular use. Of course, the TurboBoost mode, wherein the CPUs ramp up their processing frequencies, happens by increasing the voltage, and thereby the heat produced by the chips (all of them). Gaming or graphically intensive applications require higher frequency, requiring higher voltage, producing more heat.
So, if you don't need the high-end power (for games or graphics), the 1.1 is probably plenty powerful, since it turbos up to 2.4GHz. But there's a chance (theoretically) that in sustained ordinary, everyday use closer to the base frequency, it may run warmer than the 1.2 and 1.3 GHz chips, which use less voltage for their base frequencies.

Frankly, this is very theoretical and possibly not even noticeably true. We won't know until someone gets their hands on the various models and tests it. My advice is to simply determine your usage needs and order appropriately. If you play games or do lots of video editing, etc... you might look toward the 1.3GHz model. Then again, if that's your usage, you're probably better off with a different model (MacBook Pro) altogether. If you don't do gaming and graphics, the 1.1 or 1.2 models are likely plenty adequate for you. Then the issue is money, and the extra cost of the 1.2 model will likely be more justified by the larger SSD it comes with.

 

[iRun26.2]

I think what earlier posters were suggesting is that the base frequency of the 5Y31 chip that Apple has set to 1.1GHz has been achieved by Apple using a higher voltage than is being used for the 5Y51 (1.2GHz) and 5Y71 (1.3GHz) chips. Those chips achieve their base frequencies with a lower voltage (4.5) than the low-end chip (6), so the low end chip, while marginally slower at the bottom end, may actually run hotter during regular use. Of course, the TurboBoost mode, wherein the CPUs ramp up their processing frequencies, happens by increasing the voltage, and thereby the heat produced by the chips (all of them). Gaming or graphically intensive applications require higher frequency, requiring higher voltage, producing more heat.
So, if you don't need the high-end power (for games or graphics), the 1.1 is probably plenty powerful, since it turbos up to 2.4GHz. But there's a chance (theoretically) that in sustained ordinary, everyday use closer to the base frequency, it may run warmer than the 1.2 and 1.3 GHz chips, which use less voltage for their base frequencies.

Frankly, this is very theoretical and possibly not even noticeably true. We won't know until someone gets their hands on the various models and tests it. My advice is to simply determine your usage needs and order appropriately. If you play games or do lots of video editing, etc... you might look toward the 1.3GHz model. Then again, if that's your usage, you're probably better off with a different model (MacBook Pro) altogether. If you don't do gaming and graphics, the 1.1 or 1.2 models are likely plenty adequate for you. Then the issue is money, and the extra cost of the 1.2 model will likely be more justified by the larger SSD it comes with.

Thank you for your analysis. I ordered a gold colored one with the 1.3GHz/512G option. I'm hoping there are reviews that show the 1.3GHz has noticeable improvement before mine comes.

It isn't cheap, but I will certainly put it to work. It won't be just a toy for me.

----------

I think what earlier posters were suggesting is that the base frequency of the 5Y31 chip that Apple has set to 1.1GHz has been achieved by Apple using a higher voltage than is being used for the 5Y51 (1.2GHz) and 5Y71 (1.3GHz) chips. Those chips achieve their base frequencies with a lower voltage (4.5) than the low-end chip (6), so the low end chip, while marginally slower at the bottom end, may actually run hotter during regular use. Of course, the TurboBoost mode, wherein the CPUs ramp up their processing frequencies, happens by increasing the voltage, and thereby the heat produced by the chips (all of them). Gaming or graphically intensive applications require higher frequency, requiring higher voltage, producing more heat.
So, if you don't need the high-end power (for games or graphics), the 1.1 is probably plenty powerful, since it turbos up to 2.4GHz. But there's a chance (theoretically) that in sustained ordinary, everyday use closer to the base frequency, it may run warmer than the 1.2 and 1.3 GHz chips, which use less voltage for their base frequencies.

Frankly, this is very theoretical and possibly not even noticeably true. We won't know until someone gets their hands on the various models and tests it. My advice is to simply determine your usage needs and order appropriately. If you play games or do lots of video editing, etc... you might look toward the 1.3GHz model. Then again, if that's your usage, you're probably better off with a different model (MacBook Pro) altogether. If you don't do gaming and graphics, the 1.1 or 1.2 models are likely plenty adequate for you. Then the issue is money, and the extra cost of the 1.2 model will likely be more justified by the larger SSD it comes with.

Thank you for your analysis. I ordered a gold colored one with the 1.3GHz/512G option. I'm hoping there are reviews that show the 1.3GHz has noticeable improvement before mine comes.

It isn't cheap, but I will certainly put it to work. It won't be just a toy for me. I will use it over 8 hours or day.