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

----------



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.

What I don't get is how Intel can price all of the core m chips at 281/tray. Although the lower binned chips will be a produced a lot more than the higher binned chips making their price less expensive.
 
What I don't get is how Intel can price all of the core m chips at 281/tray. Although the lower binned chips will be a produced a lot more than the higher binned chips making their price less expensive.

I know! That's why I was convinced that they weren't any different.

Then again, those were not probably in the quantity that Apple buys. I'm sure they get a much better deal on the lower valued ones in very large quantities. The price we saw might not have been real anyway.
 
After reviewing this thread I decided to purchase the silver MacBook 1.2. I plan to do light gaming and just the basic surf web, email and a few spreadsheets. I really wanted the gold but I do not want to wait.
 
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.


Great analysis .. Explains a lot for me now.
Thanks
 
I wonder how long it will be before we get some Geekbench test results from a 1.3GHz version. I'm dying to find out how it does compared to the others.

I am worried the faster units will perform poorly just like AnandTech found in their comparison tests.
 
I wonder how long it will be before we get some Geekbench test results from a 1.3GHz version. I'm dying to find out how it does compared to the others.



I am worried the faster units will perform poorly just like AnandTech found in their comparison tests.


Remember that when AnandTech were comparing them, each was in a totally different machine, and even with different form factors (tablet/laptop/hybrid). There was no comparisons where the processor was the only differentiator. The 1.1 to 1.2 shows an improvement on geek bench so I'd expect something similar for the 1.3.

The big unknown for me is how they perform on longer benchmarks.
 
Remember that when AnandTech were comparing them, each was in a totally different machine, and even with different form factors (tablet/laptop/hybrid). There was no comparisons where the processor was the only differentiator. The 1.1 to 1.2 shows an improvement on geek bench so I'd expect something similar for the 1.3.

The big unknown for me is how they perform on longer benchmarks.

I have not seen positive improvements on Geekbench. Where do you see positive improvements (where they are both running in 32 or 64 bit modes)?

How long of a benchmark is the standard Geekbench test and where do you find out details like that?
 
I have not seen positive improvements on Geekbench. Where do you see positive improvements (where they are both running in 32 or 64 bit modes)?



How long of a benchmark is the standard Geekbench test and where do you find out details like that?


I think you're right the 1.1 vs 1.2 tests I've seen are comparing 32bit and 64bit.

It's not obvious from links like that below that this is happening.

http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/compare/2218084?baseline=2295233

Geek bench runs a number of different CPU tests to get its score. No individual test seems to run very long. 32bit geek bench is free so you can always install it if you have an existing Mac to see its runtime.
 
I think you're right the 1.1 vs 1.2 tests I've seen are comparing 32bit and 64bit.

It's not obvious from links like that below that this is happening.

http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/compare/2218084?baseline=2295233

Geek bench runs a number of different CPU tests to get its score. No individual test seems to run very long. 32bit geek bench is free so you can always install it if you have an existing Mac to see its runtime.

I'm sure the results comparing 1.1 to 1.3 would be even worse (1.1 being even better than a 1.3). It seems, with the 1.3GHz version, that us customers are paying extra cash for worse performance in 1.3GHz version.

I think I would prefer the 1.1GHz processor with the 512G SSD, but that is not an option.
 
Last edited:
Great analysis .. Explains a lot for me now.
Thanks

FYI, macbook air have track record that higher CPU will have less battery life........by an hour.




http://www.howtogeek.com/196582/why...ra-for-a-faster-cpu-in-your-laptop-or-tablet/


AmchToS.jpg
 
FYI, macbook air have track record that higher CPU will have less battery life........by an hour.




http://www.howtogeek.com/196582/why...ra-for-a-faster-cpu-in-your-laptop-or-tablet/


Image

I understand stand battery life implications.

I don't care that much about battery life, I'm concerned about performance. If I pay extra for the 1.3GHz processor, I would expect it to get better performance. The benchmarks we've seen make it look like the 1.1GHz version (over the 1.2GHz) is the better choice.
 
I understand stand battery life implications.

I don't care that much about battery life, I'm concerned about performance. If I pay extra for the 1.3GHz processor, I would expect it to get better performance. The benchmarks we've seen make it look like the 1.1GHz version (over the 1.2GHz) is the better choice.
Then re-read Anandtechs article again. There are no proof that the faster chip should be slower, and no reason to believe it should be.
 
Yes. I re-read the Anandtech article last night and the key takeaway is that product type and design matter a huge amount with Core M. Trying to reach conclusions about the MacBook based on what they tested is at best an extrapolation. As far as the comparison of the three systems tested, it is exactly that, a test of _systems_ not individual components.
 
Then re-read Anandtechs article again. There are no proof that the faster chip should be slower, and no reason to believe it should be.

Yes, but the current benchmarks seem to indicate that the faster chips have 'slower' results. From AnandTech's article I thought it was due to thermal designs from the various venders. Apple's Geekbench numbers make it look like it's more due to the chip themselves (with 1.2 single-core scores being lower than than the 1.1 single-core scores for the exact same computer/thermal design). I expect single-core performance to dominate normal computer operation.
 
Last edited:
I have not seen positive improvements on Geekbench. Where do you see positive improvements (where they are both running in 32 or 64 bit modes)?

How long of a benchmark is the standard Geekbench test and where do you find out details like that?

The 1.2 is a decent upgrade over the 1.1. Here are the 64bit results for both of them.

http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/search?dir=desc&q=macbook8,1&sort=score

1.2 Single - 2593
1.1 Single - 2473

1.2 - 5% improvement

1.2 Multi - 5318
1.2 Multi - 4620

1.2 - 15% improvement
 
rMB Performance all models

Hi guys, found this and thought this will help answer the questions that everyone wants to know.

large-55293f509265a.jpg
 
Battery life is important to me. I'll like to get the 1.3 model, any reason not to (in terms of battery life)? I suspect I'll mostly be in single core mode, with occasional multi core use.
 
Last edited:
Battery life is important to me. I'll like to get the 1.3 model, any reason not to (in terms of battery life). I suspect I'll mostly be in single core mode, with occasional multi core use.

If you see the above score of 1.3 Macbook you should be getting better battery life from 1.3 since the TDP for 1.3 processor is approx 5W while 1.1 has TDP of 6W. Meaning you get more juice with less power on 1.3.
 
Apple doesn't say it but based on anandtech the GPU base clock should be higher on the 1.2 and 1.3.
That's a big thing to consider with the high resolution screen.

I'll be getting the maxed out version even though I don't really need 512gb for this type of device.
The way they've done their pricing configuration they really push you into it.
 
Apple doesn't say it but based on anandtech the GPU base clock should be higher on the 1.2 and 1.3.
That's a big thing to consider with the high resolution screen.

I'll be getting the maxed out version even though I don't really need 512gb for this type of device.
The way they've done their pricing configuration they really push you into it.

The maxed out version should give you a lot noticeable everyday task performance due to better single core performance.
 
The maxed out version should give you a lot noticeable everyday task performance due to better single core performance.

But the single core performsce of the 1.2GHz processor seems to be worse than the 1.1GHz. I would expect the 1.3GHz to have even worse single-core performance. The multi-core performance might be better. .
 
But the single core performsce of the 1.2GHz processor seems to be worse than the 1.1GHz. I would expect the 1.3GHz to have even worse single-core performance. The multi-core performance might be better. .

See my earlier post. I posted that my geekbench score from my SP3 is 2893. This 1.3 GHz model scored 2831 and both chips turbo to 2.9 GHz. I dont get why the 1.2 GHz model throttle too much.
 
See my earlier post. I posted that my geekbench score from my SP3 is 2893. This 1.3 GHz model scored 2831 and both chips turbo to 2.9 GHz. I dont get why the 1.2 GHz model throttle too much.

I sure hope I see similar results with my 1.3GHz model.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.