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

Is 1.3GHz upgrade worth it?

iRun26.2 said:
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).
Click to expand...

I am pretty sure that they are. That's what I remember reading somewhere. Perhaps the anandtech Core M analysis?

Oh, wait. It looks like they aren't sure.

Apple is offering a range of different configurations, including the highest Core M bin, the 5Y71, which in its standard mode which allows a 4.5W part to turbo up to 2.9 GHz. That being said, and Apple having the clout they do, it would be somewhat impossible to determine if these are normal cores or special low-voltage binned processors from Intel, but either way the Apple chassis design has the same issue as other mobile devices, and perhaps even more so.

With the PCB being small and the bulk of the design based on batteries, without a sufficient chassis-based dispersion cooling system, there is a potential for heat soak and a reduction in frequencies. It all depends on Apple’s design, and the setting for the skin temperature.
Click to expand...
 
The Core M's are all technically the same chip (no difference in hyper threading or core count etc) so they're binned to determine if they're to be labelled as a 5Y71 or something lower. I think AnandTech were wondering if there is a further binning process after that to pick those that end up as 1.3 BTO models.
 
KrisLord said:
The Core M's are all technically the same chip (no difference in hyper threading or core count etc) so they're binned to determine if they're to be labelled as a 5Y71 or something lower. I think AnandTech were wondering if there is a further binning process after that to pick those that end up as 1.3 BTO models.
Click to expand...

I think you're spot on. It makes sense considering how things work in the chip industry.
 
iRun26.2 said:
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. .
Click to expand...
I think it's too early too say that for sure. The individual scores vary a lot so it can be misleading if you only look at one particular score for the 1.2 GHz. Here is one 1.2 that beats all other 1.1 in both single and multi core.

http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/2302711
 
Theophil1971 said:
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.
Click to expand...

If that was the case the OP would be better off buying a macbook pro, preferably a 15". The difference between macbook options is too small. I don't think you would see even a slight difference beyond benchmarks. I figured that most people who opt for the upgrade would do so for storage reasons.
 
thekev said:
If that was the case the OP would be better off buying a macbook pro, preferably a 15". The difference between macbook options is too small. I don't think you would see even a slight difference beyond benchmarks. I figured that most people who opt for the upgrade would do so for storage reasons.
Click to expand...

Well, you can opt for the 1.3 upgrade on the smaller (256gb) SSD too. A lot of people seem to be doing that, just so they can have the "fastest" CPU. Personally, I opted for the 1.2/512 setup, largely for the extra SSD space, like you said.
And I'd tend to agree - if gaming and high end graphics are a high priority, that's what the MacBook Pro line is for, and your probably better off going that route.
 
tech324 said:
I sure hope the 1.3 scores well, anyone have any idea when we should see good benchmarks for the 1.3 processor?
Click to expand...

As soon as someone actually has one. Which no one will for at least a month. Those BTO units listed 3-4 weeks shipping right out of the gate. I'm guessing there's a major supply constraint, and 4weeks is optimistic.
 
Theophil1971 said:
Well, you can opt for the 1.3 upgrade on the smaller (256gb) SSD too. A lot of people seem to be doing that, just so they can have the "fastest" CPU. Personally, I opted for the 1.2/512 setup, largely for the extra SSD space, like you said.
And I'd tend to agree - if gaming and high end graphics are a high priority, that's what the MacBook Pro line is for, and your probably better off going that route.
Click to expand...

I didn't know that. I couldn't locate a cto link for that model, so I figured they might be retail configurations only.
 
Now that the geekbench3 scores are emerging it is worth comparing them to my current laptop - lenovo thinkpas x121e model 3035cto 6gb ram ssd evo 120 core i3
2367m.http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/search?utf8=✓&q=lenovo++3045CTO+2367m

That lenovo can easily run chrome for youtube email docs Netflix iPlayer for extended periods. It can easily run a python dev environment (IPython), and can do image editting. Yet it has geekbench3/scores at 32bit of 1150 single and 2200 multiple core.

So the macbook 12" should feel quicker??
 
terencedriver said:
Now that the geekbench3 scores are emerging it is worth comparing them to my current laptop - lenovo thinkpas x121e model 3035cto 6gb ram ssd evo 120 core i3
2367m.http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/search?utf8=✓&q=lenovo++3045CTO+2367m

That lenovo can easily run chrome for youtube email docs Netflix iPlayer for extended periods. It can easily run a python dev environment (IPython), and can do image editting. Yet it has geekbench3/scores at 32bit of 1150 single and 2200 multiple core.

So the macbook 12" should feel quicker??
Click to expand...

Most definitely faster, at least you will notice a more fluid UI. You are very likely going to feel a lot less heat when you are playing youtube/netflix.
 
terencedriver said:
Now that the geekbench3 scores are emerging it is worth comparing them to my current laptop - lenovo thinkpas x121e model 3035cto 6gb ram ssd evo 120 core i3
2367m.http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/search?utf8=✓&q=lenovo++3045CTO+2367m

That lenovo can easily run chrome for youtube email docs Netflix iPlayer for extended periods. It can easily run a python dev environment (IPython), and can do image editting. Yet it has geekbench3/scores at 32bit of 1150 single and 2200 multiple core.

So the macbook 12" should feel quicker??
Click to expand...

Yep. Loading programs and multitasking for sure. But UI may stutter due to Yosemite flaw.
 
Often the faster chips had more cache too but not these. So until I see benchmarks I'm betting not much difference.
 
squirrrl said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
I've been using MacBook 1.1 for a few weeks at both of my offices , I also use VM Windows 8 for some business programs. It has worked excellent, even with a added 23" screen via hdmi. I've ordered a 1.3 512gb ssd since I also use it for videos photos and many documents! Great for my use
 
I have the 1.1ghz and it's fine for what I do. I will upgrade this When Skylake 1.3ghz is available.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back