1.4 GHz? Really?
I know it's quad-core but still it just seems too low unless I'm not understanding something
I know it's quad-core but still it just seems too low unless I'm not understanding something
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.
Is anyone else disappointed with the base clock speed of the new 13" MacBook Pros?
- Thread starter Hieveryone
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The turbo boost is still 3,9GHz so I wouldn't be too worried about it, the juice is still there when you need it. Higher base clock = more heat and higher power consumption.
T
If the baseclock is 1.4ghz, it means that intel guarantees 1.4ghz but anything beyond that isn’t guaranteed
his isn’t true. Higher base clock (like 2.4 for example) means that this frequency is guaranteed, when the OS doesn’t need that kind of power it’s going to run in a lower power state (and thus automatically lowering the frequency to 1.4-0.8ghz).
If the baseclock is 1.4ghz, it means that intel guarantees 1.4ghz but anything beyond that isn’t guaranteed
Need some differentiation to make people justifying purchasing the 2.4
I wonder what real-world difference there is between the two. I was planning on buying a 2.4GHz 13” with 16GB memory and 1TB SSD to replace my ruined 2012 15” rMBP.
It’s still a 15W CPU, so you have to keep the frequency down to match the TDP. Anyway, 4 cores at 1.4 GHZ is 20% faster than 2 cores at 2.3. In reality that CPU will probably run closer to 2 GHZ in sustained operation. Point being, the new CPU is going to be a straightforward upgrade from the previous dual-core one in every possible scenario.
Has anyone found any benchmarks for this.
As a higher end desktop user. I always find myself more productive at the desk rather than on the sofa etc
I have always used apples lower end portables on the go. Portability has been more important which is why I like the 12" macbook and its powerful enough to do the odd edit and mostly file transfer. I like to use them as consumable devices on the road like netflix etc. There is almost 0 penalty to taking that machine either its so lite that you dont notice it on you.
The new macbook pro gives you the higher end features like the display twin TB3 ports with a lower clock CPU but has the ability to power up for short bursts. For me it means that colour accuracy will be similar to my iMac which is great. Finally at an acceptable price. Over 2k for a mid range 13" laptop with no dedicated graphics is BS in all aspects imo then for another £200 you get far more with the 15 but then compared to the 12" it feels like carrying around an elephant.
The air isnt there yet, too compromised for the size might as well get the pro imo. The 12 is compromised but there is nothing like it for the size.
This might be a good compromise for people like me. I would expect there are a lot of people who need the power of the desktop but like to have a potable that can be used for work if needed.
As a higher end desktop user. I always find myself more productive at the desk rather than on the sofa etc
I have always used apples lower end portables on the go. Portability has been more important which is why I like the 12" macbook and its powerful enough to do the odd edit and mostly file transfer. I like to use them as consumable devices on the road like netflix etc. There is almost 0 penalty to taking that machine either its so lite that you dont notice it on you.
The new macbook pro gives you the higher end features like the display twin TB3 ports with a lower clock CPU but has the ability to power up for short bursts. For me it means that colour accuracy will be similar to my iMac which is great. Finally at an acceptable price. Over 2k for a mid range 13" laptop with no dedicated graphics is BS in all aspects imo then for another £200 you get far more with the 15 but then compared to the 12" it feels like carrying around an elephant.
The air isnt there yet, too compromised for the size might as well get the pro imo. The 12 is compromised but there is nothing like it for the size.
This might be a good compromise for people like me. I would expect there are a lot of people who need the power of the desktop but like to have a potable that can be used for work if needed.
Anyone seen rumors about when we will see the first review of 1.4GHz Pro? Also I'd be very interested to hear if display quality is exactly the same as in current Pro TB models? Are these P3 panels prone to light leak and uneven color temperature across the screen (I mean other side like bluish and other reddish or similar)?
I'm really considering if I should return my MBA 2018 and get Pro entry level model instead but I'm pretty happy with the display quality in my current one and I don't want to end up with uneven light leak panel or similar. Also I'm wondering if I like TouchBar at all and is CPU going to be any faster than in MBA 2018 in real life (or is it even faster than in Pro 2017 non TB model)?
I'm really considering if I should return my MBA 2018 and get Pro entry level model instead but I'm pretty happy with the display quality in my current one and I don't want to end up with uneven light leak panel or similar. Also I'm wondering if I like TouchBar at all and is CPU going to be any faster than in MBA 2018 in real life (or is it even faster than in Pro 2017 non TB model)?
I think Intel now does some jazzy stuff where they quote boost clocks which can only be achieved when one core is under heavy use, and the others are largely idle - the actual sustained boost on 4 cores will be lower. I don't know if the reverse is also true, and '1.4GHz' is the base speed when all 4 cores are in use? Maybe if two are being used and two idle, the two can run at a higher base speed?
Isn't it mostly running on one core during normal tasks and since both MBA 2018 and new Pro TB 1.4GHz are with the same generation 8th Intel i5 CPU? Sure MBA is only dual core but still when considering single core speed MBA is 1.6 and new pro only 1.4GHz. Also is it going to be 15W TDP in Pro or something less, or is the cooling efficient as in higher speed Pro models? There are many things that can cut the actual power. We will see that but I'm always cautious when something sounds too good to be true, and knowing Apple they know how to make difference between cheap and expensive models...
Iris Plus 645 suggests 15W - the Y series only have UHD graphics, and the 28W U variants like in the 4 TB Pro use Iris Plus 655.
Ye you can’t really compare the clock speeds 1.4 to 1.6 because the 1.4 28w and cooled whereas the 1.6 is 15w and not cooled.
3.9 is a huge jump I doubt it will touch that maybe 3 for 5-10 seconds at most then clock down because of the themal constraints.
Obviously it won’t compete with higher end chips but if I was to estimate a Geekbench score of roughly 4000-4500 single and 12000-15000 multi.
That being said rendering for 10-30 minutes may see the machine at its clock speed so will be quite a bit slower than the 2.5 i5. For short bursts it will be absolutely fine.
I think it’s a decent compromise for a lower cost machine.
Nothing to be disappointed about that is roughly similar benchmark between the low and mid tier 2017 iMac, similar to the quad 15” 2013/14/15/16 and 17 MacBook Pro.
The issue I have is I feel this should have been the MacBook Air spec rather than it having a Y based chip. Leave the higher end stuff to the pro machine.
The pro name means nothing these days.
3.9 is a huge jump I doubt it will touch that maybe 3 for 5-10 seconds at most then clock down because of the themal constraints.
Obviously it won’t compete with higher end chips but if I was to estimate a Geekbench score of roughly 4000-4500 single and 12000-15000 multi.
That being said rendering for 10-30 minutes may see the machine at its clock speed so will be quite a bit slower than the 2.5 i5. For short bursts it will be absolutely fine.
I think it’s a decent compromise for a lower cost machine.
Nothing to be disappointed about that is roughly similar benchmark between the low and mid tier 2017 iMac, similar to the quad 15” 2013/14/15/16 and 17 MacBook Pro.
The issue I have is I feel this should have been the MacBook Air spec rather than it having a Y based chip. Leave the higher end stuff to the pro machine.
The pro name means nothing these days.
Thats how boost clocks were always advertised. In fact, turbo boost traditionally worked depending on core utilisation. Nowadays they just use power/thermal limits.
The way how Intel defines the nominal clock is the minimal clock that the CPU should be able to sustain when running (quite Intel) a "complex workload" provided that the power and cooling system can manage the CPU's stated TDP. In other words, under 100% CPU utilisation (across all cores), an Intel CPU is expected to draw exactly its TDP worth of power and run at frequency that equals or is higher than its nominal frequency. That is the performance guarantee Intel gives.
How are you using it, that you feel the laptop's clock rate is too low?
If you feel its too slow, then maybe the base model isn't for you ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
That's good, so if you've got a moderate load that's better served by two cores running higher, I guess the software can dynamically use the CPU cores as it sees fit?
Depends on the software of course. General-purpose Mac software is usually quite good at utilising multiple cores since Apple offers very convenient and easy-to-use tools in this regard. It is difficult to make blanket statements here, since it of course will depend on the workload complexity and duration. If you have a task to do and that task can be split across multipel cores, you are almost always better off using full 4 cores rather than 2 cores, even if the 2 cores might run at slightly higher clock. The reason is that heat scaling is not linear — you can run four cores at higher cumulative frequency that two cores with the same power budget. And of course, for brief periods of time the CPU can surpass its TDP, which means that the 15W CPU will be just as fast or faster as a 45W CPU in any workflow that takes under 5-10 seconds (or maybe longer). It's only when you are looking at really heavy workflows that require your CPU to work for minutes, the 15W will have to throttle back.
At any rate, I am quite sure that you won't find a situation where these new CPUs are slower than the dual-core from last year.
I believe Air 2018 is only 7W and just heat sink but still Geekbench score is just over 4000 single and about 7400 multi. So Pro 1.4GHz might not be that fast in real world single core situations but who knows. It will be interesting to see first tests.
Even apparent single threaded workflows may speed up overall.
Pretty sure Garageband's transcoding process is single threaded, so a lower clock speed might mean that this specific conversion is slower (if I'm right that it's single threaded). But the system isn't doing just one thing, the OS itself has a bunch of threads running doing different tasks. Then there are background applications doing their own thing. So multiple cores may mean that the specific GB transcode takes longer, but the system can do more work utilizing the other cores.
Photo editing is another scenario - when I do an HDR process it's two step - first if generates the preview, and then it does the actual compilation. I can have one set of photos previewing and another set of photos merging. More cores might mean those tasks can run faster on aggregate.
Ultimately if performance is a really significant issue then probably neither the nTB nor the 1.4GHz TB are the best choice, but I'm expecting that the nTB will routinely be spanked by the 1.4GHz TB when doing real work. Aside from some isolated incidences. Even if it's just running a transcode and surfing the net while the transcode works.
[doublepost=1562767637][/doublepost]
I could be wrong, but I'm not sure how reflective Geekbench scores are of thermal ceilings. The first run or two might score better than the third and fourth if they're followed in quick succession.
Pretty sure Garageband's transcoding process is single threaded, so a lower clock speed might mean that this specific conversion is slower (if I'm right that it's single threaded). But the system isn't doing just one thing, the OS itself has a bunch of threads running doing different tasks. Then there are background applications doing their own thing. So multiple cores may mean that the specific GB transcode takes longer, but the system can do more work utilizing the other cores.
Photo editing is another scenario - when I do an HDR process it's two step - first if generates the preview, and then it does the actual compilation. I can have one set of photos previewing and another set of photos merging. More cores might mean those tasks can run faster on aggregate.
Ultimately if performance is a really significant issue then probably neither the nTB nor the 1.4GHz TB are the best choice, but I'm expecting that the nTB will routinely be spanked by the 1.4GHz TB when doing real work. Aside from some isolated incidences. Even if it's just running a transcode and surfing the net while the transcode works.
[doublepost=1562767637][/doublepost]
I could be wrong, but I'm not sure how reflective Geekbench scores are of thermal ceilings. The first run or two might score better than the third and fourth if they're followed in quick succession.
I will post some benchmarks tomorrow for 1.4GHz quadcore CPU. With and without liquid metal 
I will post some benchmarks tomorrow for 1.4GHz quadcore CPU. With and without liquid metal
Do you have 3x3 802.11ac wifi at home? If so, please can you give us the connection details there too.
