Is the 11" 1.6 upgrade just an overclocked version of the 1.4?

Discussion in 'MacBook Air' started by Xil3, Oct 25, 2010.

  1. Xil3 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2007
    Location:
    London
    #1
    Just curious if its the same chipset, but overclocked (as the topic says)?
     
  2. Dammit Cubs macrumors 68000

    Dammit Cubs

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2007
    #2
    Yes. It's still a Utra Low Voltage Class CPU. Intel likes to have speed bins during testing. Some units fall in the 1.4GHZ range with others fall in the 1.6GHZ range. They are basically the same product.
     
  3. OSMac macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2010
    #3
  4. Xil3 thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2007
    Location:
    London
    #4
    So, wouldn't it run hotter then, if it's at 1.6?
     
  5. Xil3 thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2007
    Location:
    London
    #5
  6. Stingray454 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    #6
    Nice link, thanx. I took the liberty of adding the 1.86/2.13 processors to the comparison if anyone want to see how they compares to the 13" version.

    http://ark.intel.com/Compare.aspx?ids=36697,37264,36689,37262,
     
  7. JodyK macrumors 6502a

    JodyK

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2010
    Location:
    Northern Atlanta suburbs
    #7
    Thanks for the link ... Also note Intel's pricing 1.86 ---> 2.13 +$32 ... Apple is making out nicely @ $100
     
  8. linux2mac macrumors 65816

    linux2mac

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2009
    Location:
    "City of Lakes", MN
    #8
    Okay, so the 1.4GHz and 1.6GHz are pretty much identical except for the Bus/Core Ratio with the 1.4GHz at 7.0 and the 1.6GHz at 8 and the clock speed (and of course price).

    So will one see a notable performance difference with VM Ware Fusion based on these facts?
     
  9. zap2 macrumors 604

    zap2

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2005
    Location:
    Washington D.C
    #9
    It won't hurt, thats for sure. But the difference won't be huge(it rarely is when Apple makes it a BTO option) as it had to fit inside the same casing, so if a chip was worlds faster, it also be quite a bit hotter, which would cause over heating.

    (And Apple isn't going to build a case for the hottest chip, because then it means they could have cut down on thickness)

    RAM is a biggie for virtualization. 4GB would help greatly when compared to 2GB
     
  10. linux2mac macrumors 65816

    linux2mac

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2009
    Location:
    "City of Lakes", MN
    #10
    Thanks. I am definitely going with the 4GB of RAM. I was planning on going with the 1.6GHz but had second thoughts when seeing the comparison chart. But I will stick with my original plan and get the 1.6GHz. Like you said, "It won't hurt, that for sure."
     
  11. omgitscro macrumors 6502a

    omgitscro

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2008
    #11
    Apple isn't necessarily profiting as much as you'd think. You have to take into account the logistics of having to supply and support multiple processor configurations for the product. However, it's very likely that they're making at least $30 from the processor.

    To the OP: Not all processors are equal - there are noticeable variations among processors that were cut from the same die, even. That's why AMD sells those cheaper tri- and hex- core processors. Some were made as quad-cores, but didn't pass QA... However, they work perfectly with disabled cores. It's kind of a similar philosophy with these chips (sometimes). The 1.6GHz will probably run hotter than the 1.4.
     
  12. Dammit Cubs macrumors 68000

    Dammit Cubs

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2007
    #12
    I think the FSB's are the same for the 1.4 vs 1.6. You're purely just getting a higher frequency multiplier. It's from a unit level, the exact piece of hardware. Just running at a higher frequency. That should be the ONLY difference.
     
  13. Jaro65 macrumors 68040

    Jaro65

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2009
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    #13
    That's what I did as well. The main purpose is to run Win 7 through Fusion (mostly Outlook and OneNote) so even a little extra horsepower may help.
     
  14. macdaddy01 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2007
    Location:
    Cali
    #14
    Based on this cpu benchmark, the 1.6ghz is almost as fast as the 1.86ghz:

    Code:
    CPU Name                        Passmark Grade        Rank               TDP    
                                    (higher is better)    (lower is better)  (watt) 
    Intel Core2 Duo U9400 @ 1.40GHz 963                507                10
    Intel Core2 Duo U9600 @ 1.60GHz 1129               448                10 
    Intel Core2 Duo L9400 @ 1.86GHz 1211               420                17    
    Intel Core2 Duo L9600 @ 2.13GHz 1467               342                17
    
    Specs were taken from this site: cpubenchmark
     
  15. Jaro65 macrumors 68040

    Jaro65

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2009
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    #15
    Considering its TDP that is actually quite superb.
     

Share This Page