It's funny all the Core M processors costs the same

Wallabe

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Mar 15, 2015
660
205
http://ark.intel.com/products/family/83613/Intel-Core-M-Processors#@Mobile

Looking at that, All the tray costs about $281. Meaning that's about how much each one cost for Apple. They're all the same. I notice the 1.3GHz is really the same as the 1.2GHz. Apple just happened to modified the TDP (Overclock) it and sell it as an upgrade for +$150. Both the 1.2GHz and the 1.3GHz really started out as 1.2GHz, both could be overclocked to 1.3, even 1.4 for one of them. The only difference is Turbo Boost, which is the "hurry up and finish" part when you're doing intensive stuff.

Well played Apple.

Not that I care about any of this. I have a built desktop for performance. It's just something interesting for anyone who cares.

Here are the 3 CPUs Apple is using in their Macbooks.

http://ark.intel.com/products/84672/Intel-Core-M-5Y71-Processor-4M-Cache-up-to-2_90-GHz

http://ark.intel.com/products/84669/Intel-Core-M-5Y51-Processor-4M-Cache-up-to-2_60-GHz

http://ark.intel.com/products/84666/Intel-Core-M-5Y31-Processor-4M-Cache-up-to-2_40-GHz

Don't be surprised if that 256GB vs 512GB SSD chip costs the same. Apple is just making a killing from it.
 
Last edited:

Queen6

macrumors 604
Apple has always worked this way, best value Mac`s are the base models, as you step up a tier and or go BTO, Apple`s margin increases significantly. Good business strategy on Apple`s behalf, equally not so good for those of us who need the higher specifications.

Q-6
 

MyopicPaideia

macrumors 68000
Mar 19, 2011
1,851
609
Trollhättan, Sweden
http://ark.intel.com/products/family/83613/Intel-Core-M-Processors#@Mobile

Looking at that, All the tray costs about $281. Meaning that's about how much each one cost for Apple. They're all the same. I notice the 1.3GHz is really the same as the 1.2GHz. Apple just happened to modified the TDP (Overclock) it and sell it as an upgrade for +$150. Both the 1.2GHz and the 1.3GHz really started out as 1.2GHz, both could be overclocked to 1.3, even 1.4 for one of them. The only difference is Turbo Boost, which is the "hurry up and finish" part when you're doing intensive stuff.

Well played Apple.

Not that I care about any of this. I have a built desktop for performance. It's just something interesting for anyone who cares.

Here are the 3 CPUs Apple is using in their Macbooks.

http://ark.intel.com/products/84672/Intel-Core-M-5Y71-Processor-4M-Cache-up-to-2_90-GHz

http://ark.intel.com/products/84669/Intel-Core-M-5Y51-Processor-4M-Cache-up-to-2_60-GHz

http://ark.intel.com/products/84666/Intel-Core-M-5Y31-Processor-4M-Cache-up-to-2_40-GHz

Don't be surprised if that 256GB vs 512GB SSD chip costs the same. Apple is just making a killing from it.
While it is interesting that they cost the same, they are binned similarly to the rest of the Intel processors. The 5Y71 has a base frequency of 1.2 and a max base of 1.4, the 5Y51 a base frequency of 1.1 and a max base of 1.3. They are not the same. In fact the 5Y31 is worse, with a base of 0.9 and a max of 1.1, so Apple is maxing out the base model 5Y31 and only going one step up on the 5Y51 and 5Y71. Interesting choices there.
 

Wallabe

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Mar 15, 2015
660
205
I guess if there is any question. Is there a way to overclock it yourself easily and safely?

I think I already know the answer. Of course not.