Um can you put that in laymans terms? I'd like to know how much the difference is for the average user.1.1ghz m3 - http://ark.intel.com/products/88198/Intel-Core-m3-6Y30-Processor-4M-Cache-up-to-2_20-GHz
1.2ghz m5 - http://ark.intel.com/products/88202/Intel-Core-m5-6Y54-Processor-4M-Cache-up-to-2_70-GHz
1.3ghz m7 - http://ark.intel.com/products/88199/Intel-Core-m7-6Y75-Processor-4M-Cache-up-to-3_10-GHz
model - base freq - turbo freq
m3 - 900mhz - 2.2Ghz
m5 - 1.1Ghz - 2.7Ghz
m7 - 1.2Ghz - 3.1Ghz
This shows that Apple is slightly overclocking all the base frequencies. The m3 is receiving the largest overclock.
All 3 have the same TDP (4.5W) and configurable TDP-up (7W), but the m3 has a higher configurable TDP-down of 3.7W, whereas the m5 and m7 configurable TDP-down is 3.5W.
For these reasons, I would go with the m5 or m7.
Other differences I'm noticing:
- The m7 GPU Max Dynamic Frequency is 1Ghz, vs 900mhz for the m5, and 850mhz for the m3.
- The m7 has Intel vPro technology, the others do not.
- The m7 has Intel TXS-NI, the others do not.
- The m7 has Intel Stable Image Platform Program (SIPP), the others do not.
- The m7 has Intel Trusted Execution Technology, the others do not.
None of this other stuff matters much at all. Thus, between the m5 and m7, I would save my money and go with the m5.
The only one that consumers may benefit from is TSX-NI, but it depends on the apps being used. If those apps are SMP aware, they will benefit from the performance it provides.Um can you put that in laymans terms? I'd like to know how much the difference is for the average user.
Agreed. But I would put it this way, for only $50 more, you can have half a terabyte of storage and basically the same CPU/GPU.Or if I don't care about storage, I can go with the 256GB + m7 which is $50 cheaper than the m5
Not only because it is faster. I think the m5/m7 will be a tad more power efficient, which will result in better battery life and maybe lower temperatures. That said, with the numbers above, I think the difference is likely going to be almost too little to care. I don't want to make a huge prediction, but I'm confident that the difference probably won't matter at all to the average consumer. Overall, the 3 chips are practically the same.But why? Just because it's faster?
Is it really that insignificant? What about solving ODEs in matlab and rendering videos using FCP? I really don't have much storage need, it's nice to have but I can live without it.Agreed. But I would put it this way, for only $50 more, you can have half a terabyte of storage and basically the same CPU/GPU.
That is a very specific question - I'm just explaining what I see in the data sheets.Is it really that insignificant? What about solving ODEs in matlab and rendering videos using FCP? I really don't have much storage need, it's nice to have but I can live without it.
Oddly enough the 1.1 outperformed the 1.3 in a lot of real world test last year. There are threads on the forums about it. I doubt that will be the case this go around, but it would make me hesitant to upgrade.This exact debate sprang up last year, and I seem to remember some clever-clogs explaining very convincingly that it is possible the 1.3 GHz is best for battery life, but that the difference between them from a battery and heat standpoint is negligible. Not sure if that holds true for Skylake, but I assume it does.
Id be shocked. Most likely this throttles down both the CPU and the GPU to much lower levels. Its very hard to believe it sustains 900mhz GPU in 8 watts. The 15Watt Core I5's used in the Macbook Air and Dell XPS 13 usually end up around ~500mhz on consistent load, and thats with an extra 7 watts.Would be interesting to see if the GPUs actually hit and run at their max, and if the m7 would be roughly 10% faster in games than the m5.
That would be me. I put up some other benchmarks in this thread...