I'm looking to buy a Space Grey MacBook next month, and I can't find any information on the web comparing the 1.1Ghz, 1.2Ghz, and 1.3Ghz models Which makes me question whether it's worth the upgrade over the stock 1.1Ghz
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.
MacBook CPU performance differences?
- Thread starter Qu1ckset
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
On page 2 of this forum there is a GeekBench comparison thread: https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1866165/. The 1.3GHz machines are preparing for shipping, so expect new Geekbench scores for those in the next couple of weeks.
Given the price premium and the incremental delta, I would say that it's probably better to put the upgrade money towards future upgrades.
Especially since we all know that this is a first gen product, with a major Intel tock coming.
I know Skylake desktop parts are shipping second half of this year but I don't see a Core M version of Skylake coming till at least this time next year especially in a MacBook.
I already have Devils Canyon CPU for my desktop , if I grab this I could wait the two years or so for cannonlake... I dunno decisions decisions..
I already have Devils Canyon CPU for my desktop , if I grab this I could wait the two years or so for cannonlake... I dunno decisions decisions..
Do it. I have devils canyon as well on a desktop. This macbook is amazing. Even the base model is great. I have activity monitor showing me cpu usage and I hardly hit over 25%. Im doing safari several tabs, iMessage and word up and I'm switching between desktops constantly. Most the time cpu usage is 5-7%.
I got the base 1.1. It is running great so far. I will put parallels on it later with windows 8.1 and see how that performs.
A cpu benchmark for a set of processors within a given manufacturer/generation/series (e.g. no architecture differences only clock rate differences) are pretty linear with their respective clock speeds.
That is to say the 1.2 will cpu benchmark about 10% faster than the 1.1 and the 1.3 will benchmark about 10% faster than the 1.2 (20% faster than the 1.1). This isn't perfectly accurate as there are some other factors in play but its a good rule of thumb.
But CPU benchmarks typically only determine maximum sustained CPU performance. There is a lot more to system performance than just CPU. And we seldom run our CPU's maxed out for sustained periods of time - so things like step speeds and burst performance (and non CPU related system factors) are often more important in real world use.
So don't get too caught up in CPU benchmark numbers. If you do a lot of sustained CPU taxing work (like ripping or converting or editing media) such benchmarks can be very telling. But in average "productivity" work which isn't CPU taxing except in short bursts, there are more important factors than CPU clock speeds to consider - most folks would not notice a 10% difference in CPU speed at all and many would barely notice 20%.
But its a safe assumption that software will generally continue to grow more taxing on system performance and resources as time passes. So to future proof (extend the retirement date of a system) I'll almost always max out its configuration - once you order one of these you have to live with your choices because there is nothing you can change. For many, maxing out a system configuration doesn't make financial sense (as small gains tend to be expensive). But I make my living being productive on a mobile computer so I can usually justify the costs (in my mind if not in reality).
Good luck with your choice. I ordered a 1.3/512/SG, but if there had been readily available 1.2/512 units locally in stock, I likely would have gone for the instant gratification with one of them
That is to say the 1.2 will cpu benchmark about 10% faster than the 1.1 and the 1.3 will benchmark about 10% faster than the 1.2 (20% faster than the 1.1). This isn't perfectly accurate as there are some other factors in play but its a good rule of thumb.
But CPU benchmarks typically only determine maximum sustained CPU performance. There is a lot more to system performance than just CPU. And we seldom run our CPU's maxed out for sustained periods of time - so things like step speeds and burst performance (and non CPU related system factors) are often more important in real world use.
So don't get too caught up in CPU benchmark numbers. If you do a lot of sustained CPU taxing work (like ripping or converting or editing media) such benchmarks can be very telling. But in average "productivity" work which isn't CPU taxing except in short bursts, there are more important factors than CPU clock speeds to consider - most folks would not notice a 10% difference in CPU speed at all and many would barely notice 20%.
But its a safe assumption that software will generally continue to grow more taxing on system performance and resources as time passes. So to future proof (extend the retirement date of a system) I'll almost always max out its configuration - once you order one of these you have to live with your choices because there is nothing you can change. For many, maxing out a system configuration doesn't make financial sense (as small gains tend to be expensive). But I make my living being productive on a mobile computer so I can usually justify the costs (in my mind if not in reality).
Good luck with your choice. I ordered a 1.3/512/SG, but if there had been readily available 1.2/512 units locally in stock, I likely would have gone for the instant gratification with one of them
I have the base model and it does everything my 2014 MBA does just fine, only with a much better screen. Usually, I have open the follow and there is no lag at all:
Firefox with 3-4 tabs. One tab is streaming SiriusXM.
Office Word and Outlook.
Twitter App
Photoshop
I experience zero issues at all. The amount of processing power needed to run most applications is minimal these days. Plus, people don't realize how powerful these processors are now a days. This isn't 1990 or even 2000. It's 2015.
I am actually hoping apple does more of what windows did in minimizing requirements to run their OS. Windows 8.1 runs pretty well on 1gb ram and slow EMMC drives. I used a winbook 7 inch with those specs. I was able to hook it up to a 1080p display run a movie through plea app snapped to one side, run IE on the other side snapped and a word document on the tablet. Either way I could see this base model being fine for me for atleast two years. I can't see the benefit for me of 20% performance by paying apples price plus tax plus no best buy 10% coupon. Ill use the savings towards the base model 2016 or 2017 and sell or if I'm in a better spot give this one away.
Naysayers to the contrary, this is my hope as well, based on the same experience with Win 8.1.