Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Most effective cpu ?

L

low performer

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Apr 14, 2015
10
1
T€uroland
Which cpu saves more energy under normal conditions (e.g. text editing or web browsing) and produces less heat?

Core M-5Y31 @ 900 MHz - overclocked to 1.1 GHz
Core M-5Y51 @ 1.1 Ghz - overclocked to 1.2 GHz
Core M-5Y71 @ 1.2 GHz - overclocked to 1.3 GHz

Which one is prone to throttle under heavy load?
 
low performer said:
Which cpu saves more energy under normal conditions (e.g. text editing or web browsing) and produces less heat?

Core M-5Y31 @ 900 MHz - overclocked to 1.1 GHz
Core M-5Y51 @ 1.1 Ghz - overclocked to 1.2 GHz
Core M-5Y71 @ 1.2 GHz - overclocked to 1.3 GHz

Which one is prone to throttle under heavy load?
Click to expand...

There's no way we'll know the answer to that until more Anandtech-style test are done.

Just you wait, I'm sure they're already in the works, and will be posted here in no time.
 
Maybe a theoretical computer scientist (kind of) can make an educated guess?

I would like to opt for the base model, but admittedly I fear to much heat will damage the battery.
 
low performer said:
Which cpu saves more energy under normal conditions (e.g. text editing or web browsing) and produces less heat?

Core M-5Y31 @ 900 MHz - overclocked to 1.1 GHz
Core M-5Y51 @ 1.1 Ghz - overclocked to 1.2 GHz
Core M-5Y71 @ 1.2 GHz - overclocked to 1.3 GHz

Which one is prone to throttle under heavy load?
Click to expand...

I'm guessing the 1.3 Ghz would use the least amount of power. If I understand correctly they are all the same CPU, just Intel bins them and the most efficient ones get a higher clock speed.
 
low performer said:
Maybe a theoretical computer scientist (kind of) can make an educated guess?

I would like to opt for the base model, but admittedly I fear to much heat will damage the battery.
Click to expand...

the 5Y31 is going to produce the most heat as its at the top of the threshold at 6W. The 51 and 71 are somewhere around 5 or 5.5W My base model with the 31 seems to heat up more than those with the 1.2 have been reporting. Either way, the highest temp I recorded was 88C and these chips can operate up to 95C before throttling.
 
cfedu said:
I'm guessing the 1.3 Ghz would use the least amount of power. If I understand correctly they are all the same CPU, just Intel bins them and the most efficient ones get a higher clock speed.
Click to expand...

What? They produce them all the same, yet there's a variance that just seems to line up with a 1.2, 1.3, and 1.4 gHz clock speed, and they separate them by QC testing? That I don't buy.

"We at the rubber ball company produce every rubber ball the same. When we're done, we give them a bounce. The ones that bounce the furthest get a A rating, and are $4, the ones that bounce good, but not as far, get a B rating, and sell for $2, and the ones that just bounce a little get a C and a $0.50 price tag. Yes, they're made on the same machine the same way, but hey, they're like babies, they don't turn out the same"
 
shenan1982 said:
What? They produce them all the same, yet there's a variance that just seems to line up with a 1.2, 1.3, and 1.4 gHz clock speed, and they separate them by QC testing? That I don't buy.

"We at the rubber ball company produce every rubber ball the same. When we're done, we give them a bounce. The ones that bounce the furthest get a A rating, and are $4, the ones that bounce good, but not as far, get a B rating, and sell for $2, and the ones that just bounce a little get a C and a $0.50 price tag. Yes, they're made on the same machine the same way, but hey, they're like babies, they don't turn out the same"
Click to expand...


i've read about this somewhere years, it seems that the clock speed for cpu is indeed decided by their "quality".

those with better "quality" can run at a higher speed without problem.
 
shenan1982 said:
What? They produce them all the same, yet there's a variance that just seems to line up with a 1.2, 1.3, and 1.4 gHz clock speed, and they separate them by QC testing? That I don't buy.

"We at the rubber ball company produce every rubber ball the same. When we're done, we give them a bounce. The ones that bounce the furthest get a A rating, and are $4, the ones that bounce good, but not as far, get a B rating, and sell for $2, and the ones that just bounce a little get a C and a $0.50 price tag. Yes, they're made on the same machine the same way, but hey, they're like babies, they don't turn out the same"
Click to expand...

Actually Intel sells all the chips in the macbook for the same price (at least that's how Intel lists them, I don't know what price Apple is getting). It's Apple that socks it to us by charging a very high markup.
 
low performer said:
Maybe a theoretical computer scientist (kind of) can make an educated guess?

I would like to opt for the base model, but admittedly I fear to much heat will damage the battery.
Click to expand...

Heat from the CPU is unlikely to generate enough heat in the case to affect the battery to any measurable extent.
 
shenan1982 said:
What? They produce them all the same, yet there's a variance that just seems to line up with a 1.2, 1.3, and 1.4 gHz clock speed, and they separate them by QC testing? That I don't buy.

"We at the rubber ball company produce every rubber ball the same. When we're done, we give them a bounce. The ones that bounce the furthest get a A rating, and are $4, the ones that bounce good, but not as far, get a B rating, and sell for $2, and the ones that just bounce a little get a C and a $0.50 price tag. Yes, they're made on the same machine the same way, but hey, they're like babies, they don't turn out the same"
Click to expand...

http://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/1140-silicon-die-bin-out-process-explained

It is more or less what is done in silicone production. AMD, Nvidia, and intel all do it. Depending what their performance is in testing they can disable cores, cache and restrict clock speed. As the productions matures they release higher frequency CPU's with the same TDP.

Even steinway pianos are done the same way. They make them all the same and the ones that sounds the best are sold for the most.
 
cfedu said:
http://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/1140-silicon-die-bin-out-process-explained

It is more or less what is done in silicone production. AMD, Nvidia, and intel all do it. Depending what their performance is in testing they can disable cores, cache and restrict clock speed. As the productions matures they release higher frequency CPU's with the same TDP.

Even steinway pianos are done the same way. They make them all the same and the ones that sounds the best are sold for the most.
Click to expand...

Interesting, I had no idea, thought there was more of a science to it, LOL
 
dexterbell said:
the 5Y31 is going to produce the most heat as its at the top of the threshold at 6W. The 51 and 71 are somewhere around 5 or 5.5W My base model with the 31 seems to heat up more than those with the 1.2 have been reporting. Either way, the highest temp I recorded was 88C and these chips can operate up to 95C before throttling.
Click to expand...

dexterbell...

Did you exchange your 1.1GHz base unit for the lower power 1.2MHz?
 
shenan1982 said:
What? They produce them all the same, yet there's a variance that just seems to line up with a 1.2, 1.3, and 1.4 gHz clock speed, and they separate them by QC testing? That I don't buy.

"We at the rubber ball company produce every rubber ball the same. When we're done, we give them a bounce. The ones that bounce the furthest get a A rating, and are $4, the ones that bounce good, but not as far, get a B rating, and sell for $2, and the ones that just bounce a little get a C and a $0.50 price tag. Yes, they're made on the same machine the same way, but hey, they're like babies, they don't turn out the same"
Click to expand...


That is exactly what intel does.
 
I'm also interested in this. Checked out the 1.1ghz model but it's running too hot and a tad bit too slow. If the 1.3ghz gives me less heat and better performance it might be worth the upgrade.
 
danny234 said:
I'm also interested in this. Checked out the 1.1ghz model but it's running too hot and a tad bit too slow. If the 1.3ghz gives me less heat and better performance it might be worth the upgrade.
Click to expand...

I bet the 1.3GHz will be faster but a little warmer than the 1.2GHz (which, according to reports, is both slightly faster and cooler than the 1.1GHz).
 
iRun26.2 said:
I bet the 1.3GHz will be faster but a little warmer than the 1.2GHz (which, according to reports, is both slightly faster and cooler than the 1.1GHz).
Click to expand...

I wish they actually had an option to upgrade to 1.2 without the HD upgrade. I really don't need those extra 256MB and I just can't justify shelling $300 for 0.1ghz. Do you think the 1.3ghz will be cooler than 1.1 though?
 
danny234 said:
I wish they actually had an option to upgrade to 1.2 without the HD upgrade. I really don't need those extra 256MB and I just can't justify shelling $300 for 0.1ghz. Do you think the 1.3ghz will be cooler than 1.1 though?
Click to expand...


I think you meant 256GB, and yea i agree with you. But if i was you, I would stick with the base model.
 
cfedu said:
http://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/1140-silicon-die-bin-out-process-explained

It is more or less what is done in silicone production. AMD, Nvidia, and intel all do it. Depending what their performance is in testing they can disable cores, cache and restrict clock speed. As the productions matures they release higher frequency CPU's with the same TDP.

Even steinway pianos are done the same way. They make them all the same and the ones that sounds the best are sold for the most.
Click to expand...

Certainly for 51/31, but "center of wafer binning" can't explain why M-5Y71 supports Transactional Synchronization eXtensions whereas 51/31 do not.

As developers scale code to higher core systems, they lose efficiency per core. TSX was designed to fix this through fine grain locking. It was originally designed for last gen Haswell but implementation was ceased after major bugs were found that can't be patched. These bugs are now fixed with Broadwell-U, and I expect that TSX will be ubiquitous in a few years.

My opinion is that the M-5Y71 (1.3 Ghz) is the most future-proof.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back