Most effective cpu ?

Discussion in 'MacBook' started by low performer, Apr 17, 2015.

  1. low performer macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2015
    Location:
    T€uroland
    #1
    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?
     
  2. Cvx5832 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2014
    #2
    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.
     
  3. low performer thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2015
    Location:
    T€uroland
    #3
    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.
     
  4. cfedu macrumors 65816

    cfedu

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto
    #4
    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.
     
  5. dexterbell macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2015
    #5
    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.
     
  6. shenan1982 macrumors 68040

    shenan1982

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2011
    #6
    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"
     
  7. garyleecn macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2014
    #7

    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.
     
  8. squirrrl macrumors 6502a

    squirrrl

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2013
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    #8
    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.
     
  9. newellj macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2014
    Location:
    Boston, MA, US
    #9
    Heat from the CPU is unlikely to generate enough heat in the case to affect the battery to any measurable extent.
     
  10. cfedu macrumors 65816

    cfedu

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto
    #10
    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.
     
  11. shenan1982 macrumors 68040

    shenan1982

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2011
    #11
    Interesting, I had no idea, thought there was more of a science to it, LOL
     
  12. iRun26.2 macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2010
    #12
    dexterbell...

    Did you exchange your 1.1GHz base unit for the lower power 1.2MHz?
     
  13. dexterbell macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2015
    #13
    No and I probably won't. I dont need the extra storage and $300 is alot to pay for an extra .1Ghz.
     
  14. iRun26.2 macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2010
    #14
    Well, I was under the impression that you thought the 1.1GHz one got quite hot for you.
     
  15. dexterbell macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2015
    #15
    It does but its not going to damage the internals, so I'll live with it :)
     
  16. PDFierro macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2009
    #16
    So you'll actually be keeping it?
     
  17. dexterbell macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2015
    #17
    Probably. I spent a few hundred on a couple bags for it so yeah. Might consider getting the 1.3 once I see benchmarks then Id sell this one
     
  18. gman36 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2015
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    #18

    That is exactly what intel does.
     
  19. danny234 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2010
    #19
    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.
     
  20. iRun26.2 macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2010
    #20
    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).
     
  21. danny234 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2010
    #21
    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?
     
  22. LoveToMacRumors macrumors 68000

    LoveToMacRumors

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2015
    Location:
    Canada
    #22

    I think you meant 256GB, and yea i agree with you. But if i was you, I would stick with the base model.
     
  23. Aphid Acer macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2015
    #23
    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.
     
  24. Aphid Acer macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2015
    #24
  25. Aphid Acer macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2015
    #25
    Damn...looking even closer it seems all three actually are the same "Step F0" lithographic mask... Now I'm even more confused :roll eyes:
    M-5Y31 step
    M-5Y51 step
    M-5Y71 step

    Still though...binning or not, TSX alone makes the M-5Y71 worth it IMO.
     

Share This Page