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

Price of BTO options revealed

P

PDFierro

macrumors 68040
Original poster
Sep 8, 2009
3,932
111
Thanks to pasadena for finding these links...

http://store.apple.com/us/buy-mac/macbook-air?product=MJY32LL/A&step=config

http://store.apple.com/us/buy-mac/macbook-air?product=MJY42LL/A&step=config

So it's $250 from 1.1 to 1.3 and $150 for 1.2 to 1.3. Yes, it's $50 higher than most people thought it would be. I'll pay it, though. I feel comfortable now knowing exactly how much I'll pay on Friday.

Unfortunately, it doesn't let you add it to your cart once you hit the button. Looks like Apple slipped up and is merely getting ready for Friday. I was getting excited thinking I could order now and have my BTO be shipping by Friday at the latest.
 
PDFierro said:
Thanks to pasadena for finding these links...

http://store.apple.com/us/buy-mac/macbook-air?product=MJY32LL/A&step=config

http://store.apple.com/us/buy-mac/macbook-air?product=MJY42LL/A&step=config

So it's $250 from 1.1 to 1.3 and $150 for 1.2 to 1.3. Yes, it's $50 higher than most people thought it would be. I'll pay it, though. I feel comfortable now knowing exactly how much I'll pay on Friday.

Unfortunately, it doesn't let you add it to your cart once you hit the button. Looks like Apple slipped up and is merely getting ready for Friday. I was getting excited thinking I could order now and have my BTO be shipping by Friday at the latest.
Click to expand...

Thanks to both of you for that. $250 is steep for the 1.1 gHz to 1.3 gHz upgrade. :(
 
I was planning on getting the 1.3 over the 1.2 but 150€ on 1800€ is too much.
Is there a way to find the model number for the EU store? As is does not work on FR pages...
 
That's a lot of cash, especially considering that Apple isn't paying Intel any more money for more advanced chips. I feel like I am being fleeced!

(But, darn it, I'll still probably pay for it anyway)

It sure would be nice to know how these machines compare by a reviewer who is able to test both of them at the same time.
 
Last edited:
PDFierro said:
Thanks to pasadena for finding these links...

http://store.apple.com/us/buy-mac/macbook-air?product=MJY32LL/A&step=config

http://store.apple.com/us/buy-mac/macbook-air?product=MJY42LL/A&step=config

So it's $250 from 1.1 to 1.3 and $150 for 1.2 to 1.3. Yes, it's $50 higher than most people thought it would be. I'll pay it, though. I feel comfortable now knowing exactly how much I'll pay on Friday.

Unfortunately, it doesn't let you add it to your cart once you hit the button. Looks like Apple slipped up and is merely getting ready for Friday. I was getting excited thinking I could order now and have my BTO be shipping by Friday at the latest.
Click to expand...

First of all, thanks for sharing this!
Hopefully the configs will show up on other country sites soon. I personally am curious to see the Norwegian prices, but % increases should be roughly the same so easy to calculate.

Quite steep, but as expected.

If we look at the Geekbench scores and compare them to the price increase:

Price:
1.1Ghz to 1.3Ghz: 19,25%
1.2Ghz to 1.3Ghz: 9,38%

Performance:
1.1Ghz to 1.3Ghz: 30-35%
1.2Ghz to 1.3Ghz: 10-15%
 
iRun26.2 said:
That's a lot of cash, especially considering that Apple isn't paying Intel any more money for more advanced chips. I feel like I am being fleeced!

(But, darn it, I'll still probably pay for it anyway)

It sure would be nice to know how these machines compare by a reviewer who is able to test both of them at the same time.
Click to expand...

Yeah, we are being fleeced. But I'm still getting 1.3/512 on Friday.
 
keviig said:
First of all, thanks for sharing this!
Hopefully the configs will show up on other country sites soon. I personally am curious to see the Norwegian prices, but % increases should be roughly the same so easy to calculate.

Quite steep, but as expected.

If we look at the Geekbench scores and compare them to the price increase:

Price:
1.1Ghz to 1.3Ghz: 19,25%
1.2Ghz to 1.3Ghz: 9,38%

Performance:
1.1Ghz to 1.3Ghz: 20-25%
1.2Ghz to 1.3Ghz: 10-15%
Click to expand...

Where are your performance increase numbers coming from?
 
iRun26.2 said:
Where are your performance increase numbers coming from?
Click to expand...

you can take the benchmarks from the core-m from cpu-monkey or any other site. These aren't the actual benchmarks of the MB but it gives a good starting point of what to expect. And the numbers he posted look pretty accurate if you compare the benchmarks from those sites.
 
Am looking at the 1.2 for the storage, so I doubt I will go BTO for just over a 10% increase, and Skylake is a little too close for my liking which undoubtably will be a significant improvement on the current Broadwell, and result in a rapid upgrade for many.

If they stock the 1.3 512 SSD maxed configuration is in store I may be tempted. All the same if the 1.2 wont cut for my needs, then neither will the 1.3 as the "delta" is too small even on Turbo Boost 2.6Ghz - 2.9Ghz 11.5% nor will you benefit anything on the GPU side looking at Intel`s Spec`s.

Q-6
 
Last edited:
pasadena said:
Weird that it doesn't work on other sites. Do they all have different model numbers ?

I'm guessing you could take whatever the exchange rate was early March and get a good guess from that.
Click to expand...

If you take the price increase in percent (9.38% from 1.2 til 1.3 and 19.25% from 1.1 to 1.3) and add that to your local prices on the Apple Store then that should be fairly close.
 
Queen6 said:
Am looking at the 1.2 for the storage, so I doubt I will go BTO for just over a 10% increase, and Skylake is a little to close for my liking which undoubtably will be a significant improvement on the current Broadwell, and result in a rapid upgrade for many.

If they stock the 1.3 512 SSD maxed configuration is in store I may be tempted. All the same if the 1.2 wont cut for my needs, then neither will the 1.3 as the "delta" is too small even on Turbo Boost 2.6Ghz - 2.9Ghz 11.5% nor will you benefit anything on the GPU side looking at Intel`s Spec`s.

Q-6
Click to expand...

I am thinking the same, both on the CPU upgrades and on the possibility of Skylake prompting an upgrade. I was projecting $100/.1gHz and some people reasonably thought even that was probably too high. This pricing is a bit of a surprise.
 
newellj said:
I am thinking the same, both on the CPU upgrades and on the possibility of Skylake prompting an upgrade. I was projecting $100/.1gHz and some people reasonably thought even that was probably too high. This pricing is a bit of a surprise.
Click to expand...

Does anyone know anything about the Skylake Core M processors? Such as when Intel is releasing them? Is Core M on a different release path versus the processors Apple uses in the Air and the Pro? It seems hard to believe that there'd be a MacBook refresh in September.
 
newellj said:
I am thinking the same, both on the CPU upgrades and on the possibility of Skylake prompting an upgrade. I was projecting $100/.1gHz and some people reasonably thought even that was probably too high. This pricing is a bit of a surprise.
Click to expand...

To me it`s the better option, as if the MacBook meets my performance needs I will ASAP, equally I will also upgrade to Skylake as the graphics performance will be a significant jump on Broadwell`s, and CPU performance will also be raised.

At very best with the 1.3 the system will be only 300Mhz faster, with no improvement in GPU frequency. As a rule higher clock speeds equals higher temperatures, however Core M is more like a mobile SOC with extremely rapid boosting and aggressively clocking down to near sleep states so same rules may not apply.

There has been some excellent testing and verification on the MBP forum (see https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1731178/ ) and indicates higher frequencies do not always equate to vastly improved performance or sustained full loads. Until the new MacBook is released and can be tested in depth we simply wont know if the 1.1 is too weak or the 1.3 more likely to thermally throttle. The 1.2 in the mid ground appears superficially to be the safer bet.

Q-6
 
PDFierro said:
Does anyone know anything about the Skylake Core M processors? Such as when Intel is releasing them? Is Core M on a different release path versus the processors Apple uses in the Air and the Pro? It seems hard to believe that there'd be a MacBook refresh in September.
Click to expand...

Far as I am aware Intel is very determined to stay on target for Skylake, so Broadwell`s reign will be short and sweet. As such I fully expect a late 2015 update or latest early 2016. My Mac`s pay for themselves so not such an issue to me, equally if your buying purely for recreational use it might be worth considering.

Franky I personally believe is that Skylake will be a vastly superior platform for the Retina MacBook and possibly Apple`s original plan. The current Broadwell release is more a reaction to the competition as Apple have no other solution on the table. Not only will Skylake bring greater performance we will likely see greater functionality with Thunderbolt over USB C.


Q-6
 
This pricing maybe turns the analysis around if you are comparing Apple MSRP to an assumed 10% discount at Best Buy: the 1.3/256 CTO would be $1550 (Apple) compared to the 1.2/512 at $1440 (BB). I am one of those people in the funny position where additional onboard fixed storage doesn't really do anything for me until it crosses 1TB, but given the lower price, nearly identical CPU/GPU performance and 2x storage, I might change plans and go for the 1.2/512. Even without a coupon, it looks like a better plan.
 
newellj said:
This pricing maybe turns the analysis around if you are comparing Apple MSRP to an assumed 10% discount at Best Buy: the 1.3/256 CTO would be $1550 (Apple) compared to the 1.2/512 at $1440 (BB). I am one of those people in the funny position where additional onboard fixed storage doesn't really do anything for me until it crosses 1TB, but given the lower price, nearly identical CPU/GPU performance and 2x storage, I might change plans and go for the 1.2/512. Even without a coupon, it looks like a better plan.
Click to expand...

It makes perfect sense to me :) Nor will you recover the 1.1 - 1.3 CPU upgrade cost down the line, assuming you plan to sell, as the upcoming Skylake will take care of that one ;) however the 512 SSD will always be a strong selling point :cool:

Q-6
 
Queen6 said:
It makes perfect sense to me :) Nor will you recover the 1.1 - 1.3 CPU upgrade cost down the line, assuming you plan to sell, as the upcoming Skylake will take care of that one ;) however the 512 SSD will always be a strong selling point :cool:

Q-6
Click to expand...

100-10x. Perfect score! And I do want that flexibility. I think the CTO machines are likely to take a much bigger hit than the standard configuration machines with this pricing scheme. Too bad - on paper what probably would have been nicest for me was the 1.3/256, but once you factor in cost and guesses on resale, that now looks dumb.

I should preemptively say that there's nothing that says that anyone should be flipping an rMB in the next 12 months. I'm not saying that I think the v2 machines will make the v1 machines obsolete, so please - no one should take any offense. :)
 
newellj said:
100-10x. Perfect score! And I do want that flexibility. I think the CTO machines are likely to take a much bigger hit than the standard configuration machines with this pricing scheme. Too bad - on paper what probably would have been nicest for me was the 1.3/256, but once you factor in cost and guesses on resale, that now looks dumb.

I should preemptively say that there's nothing that says that anyone should be flipping an rMB in the next 12 months. I'm not saying that I think the v2 machines will make the v1 machines obsolete, so please - no one should take any offense. :)
Click to expand...

I do agree with both of your reasonings, but mine is that I use my Mac as my workhorse...so I always want the maxed-out version. Believe it or not, I'm away from a WiFi connection quite a bit. So while I could get by with 256GB, it's just safer for me to go with 512. Plus, I'd like to maximize the performance of the Core M as much as I can. I'm not going to miss a couple hundred bucks, but I would miss those upgrades.
 
PDFierro said:
I do agree with both of your reasonings, but mine is that I use my Mac as my workhorse...so I always want the maxed-out version. Believe it or not, I'm away from a WiFi connection quite a bit. So while I could get by with 256GB, it's just safer for me to go with 512. Plus, I'd like to maximize the performance of the Core M as much as I can. I'm not going to miss a couple hundred bucks, but I would miss those upgrades.
Click to expand...

Yep...my 256/1TB split is probably very unusual. And if you're buying for the longer term, as you are, your plan makes perfect sense.

Even without that point, you're going to use it as your only laptop - I'm not, and that changes how you slice and dice the data.

It's all good... :)
 
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