Price of BTO options revealed

Discussion in 'MacBook' started by PDFierro, Apr 7, 2015.

  1. PDFierro macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2009
    #1
    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.
     
  2. newellj macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2014
    Location:
    Boston, MA, US
    #2
    Thanks to both of you for that. $250 is steep for the 1.1 gHz to 1.3 gHz upgrade. :(
     
  3. bibyfok macrumors 6502

    bibyfok

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2012
    Location:
    France
    #3
    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...
     
  4. iRun26.2, Apr 7, 2015
    Last edited: Apr 7, 2015

    iRun26.2 macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2010
    #4
    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.
     
  5. keviig macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2012
    #5
    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%
     
  6. PDFierro thread starter macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2009
    #6
    Yeah, we are being fleeced. But I'm still getting 1.3/512 on Friday.
     
  7. iRun26.2 macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2010
    #7
    Where are your performance increase numbers coming from?
     
  8. lbass macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2014
    #8
    Anybody know how to find these links on the AU store?
     
  9. keviig macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2012
    #9
    Several threads here have geekbench numbers posted. For example: http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1862486

    Some numbers are from the 64 bit version and some are from the 32 bit, so not completely accurate numbers. More of an indication than anything else really.
     
  10. Souli macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2010
    #10
    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.
     
  11. Queen6, Apr 7, 2015
    Last edited: Apr 7, 2015

    Queen6 macrumors 603

    Queen6

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2008
    Location:
    Enjoying Better Things
    #11
    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
     
  12. pasadena macrumors 6502a

    pasadena

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2012
    Location:
    Socal
    #12
    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.
     
  13. keviig macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2012
    #13
    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.
     
  14. newellj macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2014
    Location:
    Boston, MA, US
    #14
    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.
     
  15. PDFierro thread starter macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2009
    #15
    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.
     
  16. Queen6 macrumors 603

    Queen6

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2008
    Location:
    Enjoying Better Things
    #18
    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 http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=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
     
  17. squirrrl macrumors 6502a

    squirrrl

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2013
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    #19
    In the education pricing you save $25 on 1.1 to 1.3 upgrade. Not much.
     
  18. Queen6 macrumors 603

    Queen6

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2008
    Location:
    Enjoying Better Things
    #20
    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
     
  19. newellj macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2014
    Location:
    Boston, MA, US
    #21
    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.
     
  20. Queen6 macrumors 603

    Queen6

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2008
    Location:
    Enjoying Better Things
    #22
    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
     
  21. newellj macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2014
    Location:
    Boston, MA, US
    #23
    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. :)
     
  22. PDFierro thread starter macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2009
    #24
    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.
     
  23. newellj macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2014
    Location:
    Boston, MA, US
    #25
    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... :)
     

Share This Page