rMB 1.1 vs 1.2

[Natzoo]

just get the rmbp its pretty thin and its more powerful. like if you get a macbook the only thing you can use is the usb-c to charge.

 

[newellj]

How does it make sense? It's kinda like an oxymoron or something similar. Custom built to order then go limit what you can custom build?

----------



It doesn't really affect me since I'm getting the maxed out but yeah time will tell. Can't wait for Friday

Indeed. Cheers and best luck.

 

[newellj]

Have you guys ever gotten a BTO? When you are finalising it they let you pick whatever upgrades or downgrades you want as bulletpoints in a list of all the options. Forget what they have on the website now, you'll see this when you're actually in the final steps of buying it online. Something like this. Of course they don't list all the possible configurations on the tech specs page.

Apologies, that really is more in the nature of an entry on the spec sheet than a real identification of the CTO plan. The whole rMB webpage is sort of goofy. Example: why does it still say "coming soon" when the Watch pre-order and delivery date are clearly identified? Anyway, sorry to go off that way.

 

[mi7chy]

Core M behaves a lot like mobile SoCs in that it aggressively down-clocks when idle to be efficient and ramps up under load. Once you understand that, the CPU differentiation is a gimmick to milk money out of consumers. The point of Core M is efficiency so the model that can be more efficient when idle should really have more of a premium. Turbo clock is another gimmick since you'll unlikely see max clocks with all cores under load and there's also the question of throttling under sustained load. From what's seen so far 5Y10 doesn't throttle while 5Y70 with active fan does throttle under sustained load. rMacbook 1.2/2.6GHz option which is similar to 5Y70 is highly suspect of throttling considering it's fanless. The other 1.1/2.4GHz option might fare better and the one I personally would go with.

 

[thewusman]

Core M behaves a lot like mobile SoCs in that it aggressively down-clocks when idle to be efficient and ramps up under load. Once you understand that, the CPU differentiation is a gimmick to milk money out of consumers. The point of Core M is efficiency so the model that can be more efficient when idle should really have more of a premium. Turbo clock is another gimmick since you'll unlikely see max clocks with all cores under load and there's also the question of throttling under sustained load. From what's seen so far 5Y10 doesn't throttle while 5Y70 with active fan does throttle under sustained load. rMacbook 1.2/2.6GHz option which is similar to 5Y70 is highly suspect of throttling considering it's fanless. The other 1.1/2.4GHz option might fare better and the one I personally would go with.

Couldn't agree more.

Well said.

Core M is essentially a sprint champion, not a long distance marathon specialist.

 

[newellj]

Core M behaves a lot like mobile SoCs in that it aggressively down-clocks when idle to be efficient and ramps up under load. Once you understand that, the CPU differentiation is a gimmick to milk money out of consumers. The point of Core M is efficiency so the model that can be more efficient when idle should really have more of a premium. Turbo clock is another gimmick since you'll unlikely see max clocks with all cores under load and there's also the question of throttling under sustained load. From what's seen so far 5Y10 doesn't throttle while 5Y70 with active fan does throttle under sustained load. rMacbook 1.2/2.6GHz option which is similar to 5Y70 is highly suspect of throttling considering it's fanless. The other 1.1/2.4GHz option might fare better and the one I personally would go with.

Couldn't agree more.

Well said.

Core M is essentially a sprint champion, not a long distance marathon specialist.

So you guys are guessing the 1.1 gHz may actually perform better? Not arguing at all, this is not my field.

 

[dexterbell]

So you guys are guessing the 1.1 gHz may actually perform better? Not arguing at all, this is not my field.

The benchmarks (if they are real) say otherwise. The 1.1Ghz was an absolute dog but the 1.3Ghz was decent.

 

[PDFierro]

The benchmarks (if they are real) say otherwise. The 1.1Ghz was an absolute dog but the 1.3Ghz was decent.

There must be a reason Apple was using the 1.3GHz in the demo models.

 

[andy9l]

rMB 1.1 vs 1.2

How does it make sense? It's kinda like an oxymoron or something similar. Custom built to order then go limit what you can custom build?

This has been common with BTO Macs, since I can remember.

The current non-retina 27" iMac is a good example. You cannot upgrade the 3.2GHz processor model at all, you must start at the 3.4GHz model to get the i7 option.

Apple penalise/limit you for going for the base one, but make the next model up just the right price to up sell.

In the case of the rMB, though, it seems Apple are being 'generous' in that you can get the 1.3 with the 256 storage. Selling a 1.2/256 would kill off too much profit.