Which rMB CPU are you likely going for, 1.1GHz, 1.2GHz or 1.3GHz?

Discussion in 'MacBook' started by Jobsian, Mar 19, 2015.

?

Which rMB CPU are you getting?

  1. 1.1 GHz

    42.2%
  2. 1.2 GHz

    17.6%
  3. 1.3 GHz

    40.2%
  1. Jobsian macrumors 6502a

    Jobsian

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2009
    #1
    There seems to be some apprehension about the Intel Core M in this machine, hopefully unfounded. I'm guessing a higher propensity of 1.3GHz units sold, just intrigued as to the breakdown here.
     
  2. KrisLord macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2008
    Location:
    Northumberland, UK
    #2
    The price differential between the models is higher than I can justify for only a small increase in MHz, especially when they can all turbo up when needed.

    It will be interesting to see how they differ when benchmarked - I'm interested more in real world benchmarks from anantech rather than a quick geek bench. I want to see how the thermal limits of th chassis impact it.

    This will be a secondary device, with any heavy lifting being done by a quad core mini.
     
  3. pasadena macrumors 6502a

    pasadena

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2012
    Location:
    Socal
    #3
    I'm waiting for the real-life reviews, in terms of performance of the 1.1, and impact of the 1.3 on battery life and heat. I will choose between the base model and the 1.3 based on these reviews, and the price of the upgrade.

    I most probably won't go for the 1.2, simply because I don't need the 512Gb of disk, so the $300 difference is too much for what it'd get me.
     
  4. PDFierro macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2009
    #4
    I'm going for 1.3GHz. Not because I'm worried about performance, but because I'm already going for the 512GB SSD and this will be my only Mac.
     
  5. iRun26.2 macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2010
    #5
    I'd be surprised if you could get the 1.3GHz option without the 512G SSD. I wish they offered a 1T SSD option, but that makes it too close to the MBPs.

    I expect the 1.3GHz version to be $100 more than the 1.2GHz version (I think I'd pay a maximum of $200 more for it).

    I must admit that I find it impressive that the base model has 8G of RAM and a 256G SSD.
     
  6. squirrrl macrumors 6502a

    squirrrl

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2013
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    #6
    The 512GB Macbook will be 1.2GHz standard. Both the 256GB and 512GB versions will be upgradable to 1.3GHz.

    http://www.apple.com/macbook/specs/

    I'm waiting to see how much extra it is. I have a feeling it will be $200 extra and we'll have to wait on the benchmarks to see if that's worth the extra 0.5GHz in turbo. I, however will likely not go for the upgrade unless it is $100 extra, but I doubt they would price it that way though I guess it is possible.

    The extra $300 between the 1.1GHz/256GB version and the 1.2GHz/512GB version may be $200 for memory and $100 for extra 0.1GHz? So maybe $200 extra for 1.1GHz mac and $100 extra for 1.2GHz mac to upgrade to 1.3GHz?

    I dunno.. just trying to game it out. I guess we'll find out in a few weeks.

    EDIT: Just looked at macbook air and to get from 256 to 512GB storage, it's an extra $300... So in inflated Apple pricing, between the 1.1 and 1.2, they are throwing in that 0.1GHz for free with your memory upgrade.
     
  7. ByteTheBooty macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2015
    #7
    going for 1.1gz since I already have a really good imac with a lot of storage..
     
  8. draughn101 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2011
    #8
    I'm doing 1.3 if I can get it for $150 or less from the 1.1 processor.
     
  9. pasadena macrumors 6502a

    pasadena

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2012
    Location:
    Socal
    #9
    You can. It's listed as BTO option for both models.
     
  10. consumeritis macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    #10
    I am thinking about the 512Gb model, which means 1.2GHz. I need an upgrade from my 256Gb Air.

    Once I have decided to buy something (only happens rarely!) I don't like waiting for the post, so it depends what they have in-store. If I have to wait an extra week for the BTO version then I won't bother with the 1.3GHz.

    And if they've overclocked the 5Y71 rather than it being a custom part I think I would worry a little about the extra stress on the CPU.

    Honestly I would have preferred if they'd announced the new MacBook the day it went on sale. This month of being under the marketers' spell - without ever seeing it for real! - just makes me feel weak-minded...
     
  11. Gav2k macrumors G3

    Gav2k

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2009
    #11
    They don't need to overclock the 5y71 it's spec'd to 1.4
     
  12. Queen6 macrumors 603

    Queen6

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2008
    Location:
    Enjoying Better Things
    #12
    1.2 as I need the 512 SSD and will be upgrading to Skylake as soon as it`s available.

    Q-6
     
  13. Soordhin macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2010
    Location:
    Berlin, Germany
    #13
    Gonna get me the 1.3GHz 512GB variant, just dont know how many to replace my older MBAs. If they release a skylake version later during the year i probably gonna get that as well.

    For my needs the MB is incredibly cheap, price is therefore no barrier.
     
  14. iRun26.2 macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2010
    #14
    Same here. The second version ought to be a massive improvement. I'm buying this first version for the compact size and retina display. I think the performance will be rather low but will be greatly improved when the Skylake model is released.

    I'm hoping I can get a good resale value on this original model.
     
  15. Alloy201 Suspended

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2015
    #15
    I'm not quite sure if it's even worth going with the 1.3 option. Obviously all of us who are interested in purchasing the rMB will be using it for pretty much basic Internet usage. I'm not sure if the bump up from 1.2 to 1.3 will even be noticeable. I believe the rMB will test better than many expect and I think it's going to surprise people by how well it performs. It's no rMBP, but it will be plenty powerful enough for most Mac users.
     
  16. consumeritis macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    #16
    Doesn't a higher clock mean more heat?
     
  17. iRun26.2 macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2010
    #17
    I just don't see how the GPU could be powerful enough to properly drive a retina display but I trust Apple optimized it and made it work well.

    ----------

    Possibly, but often the faster versions are run at a lower voltage which reduces the power consumption.

    ----------

    I think the poll results, showing almost 50% for the 1.3GHz version, are not representative of what the general public will purchase.
     
  18. maflynn Moderator

    maflynn

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    Boston
    #18
    How much speed difference will you really see (real world activities) between the 1.1 and the 1.3? I suspect it may not be that noticeable.
     
  19. iRun26.2 macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2010
    #19
    That's about 20% which I think is rather significant. Most people say it won't be noticeable but I'm sure my MATLAB simulation software will be noticeably faster (20% reduction in the wait time ought to be easy to recognize...although I won't have both machines side by side).
     
  20. LadyX macrumors 68020

    LadyX

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2012
    #20
    I'm going for 1.1GHz/256GB. Since it'll be my secondary laptop. My main would be my current laptop; 15" MacBook Pro Retina (2.6GHz/ 500GB).
     
  21. Nee412 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2010
    Location:
    Sunny England!
    #21
    I'm more than likely going to get the higher stock configuration, so 1.2GHz.

    I'm buying from another retailer, rather than directly from Apple so I'll only have the choice between the two stock options. I want to bring all my data on to the MacBook and reduce the amount of external HDs I use to one, for backups only. So I reckon I'll need the 512GB, and the small processor upgrade will be a plus.
     
  22. Gav2k macrumors G3

    Gav2k

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2009
    #22
    Base speed isn't important but the turbo difference. 2.4 vs 2.9 is a significant boost. Added to that the core m now has a quicker reaction to boost up and down resulting in a snappy machine.
     
  23. Traverse macrumors 603

    Traverse

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2013
    Location:
    Here
    #23
    If i get one it will be as a portable second system. Therefore, I will just go with the base 1.1 GHz. I doubt one would see much of a difference.

    ----------

    How much of a performance boost is Skylake supposed to bring?
     
  24. Queen6, Mar 20, 2015
    Last edited: Mar 20, 2015

    Queen6 macrumors 603

    Queen6

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2008
    Location:
    Enjoying Better Things
    #24
    Skylake being a "tock" will bring a larger improvement, than Broadwell was to Haswell. From a lot I have read Skylake`s GPU will be a significant improvement over Broadwell, how much trickles down to the Core M will be interesting being the focus of the Y series CPU is energy efficiency.

    If your wanting a number I would be guessing, equally I would expect 20% - 30% easy, more so for the high end Quad Core 17`s with Iris Pro.

    The Bigger question is when will the new CPU`s be released, to me Intel will do it`s best to stick to it`a 12 month cycle, so approximately Q3 2015 possibly sooner depending on market drivers etc. and or internal dynamics at Intel.

    Q-6
     
  25. Traverse macrumors 603

    Traverse

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2013
    Location:
    Here
    #25
    Thank you.

    I'm curious about their release schedule too. I've seen some road maps that said Skylake would be out at the end of 2015. It seems like the Broadwell/Skylake releases have meshed together.
     

Share This Page