Wrong Macbook Model Displayed.

[leepsteer00]

Ordered a CTO 13" Macbook Air i5 1.4 Ghz w/8GB Ram from Apple Online Store last week, and received it yesterday.

When I opened the "About this Mac" window, it says that this is a Mid 2013 Macbook Air.

A Mid 2013 Macbook Air with a 1.4Ghz i5 4260u cpu? That's weird and impossible. The cpu is not even released in 2013. It should be Early 2014.

At first I suspected that it may be a software glitch in my computer, but even the Apple's warranty check website state that it's a Mid 2013 model.

So I went on benchmarking my Mac, and the score I got is the same as other's Early 2014 MBA.

So basically, yes, it's actually an Early 2014 MBA but displayed as a Mid 2013 MBA.

Does anyone have similar experience?

 

[maflynn]

Perhaps the speed bump they gave the MBAs wasn't big enough to signify a name change, i.e.,its still a 2013 MBA

 

[leepsteer00]

Perhaps the speed bump they gave the MBAs wasn't big enough to signify a name change, i.e.,its still a 2013 MBA

Nope, others' are displaying as Early 2014 (At least from this Youtube Video).

 

[ha1o2surfer]

Ordered a CTO 13" Macbook Air i5 1.4 Ghz w/8GB Ram from Apple Online Store last week, and received it yesterday.

When I opened the "About this Mac" window, it says that this is a Mid 2013 Macbook Air.

A Mid 2013 Macbook Air with a 1.4Ghz i5 4260u cpu? That's weird and impossible. The cpu is not even released in 2013. It should be Early 2014.

At first I suspected that it may be a software glitch in my computer, but even the Apple's warranty check website state that it's a Mid 2013 model.

So I went on benchmarking my Mac, and the score I got is the same as other's Early 2014 MBA.

So basically, yes, it's actually an Early 2014 MBA but displayed as a Mid 2013 MBA.

Does anyone have similar experience?

Weird find, but you are right. 2013 Macbook air is the wrong label for your laptop lol

 

[MartinAppleGuy]

Keep it and sell it as a limited edition

 

[maflynn]

Nope, others' are displaying as Early 2014 (At least from this Youtube Video).

Call apple on it then? See what they have to say about it.

 

[gig]

There is already a similar thread MBA 2014 haswell refresh

 

[leepsteer00]

Keep it and sell it as a limited edition

Hmm, great idea

Call apple on it then? See what they have to say about it.

Going to call them tomorrow.

 

[Weaselboy]

Ordered a CTO 13" Macbook Air i5 1.4 Ghz w/8GB Ram from Apple Online Store last week, and received it yesterday.

When I opened the "About this Mac" window, it says that this is a Mid 2013 Macbook Air.

There was another thread on this and the trend there looked like if you ordered a CTO it showed in that screen as a 2013. The key is the model number. Look on the box and if it has a model number ending in /B it is the 2014 and /A is the 2013.

What does it say if you enter your serial number here?

 

[leepsteer00]

There was another thread on this and the trend there looked like if you ordered a CTO it showed in that screen as a 2013. The key is the model number. Look on the box and if it has a model number ending in /B it is the 2014 and /A is the 2013.

What does it say if you enter your serial number here?

As you can see on this screenshot, it's stated as Mid 2013.

 

[SmOgER]

Read other threads. You are not the first nor the last with this "problem". Guess apple made additional work for themselves with all these unhappy customers.

The point is, your machine is 2014 model, just some parts of it (motherboard probably) were manufactured in 2013, if that makes sense. This is because these machines are virtually the same and it's possible that Apple just modified remaining 2013 boards and used them for 2014 models. Even CPU in theory could have been renamed and upped it's operating clock without actually replacing it, there are number of similiar CPU examples where similiar chips are being used for several models which differ only by clock speed.

 

[JGruber]

I ordered a CTO 13" Maxed Air (1.7/8GB/512GB), mid-may, and mine reports a Mid-2013 as well.

 

[T5BRICK]

Even CPU in theory could have been renamed and upped it's operating clock without actually replacing it, there are number of similiar CPU examples where similiar chips are being used for several models which differ only by clock speed.

You can't just sell a laptop equipped with a i5-4250U as one equipped with a i5-4260U, even if you can adjust the clock speeds accordingly(which you can't, because the multipliers are not externally adjustable).

 

[JGruber]

There was another thread on this and the trend there looked like if you ordered a CTO it showed in that screen as a 2013. The key is the model number. Look on the box and if it has a model number ending in /B it is the 2014 and /A is the 2013.

I looked on my Air box, the only mention of a model number is A1466. But I dont think this is what you are referring to.

Any other place I can look for the model number?

 

[T5BRICK]

I looked on my Air box, the only mention of a model number is A1466. But I dont think this is what you are referring to.

Any other place I can look for the model number?

On the i7 model it doesn't really make a difference. The mid 2013 and early 2014 models are using the exact same CPU.

 

[Weaselboy]

I looked on my Air box, the only mention of a model number is A1466. But I dont think this is what you are referring to.

Any other place I can look for the model number?

My mistake. I should have said "part number". For example if you put a new MBA in the shopping cart at the Apple site, you see this /B suffix for the 2014 part number and that should be on your box. The problem I am seeing tinkering around in the store is if you make any changes to make it a CTO that part number changes to Z0NZ, so it makes this confusing.

I just looked at the box for my 2013 MBA (should be part number MD760LL/A) and since it is a CTO it shows part number Z0NZ0002P.

----------

On the i7 model it doesn't really make a difference. The mid 2013 and early 2014 models are using the exact same CPU.

I get your point, but in a couple years when you go to sell one of these I suspect buyers would rather have what they know to be a 2014 model rather then a 2013, even if they may be identical mechanically.

 

[JGruber]

My mistake. I should have said "part number". For example if you put a new MBA in the shopping cart at the Apple site, you see this /B suffix for the 2014 part number and that should be on your box. The problem I am seeing tinkering around in the store is if you make any changes to make it a CTO that part number changes to Z0NZ, so it makes this confusing.

Image

I just looked at the box for my 2013 MBA (should be part number MD760LL/A) and since it is a CTO it shows part number Z0NZ0002P.

Looking at my box for my CTO - it shows Z0P000029

Damn Apple and their confusing part numbers!

 

[SmOgER]

You can't just sell a laptop equipped with a i5-4250U as one equipped with a i5-4260U, even if you can adjust the clock speeds accordingly(which you can't, because the multipliers are not externally adjustable).

I wouldn't be so sure about that.

Apple's plist file has an direct effect on turbo boost, which in turn is capable of overclocking the CPU, so I'am pretty sure in collaboration with intel they can adjust the CPU values, one way or another.

Again just a theory, but I wouldn't rule this out till I'am convinced otherwise as there is too small of a difference between these models.

 

[T5BRICK]

I wouldn't be so sure about that.

I am sure. Intel has the two chips marked with different stepping information.

The i5-4250u is SR16M:
http://ark.intel.com/products/75028/Intel-Core-i5-4250U-Processor-3M-Cache-up-to-2_60-GHz

The i5-4260u is SR16T:
http://ark.intel.com/products/75030/Intel-Core-i5-4260U-Processor-3M-Cache-up-to-2_70-GHz

As you can see from the ifixit teardown of the mid 2013 model, it is using the SR16M stepping.
http://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/MacBook+Air+13-Inch+Mid+2013+Teardown/15042

And the 2014 model is using the SR16T stepping.
http://ifixit.org/blog/6461/macbook-airs/

Apple isn't going to sell an overclocked laptop. There are too many risks.

 

[SmOgER]

I am sure. Intel has the two chips marked with different stepping information.

The i5-4250u is SR16M:
http://ark.intel.com/products/75028/Intel-Core-i5-4250U-Processor-3M-Cache-up-to-2_60-GHz

The i5-4260u is SR16T:
http://ark.intel.com/products/75030/Intel-Core-i5-4260U-Processor-3M-Cache-up-to-2_70-GHz

As you can see from the ifixit teardown of the mid 2013 model, it is using the SR16M stepping.
http://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/MacBook+Air+13-Inch+Mid+2013+Teardown/15042

And the 2014 model is using the SR16T stepping.
http://ifixit.org/blog/6461/macbook-airs/

Apple isn't going to sell an overclocked laptop. There are too many risks.

Well I'am not convinced about anything there, but you do realize that there are plenty of chips/CPUs on the market which differ only by clock rate? That is, manufacturer clocks it differently and gives it a name very close to it's corresponding chip's model, just like the Intel did here, they renamed Core-i5-4250U to Core-i5-4260U. Now the difference in TDP would be so small when we bump the frequency only by 100Mhz, that is very much possible it's the same chip with same efficiency, just rebranded as you obviously can't have the same name for chips which are pre-set to run at different frequencies.

Also, these low-power chips could run at much higher frequencies without any problems, the only reason they don't do it is because it potentially could cause higher TDP than desired, they leave margin for error. But as I said before, Turbo Boost alone overclocks those chips certainly more than 100mhz as long as TDP stays within specs + tolerancy margin.

I feel at this point I just have to make a screenshot, cause you seem to miss the point pretty badly.

As you can see, the CPU got overclocked from 1.7Ghz base clock to 2.4Ghz while all the cores are fully loaded. That's stock settings obviously. Come again, what did you say about the "dangers" of overclocking by 100mhz? Apple never heard of it probably.

These turbo boost values are NOT built into chip neither, as simply by deleting Apple's .plist file you can disable it altogether so it will stay at 1.7Ghz at all times. Not to mention that by definition, intel's turbo boost alone overclocks the CPU only when one core is on full load, while another is resting, so it keeps the default frequency when all the cores are on full equal load therefore not giving any more computing power than stated in specs, unlike we can see it in this case - the whole 30% increase in total processing power as a result of Apple's config file.

 

[T5BRICK]

Well I'am not convinced about anything there, but you do realize that there are plenty of chips/CPUs on the market which differ only by clock rate? That is, manufacturer clocks it differently and gives it a name very close to it's corresponding chip's model, just like the Intel did here, they renamed Core-i5-4250U to Core-i5-4260U. Now the difference in TDP would be so small when we bump the frequency only by 100Mhz, that is very much possible it's the same chip with same efficiency, just rebranded as you obviously can't have the same name for chips which are pre-set to run at different frequencies.

I understand that some Intel chips have had unlocked multipliers, but from all of the reports I've been reading, only the "K" seriels Haswell chips are unlocked. Your knowledge of 2nd gen Core i5 processors doesn't apply to the newer 4th gen processors.

Also, these low-power chips could run at much higher frequencies without any problems, the only reason they don't do it is because it potentially could cause higher TDP than desired, they leave margin for error. But as I said before, Turbo Boost alone overclocks those chips certainly more than 100mhz as long as TDP stays within specs + tolerancy margin.

Correct, low power chips usually have a lot of headroom with the correct cooling and voltage. Neither of which are issues you want to deal with in a slim form factor computer like the MBA.

I feel at this point I just have to make a screenshot, cause you seem to miss the point pretty badly.

Your screenshot doesn't prove anything aside from the fact that you're basing your assumptions on an older 2nd gen i5 processor.

As you can see, the CPU got overclocked from 1.7Ghz base clock to 2.4Ghz while all the cores are fully loaded. That's stock settings obviously. Come again, what did you say about the "dangers" of overclocking by 100mhz? Apple never heard of it probably.

The danger is that not every 1.3GHz 4250u processor can handle running at 1.4GHz reliably. Additionally, can you imagine the amount of trouble Apple could get into if they were selling 1.3GHz parts as 1.4GHz parts?

These turbo boost values are NOT built into chip neither, as simply by deleting Apple's .plist file you can disable it altogether so it will stay at 1.7Ghz at all times. Not to mention that by definition, intel's turbo boost alone overclocks the CPU only when one core is on full load, while another is resting, so it keeps the default frequency when all the cores are on full equal load therefore not giving any more computing power than stated in specs, unlike we can see it in this case - the whole 30% increase in total processing power as a result of Apple's config file.

The .plist file just disables Turbo boost, not the upper and lower limits. If that were the case, you could copy the .plist file from a early 2014 MBA and install it onto a mid 2013 MBA and the processor would run at 1.4GHz.

It sounds like you don't understand how the current iteration of turbo boost works. Here are the specs on your chip:

http://ark.intel.com/products/54620/Intel-Core-i5-2557M-Processor-3M-Cache-up-to-2_70-GHz

And here is some information on Turbo boost 2.0:

http://www.intel.com/content/www/us...ology/turbo-boost/turbo-boost-technology.html

As stated in the link above, turbo boost 2.0 will allow both cores to scale to a higher frequency. Looks like 2.4GHz for your model, but it depends on the workload, maximum power draw and maximum temperature. When only a single core is being utilized, the maximum frequency can be as high as 2.7GHZ.