Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Is the 11" 1.6 upgrade just an overclocked version of the 1.4?
- Thread starter Xil3
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yes. It's still a Utra Low Voltage Class CPU. Intel likes to have speed bins during testing. Some units fall in the 1.4GHZ range with others fall in the 1.6GHZ range. They are basically the same product.
It's the high end CPU of a group of intel processors.
The SU9000 series. The 1.6 uses a higher multiplier than the 1.4.
http://ark.intel.com/ProductCollection.aspx?series=36857
The SU9000 series. The 1.6 uses a higher multiplier than the 1.4.
http://ark.intel.com/ProductCollection.aspx?series=36857
Actually, here is a good comparison, which pretty much answers my question.
http://ark.intel.com/Compare.aspx?ids=36697,37264,
http://ark.intel.com/Compare.aspx?ids=36697,37264,
Nice link, thanx. I took the liberty of adding the 1.86/2.13 processors to the comparison if anyone want to see how they compares to the 13" version.
http://ark.intel.com/Compare.aspx?ids=36697,37264,36689,37262,
Thanks for the link ... Also note Intel's pricing 1.86 ---> 2.13 +$32 ... Apple is making out nicely @ $100
Okay, so the 1.4GHz and 1.6GHz are pretty much identical except for the Bus/Core Ratio with the 1.4GHz at 7.0 and the 1.6GHz at 8 and the clock speed (and of course price).
So will one see a notable performance difference with VM Ware Fusion based on these facts?
It won't hurt, thats for sure. But the difference won't be huge(it rarely is when Apple makes it a BTO option) as it had to fit inside the same casing, so if a chip was worlds faster, it also be quite a bit hotter, which would cause over heating.
(And Apple isn't going to build a case for the hottest chip, because then it means they could have cut down on thickness)
RAM is a biggie for virtualization. 4GB would help greatly when compared to 2GB
Thanks. I am definitely going with the 4GB of RAM. I was planning on going with the 1.6GHz but had second thoughts when seeing the comparison chart. But I will stick with my original plan and get the 1.6GHz. Like you said, "It won't hurt, that for sure."
Apple isn't necessarily profiting as much as you'd think. You have to take into account the logistics of having to supply and support multiple processor configurations for the product. However, it's very likely that they're making at least $30 from the processor.
To the OP: Not all processors are equal - there are noticeable variations among processors that were cut from the same die, even. That's why AMD sells those cheaper tri- and hex- core processors. Some were made as quad-cores, but didn't pass QA... However, they work perfectly with disabled cores. It's kind of a similar philosophy with these chips (sometimes). The 1.6GHz will probably run hotter than the 1.4.
I think the FSB's are the same for the 1.4 vs 1.6. You're purely just getting a higher frequency multiplier. It's from a unit level, the exact piece of hardware. Just running at a higher frequency. That should be the ONLY difference.
That's what I did as well. The main purpose is to run Win 7 through Fusion (mostly Outlook and OneNote) so even a little extra horsepower may help.
Based on this cpu benchmark, the 1.6ghz is almost as fast as the 1.86ghz:
Specs were taken from this site: cpubenchmark
Code:
CPU Name Passmark Grade Rank TDP
(higher is better) (lower is better) (watt)
Intel Core2 Duo U9400 @ 1.40GHz 963 507 10
Intel Core2 Duo U9600 @ 1.60GHz 1129 448 10
Intel Core2 Duo L9400 @ 1.86GHz 1211 420 17
Intel Core2 Duo L9600 @ 2.13GHz 1467 342 17Specs were taken from this site: cpubenchmark