![]() With Turbo Boost DISabled, the 3.1GHz Core i5 model was 57% faster than the 2.3GHz Core i5. With the Turbo Boost enabled, the 3.1GHz Core i5 model was only 2% faster. We ran the test with and without Turbo Boost enabled.Īs we suspected, disabling Turbo Boost on the low-end 2.3GHz Core i5 MacBook Pro caused a huge drop in performance compared to the other two 13-inch models. ![]() This test makes use of various algorithms to stress all available processor cores (real and virtual). Current CPU core clock frequency can be monitored (and graphed) using Intel Power Gadget.) (* Turbo Boost can be switched off with a utility called Turbo Boost Switcher. The core clock frequency is pegged during the rendering.Ģ017 3.5GHz i7 = 2017 MacBook Pro Retina 13-inch, 3.5GHz Dual-Core i7 processor (Turbo Boost 4.0GHz), Intel Iris Plus Graphics 650 GPU, 16G of 2133 MHz LPDDR3 memory, Four TB3 ports, Touch BarĢ017 3.1GHz i5 = 2017 MacBook Pro Retina 13-inch, 3.1GHz Dual-Core i5 processor (Turbo Boost 3.5GHz), Intel Iris Plus Graphics 650 GPU, 8G of 2133MHz LPDDR3 memory, Four TB3 ports, Touch BarĢ017 2.3GHz i5 = 2017 MacBook Pro Retina 13-inch, 2.3GHz Dual-Core i5 processor, (Turbo Boost 3.6GHz) Intel Iris Plus Graphics 640, 8G of 2133MHz LPDDR3 memory, Two TB3 ports, NON Touch Bar We chose Cinebench because it forces all available CPU cores to be involved in rendering the 3D model. To test this hypothesis, we ran the Cinebench MP CPU test with and without Turbo Boost enabled*. Our hypothesis is that when Turbo Boost is disabled, the performance gap will grow. Maybe swapping out the crunchy options for a couple more acoustic models would have made it even more useful, but this remains an appealing six-string multi-tool and a genuine problem-solver for many gigging players.Posted September 13th, 2017 by rob-ART morgan, mad scientistĪt the end of a recent article, we mentioned that one possible reason for low level MacBook Pro nibbling at the heels of the mid level MacBook Pro was that when both are running in Turbo Boost mode, the CPU core frequency is very similar. “The launch of the Acoustasonic Player Telecaster feels like a no-brainer move for Fender, spreading the potential appeal of what is virtually a whole new category of guitar. The feel of the bevelled arm rest and fingerboard edges says quality and comfort this is an inviting guitar and that Modern Deep-C neck will feel familiar to anyone who has played the electric Player series models.” A lovely dark rosewood fingerboard and bridge replaces the US version’s ebony, but that’s not anissue for us. “In terms of feel and build, we honestly can’t find a compromise between this Ensenada-made Player and the US Acoustasonics we’ve tried. MusicRadar: The onboard voice options might have been scaled down but the Acoustasonic Telecaster sticks the landing as a Player Series model, in what could be one of the guitars to make the hybrid build truly go mainstream.įender Player Series Acoustasonic Telecaster: The web says ![]() That, in sum, is the sort of thing the Acoustasonic format encourages. That said, it can be pressed into service of many different kinds of styles, perhaps some that are all your own. It is warmer, with a little more width than you’d expect from a Tele’s bridge pickup. Fender promises twang but this isn’t Pete Anderson levels of twang. Park yourself on position one for a more traditional electric guitar experience, but don’t necessarily expect a traditional Telecaster experience. In a sense, this is a sound that almost exists outside of the spectrum of acoustic/electric tones, and is sure to support pedalboard experimentation. ![]() The sound is just coming from the piezo and as you turn the blend control it adds drive. Here is where the true hybrid tones are, and as such, there are fewer references for what we are hearing. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |