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.
2018 mini 3.2ghz I7 temps?
- Thread starter archer75
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'm not expecting the i5 to be faster. I'm expecting it to be a little cooler than the i7 based on these finding and hoping for fans to spin up a little less often with it.
I really care about quiet operation, just not enough to get an i3.
I'm well aware of the fact that the i7 will be a little faster in cases that make use of hyperthreading.
That would be exactly my question. Any answers/experiences?
Somebody posted the video on these forums but I can't remember what thread. His i5 temps where the same as my i7 but he said the case got really hot where mine does not.
My experience says otherwise. You can have from small to huge difference in temps depending on a few factors when replacing the thermal paste.
According to the Intel spec [1], a Mac mini CPU (see table 5-4) running at 100°C is overheating:
To me this implies that the CPU is not designed to routinely approach this maximum temperature.
[1] https://www.intel.com/content/www/u...core/8th-gen-core-family-datasheet-vol-1.html
Yes, but they also have systems in place to address it via thermal management as they stated. So it can't truly overheat.
"In order to protect the processor and the platform from thermal failure, several thermal management features exist"
So they are protecting the processor. They could have set the limit even lower but choose 100c. And their systems protect against damage. So i'm not worried about it. No one is running it a full load 24/7. If it were summer and 90degrees in my house I would probably switch to my PC for encoding just to be safe.
100°C is still within specifications. It will automatically throttle if the junction exceeds that. What you don't generally want is, say a thermal solution that routinely sees the CPU go up to 101°C and then throttle itself because then you get weird timing issues.
Still, you're right, I should have been more specific when quoting StellarVixen's exact 100°C value. In actuality, when I loaded the i7 to 99.8% (effectively 100%) using 12 spin loops (the worst non AVX load possible) my temps were averaging around 96°C with occasional flirtations up to 100°C. This is totally fine; empirically modern Intel CPUs can operate at this temperature for years on end if the PCB is well designed.
I'm actually pleased that Apple's (hopefully purposefully) thermal management lets the CPU get up to its maximum TDP and stay there without getting loud. Would I like to see some official way to push this further if the Mini is in a controlled environment that can move heat quickly? Yes. Would I like to see the ability to do the reverse and throttle it for noise considerations? Yes. But the way it is now is fine.
No one's Mini is going to die because the CPU gets up to 96°C while gaming or transcoding video.
Yeah, it's fine. Unfortunately there's a lot of unsubstantiated "wisdom" in the enthusiast community that a CPU has to be at 60C or 50C or 80C or whatever magic temperature in order to run best and/or last the longest. I think a lot of that is people pulling numbers out of their ass that feel "good", and some of it is legitimate confusion over the purpose of lowering temperatures when overclocking.
When overclocking, you *want* extra low temperatures so that when you push the CPU beyond its rated TDP (i.e. "overclock" it) you keep its junction temperature down low enough that it never throttles. So if someone is able to lower their idle temp down from 50C to 40C with an improved thermal solution, they've likely increased the headroom they have to overclock and get a better result.
However, in a designed system like the Mini, you don't get any advantage (with a few exceptions mostly involving AVX) by lowering temperatures any further once they are already low enough for the CPU to reach full TDP. Empirically, we've not seen where running a CPU at 90C 24/7 reduces its useful lifespan any more than running at 80C or 60C. At some point, Apple had to balance noise, cost and junction temperature when designing the Mini and their decisions resulted in a machine that can run right up against the designed limits of the CPU but never exceed them.
If one's goal is to run the Mini for 20 years or overclock it then the above doesn't apply. In that case, sure, cooling could have been better.
As for the PCB - yes, if it's poorly designed or laid out then CPU temperatures can become an issue for other components or the board warping. The new Mini is too young for me to know if Apple screwed this up, but I highly doubt it.
Last edited:
Wow, I hope not many people believe this.
Trying to excuse Apple or anyone else as they are not the only ones doing **** job at this, is just so unbelievably censored.
People are not worried for the CPU reaching temps of 100C because of overclocking concerns.
Also don't forget the damage done to the lifespan of capacitors in general due to higher temps.
Low temps are GOOD.
You are comparing it to 8400, there i5 in Mac Mini is 8500.
But still, i7 is more powerful.
That's odd. The geekbench site says it's an 8400. But maybe that's an error?
https://browser.geekbench.com/macs/436
Either way, not a "little" difference!
https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-8700-vs-Intel-Core-i5-8500/3940vsm447884
What part, specifically?
Yes, higher junction temperatures do reduce the life of nearby capacitors if the heat is not properly removed by the thermal solution. My sentence "CPU temperatures can become an issue for other components" was meant to be broadly inclusive of points such as this.
Within reason, yes, definitely.
You are comparing the wrong CPU's. It's Core i7-8700B vs Core i5-8400.
Comparison -> https://browser.geekbench.com/macs/434 Klick on 'Multi-Core' button.
This is the quality of power consumption eval I'm looking for in a review. This was from 2014 review here:
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/201...e-were-hoping-for-the-2014-mac-mini-reviewed/
Waiting for Ars Technica and AnandTech this time in 2018!
According to everymac.com, the 2014 Mini was released on 10/16/18 and the Ars review was dated 11/6 so it might be another 10 days but c'est la vie!
[doublepost=1541803626][/doublepost]
Will this cause my MBA to explode?
[doublepost=1541804116][/doublepost]
But how low it too low?
Last edited:
Yeah, Puget Systems does good work. Their temperature targets are much better rooted in practical experience than the misinformation you often see in overclocker's forums and guides.
I take it from your lack of any comment though that you feel this article refutes what I said, which it doesn't. 80-85C is where this company felt comfortable speccing out their systems in 2014. An article (well reasoned as it is) from a custom shop does not refute what we've been empirically observing of Intel CPUs since they started pushing their 14nm tech to its limits. They run very hot when fully loaded.
Apple has a different temperature target from Puget and a forum back-and-forth quibbling over whether the CPU should be at 85C or 95C when 100% loaded is not something I'm interested in. The CPU in the Mini is well within tolerance. The Mini has only been out for two days. If we start seeing higher than normal defect rates due to CPU or nearby component failures then it's worth revisiting this discussion. We almost certainly won't.
Last edited: