Every time there’s a high-temp discussion, people talk about lifespan of the CPU. I’ve never read of a CPU burning out on a Mac. Seems like it’s all anecdotal worry (if that) if you ask me, - all fear-mongering.
It seems that GPUs have had a much more pronounced failure rate for Apple (NVIDIA 8600M GT, Radeon 6750M/6770M, NVIDIA GT 650M, ATI Radeon M290/M295X).
It is possible that CPUs have failed and the whole motherboard has required replacement, but Apple has not issued a motherboard repair program that I can recall, even though they have instituted several GPU/Video Issue related Repair Programs in recent years.
I think if Apple is using 5-7 after the end of manufacturing as a general guide before ending formal support on a particular computer, you are seeing anywhere from 7-10 total years of life expected from a Mac. Some may live longer lives, some may live shorter lives, but I think they have lived full lives at this point, because either the parts are now harder to obtain, especially from Intel or the technology itself has moved on.
Some users would call that planned obsolesecense, but it is no different than what we experience for other items purchased in our lifetimes, such as a car, a refrigerator or a TV. Technology advances and companies cannot keep manufacturing parts for obsolete tech. Example: Try to find a brand new IDE hard drive for an older Power Mac G3 or G4. Pretty much impossible, although converters do exist for SATA to IDE. The next question would be why would someone do that anyways other than for an application that has never transitioned to Intel and runs some sort of critical equipment to which an alternative was never built or a vintage computer collector. In other words, edge cases.
In 4-5 years, finding a 300-Series motherboard that would work with a Coffee Lake CPU will be impossible to find new and a tad more difficult used. Anecdotally, I think Intel only expects 5-7 years total on it consumer CPUs, maybe longer for the Core X-Series and I think the minimum for the Xeon is 10 years.
My long-winded point is that all of the gnashing of teeth regarding thermal throttling and Apple not building properly cooled enclosures ignores quite a bit of market reality, the realities of simply engineering anything beyond a beige or black mini-tower and the expertise that we as the end user lack compared to an Apple engineer with a degree in Electircal Engineering, Computer Science, thermodynamics, et al., but yet seem to think they can engineer better than Apple’s or for that matter, Intel’s personnel.
The Monday morning quarterbacking that happens here and on other forums is overwrought and exhausting.
[doublepost=1541870228][/doublepost]
I'm not expecting the i5 to be faster. I'm expecting it to be a little cooler than the i7 based on these findings 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.
So the i7 is stable at 3.6 to 3.7ghz under load, depending on who you ask.
And the i5 is stable at 3.9ghz.
I guess that proves that the i7 runs a little hotter due to hyperthreading. More and more convinced I should go for the i5.
The delta between the Core i5 and the Core i7 is only 200MHz, which is really inconsequential considering the potential that multi-threaded operation may bring to your particular workload. If the Core i5 was 8-cores/8-threads, I think you would have a better argument for going with that particular CPU if your workload benefitted from more “real” cores than from more “virtual cores” in the i7. Bearing that out, clock speed almost always ends up ruling the day in some way, and that does not just apply to synthetic benchmarks.
Also, while Apple does not have the absolute fastest systems in terms of performance, there are a multitude of YouTube videos showing that Apple does have the most “balanced” systems. Meaning, that what I tend to see is the performance of many (most?) mass market PCs and quite a few bespoke PCs end up having higher peak performance over a short duration, but end up at the bottom when it comes to sustained performance needed to accomplish a particular task.
The most popular lament has been the lack of a discrete GPU and user-serviceable and user-replaceable storage, but the GPU would generate additional heat and take power that would not fit within the budget of the integrated PSU unless Apple chose a lower wattage CPU. The soldered storage, while being controversial to say the least, ensures a consistent experience for all users, while allowing the end user to replace the storage would guarantee that someone choosing a bargain basement NVMe stick, with barely better that SATA speeds. While faster than an HDD, almost al of the currently sold solution does not come close to matching Apple’s solution. Not without going Samsung 970 Pro or an Intel 905p, which sadly would burn a hole right through the mini’s chassi, I think. But it is sweet!
Personally,I would go for the Core i7, all day and twice on Sunday.
[doublepost=1541871259][/doublepost]I have not had a chance to read all of this article, which was just published yesterday, but it might be of some interest or help on this particular thread -
https://www.anandtech.com/show/13544/why-intel-processors-draw-more-power-than-expected-tdp-turbo
Enjoy (the nap, depending on your interest level)!
