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.
Calls for Apple to Bring iPhone-Style Low Power Mode to MacBooks
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
When I had a desktop Mac, I kind of wanted something different. I wanted a small battery in it, so when there is an electric shutdown or malfunction I have time to save my data and shutdown properly.
I can see this low power mode working great for people traveling, but if ARM MacOS is really in the making, I am guessing we will see 20+hour battery life.
I can see this low power mode working great for people traveling, but if ARM MacOS is really in the making, I am guessing we will see 20+hour battery life.
In practice, the machine is usually much better at determining how it is really being used than most users are at guessing how they are using it (at a technical level).
The machine can not determine wether it should complete a task as fast as possible (max performance), as efficient as possible (balanced) or in a reduced way/not at all (reduced background activity, reduced framerates for animations, delayed backup jobs...). Lots of users would probably be fine with a balanced approach but there are instances where the edge-cases are preferrable
The reason we need this is that in last few years, in macOS, a lot of daemons keep locking up, using 100% CPU.
This is so common that sometimes I just keep the activity monitor open so I could start killing them when something gets stuck at 100% CPU again for an extended period of time.
with low power mode, those would still use 100% CPU, but the overall impact on power consumption would be lower.
I often have non-versed users ask me why their MacBook fans are spinning up and battery life is going down to a couple of hours. Then I say "yeah, your whateverd locked up. I'll kill it for you, but it might happen again..."
This is so common that sometimes I just keep the activity monitor open so I could start killing them when something gets stuck at 100% CPU again for an extended period of time.
with low power mode, those would still use 100% CPU, but the overall impact on power consumption would be lower.
I often have non-versed users ask me why their MacBook fans are spinning up and battery life is going down to a couple of hours. Then I say "yeah, your whateverd locked up. I'll kill it for you, but it might happen again..."
You could have bought a UPS, it's exactly what you wanted...
I'm currently a big fan of cyberpower's sinewave ones https://www.cyberpowersystems.com/products/ups/pfc-sinewave/
Agreed 200%. No one cares about Low power mode, when you are not even able to upgrade your machine (disposable appliance).
Thinking about this a bit more clearly (after a few days)...
I don't see any way that there is some 'magic' Pro mode that will actually increase performance over what we currently have delivered by Apple. Fans already spin up to max speed under heavy load - I don't see how this can be made any better without a physical change of cooling unit.
Thus it seems more likely that the speculated "Pro" mode is itself a customizable toggle that permits a few different options - which would be useful for "Pro" users:
1. Max performance, higher power draw, more fan noise (basically what we have now).
2. Lower performance (lwoer turbo?, Fewer cores?), less power, lower fan noise
Ideally it would be great if the max turbo could be specified from as low as base all the way up to max - maybe in 3-5 steps. That would be a great addition.
Perhaps even better would be an option where only 1 (maybe 2) cores are allowed to simultaneously turbo, with the rest kept at or around base frequency. This would maintain single core performance (where power draw is relatively low), whilst reducing total power for multi-core.
But I'm not sure if any of these theoretical options are things that are possible on Intel CPU.
I don't see any way that there is some 'magic' Pro mode that will actually increase performance over what we currently have delivered by Apple. Fans already spin up to max speed under heavy load - I don't see how this can be made any better without a physical change of cooling unit.
Thus it seems more likely that the speculated "Pro" mode is itself a customizable toggle that permits a few different options - which would be useful for "Pro" users:
1. Max performance, higher power draw, more fan noise (basically what we have now).
2. Lower performance (lwoer turbo?, Fewer cores?), less power, lower fan noise
Ideally it would be great if the max turbo could be specified from as low as base all the way up to max - maybe in 3-5 steps. That would be a great addition.
Perhaps even better would be an option where only 1 (maybe 2) cores are allowed to simultaneously turbo, with the rest kept at or around base frequency. This would maintain single core performance (where power draw is relatively low), whilst reducing total power for multi-core.
But I'm not sure if any of these theoretical options are things that are possible on Intel CPU.
There was an Adobe Creative Cloud process that would get the CPU to 100% and they patched it somehow, but the issues arent't really resolved yet. I've had an adobewhatever process that was using 500 mb of memory even though all Adobe apps were closed (including the creative cloud app) and there was no file syncing to the cloud. It's a shame that people are obsessed with hardware upgrades while running poor optimized software. Of course you need min. 1 TB of storage if Lightroom needs a 50 GB cache file and of course you need 64 GB of ram if just 2 loaded sites and something like the creative cloud app that is used for syncing and licensing need 4 GB of RAM.
yea I know a solution exists, but the fact that you have to pay extra for it and have even one more extra device sitting around, a small battery that is embedded in the desktop enclosure should be enough and much tidier. This is in fact how laptop works.
I love Turbo Boost switcher - well worth the money. Why would I "cripple" my macbook Pro? Well I haven't cripplied it at all actually. I still have 6 cores running at 2.6GHz base clock which is plenty of power to do the vast majority of my work. I love the large screen and want at least 32GB of RAM in a laptop so this is really the only game in town.
I know from using this tool an awful lot that dimming the screen, keyboard backlight etc might save a little power but it is dwarfed by the savings this tool introduces. It is night and day. I am willing to bet that many users might well need a powerful machine but *not all the time* i.e. when doing a lot of general purpose computing your computer is largely not needing to go full tilt all the time.
As mentioned the other major benefit is heat and noise. If you get a rogue browser tab or a long standing bug like accountsd and Exchange accounts then your machine has no idea that it doesn't really need to spin up the processors at max to run those things, you have to direct the resource usage which is why this tool is so good.
I know from using this tool an awful lot that dimming the screen, keyboard backlight etc might save a little power but it is dwarfed by the savings this tool introduces. It is night and day. I am willing to bet that many users might well need a powerful machine but *not all the time* i.e. when doing a lot of general purpose computing your computer is largely not needing to go full tilt all the time.
As mentioned the other major benefit is heat and noise. If you get a rogue browser tab or a long standing bug like accountsd and Exchange accounts then your machine has no idea that it doesn't really need to spin up the processors at max to run those things, you have to direct the resource usage which is why this tool is so good.
It's not the same, a desktop needs a lot more power than a laptop. The UPS batteries must be changed quite often, it's not like a laptop where you basically 4-5 years out of it. The UPS also protects your devices from power surges.
Darkmode came two years ago on the mac
[automerge]1579268672[/automerge]
The problem with Chrome is that it's constantly keeping all those tabs "alive" by refreshing them so they are updated if you ever go back to that tab. But, most people don't and thus, Chrome is just waisting power to appear "fast".
Wowa, I was looking at this the other day. I've used this method for a while to extend battery life and it works pretty well tbh. I can get a whole day out of my i9 with a Win 10 VM running when TB is disabled - I can't otherwise. It is slower though of course.
Anyway, you may be interested in this.
Anyway, you may be interested in this.
Your playing with fire...
We want performance, and when Intel gives it to us, customers turn the other way and want it cooler and low power mode options...
If the laptop fans spin without any high load, then software is not the problem..,.. Users who fail to SMC/PRAM reset is the problem..
A bit of warmth is not an issue.. under normal use.... That's not exactly hot to touch..
I bet that won't happen on a NEW instance of Chrome where you've never opened/closed tabs.
BTW, it happens in Firefox Quantum just by opening the browser, so i think they must do the same.
All in the name to increase performance...
You must have a balance somewhere.
We want performance, and when Intel gives it to us, customers turn the other way and want it cooler and low power mode options...
If the laptop fans spin without any high load, then software is not the problem..,.. Users who fail to SMC/PRAM reset is the problem..
A bit of warmth is not an issue.. under normal use.... That's not exactly hot to touch..
Darkmode came two years ago on the mac
[automerge]1579268672[/automerge]
The problem with Chrome is that it's constantly keeping all those tabs "alive" by refreshing them so they are updated if you ever go back to that tab. But, most people don't and thus, Chrome is just waisting power to appear "fast".
I bet that won't happen on a NEW instance of Chrome where you've never opened/closed tabs.
BTW, it happens in Firefox Quantum just by opening the browser, so i think they must do the same.
All in the name to increase performance...
You must have a balance somewhere.
Last edited:
This would be great. I run a MBP connected to power 90% of the time, but when I'm away from power I'm away most of the day (unless I can get some power into it from the 45w USB-C PD charger I have in the car.
I'd like to be able to select and accept a slower speed from the Mac in return for longer battery life (if I need it).
I'd like to be able to select and accept a slower speed from the Mac in return for longer battery life (if I need it).
I was hoping for some setting that makes the desktop turn into "low power mode" for 5min, just enough power to give you time to properly save your work and shutdown the system. Surely better than electric sudden cut.
I don’t think you’ve thought this through. A UPS is bulky and heavy because desktops have significantly higher power ceilings than laptops. Having them embedded into your workstation is silly, it adds heft, bulk, cooling concerns, etc for no real benefit. You also typically want it to power your monitor too if this is a desktop, FWIW, which makes your idea a bit complicated unless we’re back to adding monitor power-out ports. Also the added charging constraints can make daisy chaining off a power strip a bad idea, so your computer is now going to need to eat a wall outlet all by itself.
You’re almost certainly going to want a power strip on/under/near your desk anyway, you’re so really bothered by the space hit a UPS will take there instead that you’d take all those other problems?
If you only want battery backup and no overvoltage protection an integrated battery is a much better choice.
The reason is that external UPS perform an incredibly stupid task if you just want battery backup: They convert 24V from the batteries to 230V AC (or 115 in the US which is even less efficient). Then your PC or laptop converts that back to something between 12V and 20V DC. Desktops operate at 12V for all major loads.
I used to run a machine with an embedded battery using an M4-ATX power supply and diodes to switch between the AC power brick at 19V and the lead battery at 12V. For low loads you can just use this.
The point here is, you can operate very efficiently from DC to DC power these days. If run directly from a 12V battery with low load the PSU will be mostly passive as ATX specifies a voltage down to 11,4V on the 12V rail.
As an additional benefit when using Wide-Input-Range DC PSU you have an extremely robust system as even a half dead AC-DC power brick with high ripple won't affect stability.
This was a setup put together by myself. If you highly integrate this it shouldn't add much cost to a normal PSU. However, what needs to be considered is space. Lead acid batteries are heavy and large and don't like it hot (but cheap and ironically very environmental friendly => can be recycled easily). Should not be an issue for large machines. In case of a MacMini or similar NUCs it would make sense to go with a couple 18650 Lithium cells. Preferably LiFePO4 for safety.
EDIT: on the screen: that is something that still bothers me... I really don't understand why there never was a 12V Desktop->Screen connection. Don't have a desktop? Just use a 12V AC-DC brick off the shelf. Instead have an integrated AC power supply in the screen with a thick cable. Ironically, that PSU in the screen is often cause of failure of the screen...
Last edited:
I just don't see why I can unplug my laptop and can run for 6-7 hours on battery, and the same can't be happening for a desktop for just 5 more minutes just so I can properly shut it down. It doesn't have to run at 100% CPU+100%GPU with fans blowing at 7200RPM and screen brightness at 100%. Just enough juice to shut it down.
The Mac Pro, to talk Apple's top headless desktop, has a 1.4kW power supply, your Macbook Pro has, at max, a 100W power supply. That's not counting a display, a high end display can have power consumption that's equal or higher than the highest end MBP. A battery has to be able to safely handle peak draw. It needs a much bigger battery to guarantee even a short run time.
The conversion efficiency problem I'll give you, but it still doesnt change that the battery needs to be hefty to handle a machine like the 2019 MP + display. It may not need to be *as* hefty, but that's still a lot to have to be able to guarantee to power safely (what if someone has a couple MPX RAID modules, things powered off all the TB3 ports, etc) - and we're not exactly talking about a light chassis to begin with, or one that the people buying want to sacrifice internal space on (on that note, a lot of people buying something like the 2019 MP, particularly the rack mount vers, are going to want a UPS that'll power external arrays and such too). Minis are easier, that I'll grant you, but it would make the machine bigger no matter what and one more thing to worry about going bad or replacing. I'd rather keep the UPS external there personally, I suspect a lot of people feel the same
And yeah, the display thing bugs me too, but since we don't have that (I guess we're getting there with USBC, but high end displays draw too much power for the spec and also you end up with a problem if you *also* want them sold to be able to power a laptop.... maybe some day, some future revisions...), with a machine that's sold headless there's no way to guarantee the battery could in any way power a display then without another conversion. This isnt for a headless datacenter rack, this is for a desktop workstation.
Last edited: