Faster CPU = more heat?

[JorgeLomeli]

Hi, maybe this is a dumb question, but i have to ask because i really dont know the answer.

Im tying to decide which 2013 Macbook Pro Retina to buy, the 2.4, 2.7 or 2.8Ghz

I live in Monterrey, Mx where the temperature´s average everyday is 90-100+ almost all year round.

I really want to buy the 2.8Ghz, and my question is: The faster the cpu, the higher the heat inside the macbook pro? i mean, if i choose the 2.4 or 2.7 will any of them run cooler than the 2.8?

Thx for your helps guys and greetings from Monterrey, Mexico.

 

[jamesjingyi]

This is quite interesting actually, a real question! I would have thought that they would have run at around the same temp maybe slightly (but very very slightly) but don't quote me!

 

[MisterKeeks]

Me thinks that you would be fine with any of them.

 

[adjeff8]

Hi, maybe this is a dumb question, but i have to ask because i really dont know the answer.

Im tying to decide which 2013 Macbook Pro Retina to buy, the 2.4, 2.7 or 2.8Ghz

I live in Monterrey, Mx where the temperature´s average everyday is 90-100+ almost all year round.

I really want to buy the 2.8Ghz, and my question is: The faster the cpu, the higher the heat inside the macbook pro? i mean, if i choose the 2.4 or 2.7 will any of them run cooler than the 2.8?

Thx for your helps guys and greetings from Monterrey, Mexico.

From what I've read the 2.8 ghz do run significantly hotter and that there's not noticeably a difference in speed, depending on what you're doing. Save yourself the money and get the 2.4. The REAL issue is SSD size and maxing out your Ram to 16 gigs

 

[Ploki]

Hi, maybe this is a dumb question, but i have to ask because i really dont know the answer.

Im tying to decide which 2013 Macbook Pro Retina to buy, the 2.4, 2.7 or 2.8Ghz

I live in Monterrey, Mx where the temperature´s average everyday is 90-100+ almost all year round.

I really want to buy the 2.8Ghz, and my question is: The faster the cpu, the higher the heat inside the macbook pro? i mean, if i choose the 2.4 or 2.7 will any of them run cooler than the 2.8?

Thx for your helps guys and greetings from Monterrey, Mexico.

This is quite interesting actually, a real question! I would have thought that they would have run at around the same temp maybe slightly (but very very slightly) but don't quote me!

Under load, 2.6/2.7 2.7/2.8(8MB L3) are hotter.
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1493888/

 

[maratus]

Hi there, 2.4GHz - end of the story. Even mighty Elitebook 8570W runs at ~95C with 2.6+

 

[xShane]

Hi, maybe this is a dumb question, but i have to ask because i really dont know the answer.

Im tying to decide which 2013 Macbook Pro Retina to buy, the 2.4, 2.7 or 2.8Ghz

I live in Monterrey, Mx where the temperature´s average everyday is 90-100+ almost all year round.

I really want to buy the 2.8Ghz, and my question is: The faster the cpu, the higher the heat inside the macbook pro? i mean, if i choose the 2.4 or 2.7 will any of them run cooler than the 2.8?

Thx for your helps guys and greetings from Monterrey, Mexico.

It depends on what applications/processes you are running.

 

[kittencounter]

The higher max Turboboost frequence, the hotter it will get. If you ask me, don't buy the 2.8 Ghz version. Waste of money and heat.

 

[xShane]

The higher max Turboboost frequence, the hotter it will get. If you ask me, don't buy the 2.8 Ghz version. Waste of money and heat.

Unless you need performance.

 

[psingh01]

In general the faster cpu will have more heat if they're all they same model except the clock speed. Probably not that significant though, however, if you plan on using it outside in Mexico I think you will hear the fans going no matter which one you get. Mine, a 2010 MBP, does that in Florida when I'm out on the patio.

 

[kittencounter]

Does anyone here in this forum has bought the 2.8 Ghz and noticed performance difference to the 2.7 Ghz version? . I really want to know. (And no I'm not asking those who buy the machines to run benchmark programs or show off specs to get chicks in Starbucks )

The rMBP does get really hot...especially while you work on many applications and it's recharging.

 

[thermodynamic]

Hi, maybe this is a dumb question, but i have to ask because i really dont know the answer.

Im tying to decide which 2013 Macbook Pro Retina to buy, the 2.4, 2.7 or 2.8Ghz

I live in Monterrey, Mx where the temperature´s average everyday is 90-100+ almost all year round.

I really want to buy the 2.8Ghz, and my question is: The faster the cpu, the higher the heat inside the macbook pro? i mean, if i choose the 2.4 or 2.7 will any of them run cooler than the 2.8?

Thx for your helps guys and greetings from Monterrey, Mexico.

Not necessarily.

But the more load put on the CPU means it gets warmer.

It uses more power as well.

I've not looked up the 2012 model, but the 2011 models have a 85W power supply, which is useless as the 2.2GHz CPU needs 95W at full load. This is why the 17" MBP outperforms its 15" sibling (Macworld) despite having identical CPU and GPU chips - the 17" has a larger internal battery and can compensate for the lower-wattage power brick. Also note, the reason why the brick gets scalding to the touch is because the laptop is drawing more power than what the brick can provide. Apple's engineers forgot that detail, as numerous benchmark sites, throttling, heat, and other issues attest to.

Oh, the casing is NOT a heat sink. This is because the CPU and GPU are not directly connected to it, with thermal grease to pit the microscopic gaps between both CPU and metal chassis. Both have a heat pipe anyway, which cannot handle higher loads - since temperatures rise to 90C or higher. This is just the laws of physics, when trying to squeeze more powerful equipment into a smaller space while keeping it light. One small copper tube is not sufficient, never mind the amount of thermal paste slopped on...

But back to the main issue, as the chassis encases the CPU but doesn't touch it, it acts like an insulator - which does not help matters...

----------

Does anyone here in this forum has bought the 2.8 Ghz and noticed performance difference to the 2.7 Ghz version? . I really want to know. (And no I'm not asking those who buy the machines to run benchmark programs or show off specs to get chicks in Starbucks )

The rMBP does get really hot...especially while you work on many applications and it's recharging.

I'd love to see power specs. Based on what you said, Apple continues to skimp on the power supply while the CPU needs more juice than what it can provide... and I'd expect CPU throttling as well due to lack of power. All the 2.8GHz is (like the 2.3GHz edition released in 2011) is overpriced, useless virtual bling because the power requirements are too high, based on the poor engineering design. Maybe that's why Apple is offshoring engineering jobs now, no American is bright enough to look at CPU specs and compare them to the power supply requirements... Which is doubly sad to say, since I'm an American and all, but - in the past - one of three main excuses used for offshoring was that Americans were not properly educated...

----------

The higher max Turboboost frequence, the hotter it will get. If you ask me, don't buy the 2.8 Ghz version. Waste of money and heat.

That sums it up nicely. Assuming the CPU doesn't throttle down due to temperature or power issues first...

 

[JorgeLomeli]

Thank you guys! Now i have it more clear... I will not buy the 2.8, cause its a waste of money, will be hotter and the difference in speed its almost zero.


Now im trying to decide between the 2.4 and 2.7... Both with 16gb and 512 ssd.

"Less Speed & Less Heat -Vs- More Speed & More Heat" not to mention that accordig with engadget, the battery seems better in 2.4

Basically i will use it for sufring, photoshop, editing HD videos in iMovie and windows 8 in parallels desktop, sometimes all of this apps running at the same time.

I have 5 days to make up my mind... Next Saturday morning i will be buying my macbook pro retina 2013 at the Apple Store

 

[B...]

My vote for 2.4. 2.7 is faster slightly with 2 MB more cache. Your uses are not super-intense, so the extra 300 MHz and little bit more cache should not impact you. Plus, it is cheaper and will get less hot.

 

[dusk007]

I would always go for the slower. The truth is faster speed is something you will never ever notice unless you compare benchmark scores or directly compare two notebooks next to each other. Rule of thumb used to be unless it is a 20% difference you need super human capabilities to notice any difference. It is all imagined difference from people obsessed with benchmarks and fancy labels.

The heat and battery life is something you are stuck with everyday. Though battery life difference is probably unnoticeable too. Due to the mentioned Turbo Boost the slower chips isn't even as much slower as it should be due to thermal constraints.

It is cheaper so go for the slower chip. To me that would be a no brainer.


I would comment on that nonsense about power bricks. All notebooks usually have just strong ENOUGH power bricks for a good reason. Big power bricks are heavy and people don't like to lug around heavy stuff. The battery is fine for handling peak load and the average consumption is always low enough. The CPU alone especially doesn't draw so much and in most cases other than gaming the GPU is usually not under full load too. Running Furmark and Prime95 doesn't give any sort of reasonable power consumption values.
The 2.3 Ghz model tested here need 82.5W at the wall under an entirely unrealistic full load test in Windows. If 650M wasn't loaded heavily that would be 60W for the CPU. Plenty of room for a 85W power brick to the notebook if you account for efficiency the notebook can consume even a bit more. When it goes beyond 100W at the wall the power brick has reached its limit assuming 85% efficiency and the battery can supply whatever else is needed.
The power supply need only handle the average consumption and it can do that just fine even if it consumes 10-15W more which is probably a pessimistic assumption.

 

[saturnotaku]

Big power bricks are heavy and people don't like to lug around heavy stuff.

If Razer, a company with far less R&D capital, can design and produce a slim-line, light-weight 120W AC adapter for its notebook, surely it is not beyond Apple's capability to do so as well.

Edit: The 85W Apple adapter is no lightweight itself, and if you need the extension/3-prong plug that adds to the weight and bulkiness you'd be carrying.

 

[snaky69]

Unless you need performance.

Unless you are making money with the computer, and every single second counts, upgrading the processor from 2.7 to 2.8 really isn't worth it at all. The difference pretty much only shows up on benchmarks.

 

[xShane]

Unless you are making money with the computer, and every single second counts, upgrading the processor from 2.7 to 2.8 really isn't worth it at all. The difference pretty much only shows up on benchmarks.

Well basically my point was still valid.

It's up to the OP to determine if performance is that crucial to him.

 

[Macsonic]

I asked a Mac Technician about higher clock CPUs having more heat than lower clock ones. He said the higher clock CPUs will yield more heat. He compared this with car engines that are faster that needs more power and temperatures are higher. I think the 2.4ghz is adequate for the OPs needs.

 

[xShane]

I asked a Mac Technician about higher clock CPUs having more heat than lower clock ones. He said the higher clock CPUs will yield more heat. He compared this with car engines that are faster that needs more power and temperatures are higher. I think the 2.4ghz is adequate for the OPs needs.

The OP plans on doing photo editing, HD video editing, running virtual machine(s), and possibly *all* at the *same* time.

I think he'll probably want to go with the 2.7Ghz.

It will also help future-proof it if he wants to do the same tasks 1-2+ years down the road (or if he wants to keep the machine for 3-5 years).

 

[Macsonic]

The OP plans on doing photo editing, HD video editing, running virtual machine(s), and possibly *all* at the *same* time.

I think he'll probably want to go with the 2.7Ghz.

It will also help future-proof it if he wants to do the same tasks 1-2+ years down the road (or if he wants to keep the machine for 3-5 years).

Hi xShane. If JorgeLomeli would opt for the 2.7ghz it would be his call. Just sharing my opinion 2.4ghz would be adequate. You avatar looks good by the way.

 

[dusk007]

If Razer, a company with far less R&D capital, can design and produce a slim-line, light-weight 120W AC adapter for its notebook, surely it is not beyond Apple's capability to do so as well.

Image

Edit: The 85W Apple adapter is no lightweight itself, and if you need the extension/3-prong plug that adds to the weight and bulkiness you'd be carrying.

That would be a nice thing in general even at the current capacity. If you store it into a normal bag thinner is better. According to Razer it is a custom design that costs 6 times as much as a normal one. It also looks just like the Apple one only sliced in two and just thinner and longer.
Still I don't really see the need for a higher capacity unless you want to be able to charge and do stuff at full load at the same time. My MBP is most of the time at low load and even under heavy use it is either full CPU without almost no GPU or standard gaming workload. While gaming I rarely need to charge because it doesn't happen often and usually my notebook is fully charged when I start gaming. The CPU alone even under full load leaves more than enough even to charge the notebook while working.
If you overclock the GPU and game, you may have a point. Given how expensive the retina MBP is Apple probably could and should at least make a thinner adapter but it is Apple. They had this adapter design for ages and across the whole range. I don't see it changing and for the fair few that use the GPU out of specs and run rather uncommon load scenarios they won't hand out heavier more expensive adapter than 99% of people will ever need.

Look at Dell or Lenovo who often sell optional bigger adapters. The standard adapter is still just enough and they don't just make the bigger one standard. The few that want to feed 35W into the battery while running maximum load possible on both CPU and GPU can have it but the rest don't get them. Apple doesn't believe in options.

 

[saturnotaku]

Still I don't really see the need for a higher capacity unless you want to be able to charge and do stuff at full load at the same time. My MBP is most of the time at low load and even under heavy use it is either full CPU without almost no GPU or standard gaming workload. While gaming I rarely need to charge because it doesn't happen often and usually my notebook is fully charged when I start gaming. The CPU alone even under full load leaves more than enough even to charge the notebook while working.

Playing a modern game in Windows via Boot Camp will easily max out the AC adapter on a 2011 MacBook Pro 15, to the point where it has to tap the battery for additional power (indicated by the charging light switching to amber). That's with the keyboard backlight off, display brightness at 60-70%, and only one peripheral plugged into a USB port, be it a mouse or Xbox 360 controller.

 

[Queen6]

The 2.8 is not worth it for regular use, unless you can monitorize the performance benefit and the system may throttle more aggressively due to the increased temperatures. Since the introduction of Intel`s iCore CPU`s the number at the front is not so significant 2.8 will be lucky to improve performance by 10%, there will be no big jump, no significant difference, and more heat generated, which for a few is acceptable as a 10% improvement on a paying project makes sense, and swapping out their systems every refresh takes care of any reliability concern...

 

[cirus]

Power consumption between various SKU's. This is the power consumption of the whole tested notebook so only relative values matter.