Can you indicate on what temperature the fan kicks in during normal range and how audible it is?
BTW, what is your room temp?
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.
First review about sound... fan noise
- Thread starter Cape Dave
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
BTW, what is your room temp?
Super silent. Just imported 50gb of Z7 45MP files into lightroom and I couldn't hear the fans on my M4 base mini. It's mostly the M4 Pro mini that runs louder (based on this thread).
Pot, meet kettle.
Since you're so attached to your assumptions and so unwilling to test any of them, I have come to the same conclusion.
When we look at the specs of the iPad pro 2024 (w/ 1Tb or above), it appears identical to the base m4 mac mini :
Benchmark of the 1Tb iPad pro, Geekbench 6
mashable.com
-- Single-core: 3,764
-- Multi-core: 14,586
and the mac mini m4 base:
www.theverge.com
-- Single - 3889
-- Multi - 14915
EDIT: It would seem that they're running at identical clock speeds if the scores are the same. Am i mistaken, or it this basically indicating that there's no difference in performance, meaning that the even more cramped environment of the m4 base in an iPad pro with no fans makes no difference as compared with the mac mini. Maybe Geekbench isn't as taxing or lengthy of a test, meaning a longer loop of something like Cinebench (if it can even run on an ipad), may show a lower compared score on the iPad pro due to thermal throttling over time whereas the m4 base mac mini would push out more of that heat quicker and reduce thermal throttling. Anybody able to confirm this?
- Models with 1TB or 2TB storage:
- 10-core CPU with 4 performance cores and 6 efficiency cores
- 10-core GPU
- 16-core Neural Engine
- 120GB/s memory bandwidth
- 16GB RAM
- 16-core Neural Engine
- 120GB/s memory bandwidth
Benchmark of the 1Tb iPad pro, Geekbench 6
2024 iPad Pro benchmarks crush every PC we've tested for past 6 months — except one
Apple, you didn't warn us the M4 chip was THIS good!
mashable.com
-- Multi-core: 14,586
and the mac mini m4 base:
Apple Mac Mini M4 review: a tiny wonder
This is now the best value of any Mac in Apple’s lineup.
www.theverge.com
-- Multi - 14915
EDIT: It would seem that they're running at identical clock speeds if the scores are the same. Am i mistaken, or it this basically indicating that there's no difference in performance, meaning that the even more cramped environment of the m4 base in an iPad pro with no fans makes no difference as compared with the mac mini. Maybe Geekbench isn't as taxing or lengthy of a test, meaning a longer loop of something like Cinebench (if it can even run on an ipad), may show a lower compared score on the iPad pro due to thermal throttling over time whereas the m4 base mac mini would push out more of that heat quicker and reduce thermal throttling. Anybody able to confirm this?
Last edited:
That is correct. (Though even GB shows some difference, as I'd expect. Those scores are close but definitely not the same.)When we look at the specs of the iPad pro 2024 (w/ 1Tb or above), it appears identical to the base m4 mac mini :
[...]There's no fans in the iPad Pros. Presumably the CPU and GPUs are running at lower clock speeds? I'm assuming the rationale to having minimal fan usage in the base m4 mac mini aligns to them being able to put this chip in iPads (with only passive cooling). Thoughts?
Benchmark of the 1Tb iPad pro, Geekbench 6
-- Single-core: 3,7642024 iPad Pro benchmarks crush every PC we've tested for past 6 months — except one
Apple, you didn't warn us the M4 chip was THIS good!
-- Multi-core: 14,586
and the mac mini m4 base:
-- Single - 3889Apple Mac Mini M4 review: a tiny wonder
This is now the best value of any Mac in Apple’s lineup.
-- Multi - 14915
EDIT: It would seem that they're running at identical clock speeds if the scores are the same. Am i mistaken, or it this basically indicating that there's no difference in performance, meaning that the even more cramped environment of the m4 base in an iPad pro with no fans makes no difference as compared with the mac mini. Maybe Geekbench isn't as taxing or lengthy of a test, meaning a longer loop of something like Cinebench (if it can even run on an ipad), may show a lower compared score on the iPad pro due to thermal throttling over time whereas the m4 base mac mini would push out more of that heat quicker and reduce thermal throttling. Anybody able to confirm this?
IIRC, the M4 P core has a maximum speed of ~4.5GHz in the Max, ~4.4GHz otherwise. But it will not stay at that speed for long due to thermal constraints. The more constrained the system is, the shorter that time. In the iPad, you're unlikely to have it run at that speed long enough to complete even most short benchmarks. In the mini, it may, or it will downshift less.
Ultimately, if your job runs for long enough, the machine will reach a steady state define by its ability to remove heat. The M4 iPad can just radiate heat away from its surfaces, while the Mini can blow out hot air. So the Mini will, all other things being equal, settle at a higher speed (or, higher average speed, as it may cycle depending on hysteresis choices).
Of course, all other things sometimes are not equal. Apple may decide that desktops can hold a higher steady-state temperature than a handheld, due to human factors ("ouch, my hand!").
This is true, BTW, of pretty much all modern high-performance chips. The M1 was a bit of an outlier because it ran at such low clocks.
Very quiet but not silent. Mine hits 105 C exporting video though.
Youtubers already have run the M4 base mini for prolonged stress runs and it does indeed throttle just a little bit with prolonged loads. I'm pretty sure the ipad M4's will throttle much sooner. If you force the fans to run 100%, then the M4 doesn't even throttle at all in the mini. We'll have to wait for the M4 MBA to release to do a full comparison, but I'm pretty sure it'll behave similarly to how the M1 fanless MBA vs the M1 Mini 4 years ago when it comes to throttling.When we look at the specs of the iPad pro 2024 (w/ 1Tb or above), it appears identical to the base m4 mac mini :
There's no fans in the iPad Pros. Presumably the CPU and GPUs are running at lower clock speeds? I'm assuming the rationale to having minimal fan usage in the base m4 mac mini aligns to them being able to put this chip in iPads (with only passive cooling). Thoughts?
- Models with 1TB or 2TB storage:
- 10-core CPU with 4 performance cores and 6 efficiency cores
- 10-core GPU
- 16-core Neural Engine
- 120GB/s memory bandwidth
- 16GB RAM
- 16-core Neural Engine
- 120GB/s memory bandwidth
Benchmark of the 1Tb iPad pro, Geekbench 6
-- Single-core: 3,7642024 iPad Pro benchmarks crush every PC we've tested for past 6 months — except one
Apple, you didn't warn us the M4 chip was THIS good!
-- Multi-core: 14,586
and the mac mini m4 base:
-- Single - 3889Apple Mac Mini M4 review: a tiny wonder
This is now the best value of any Mac in Apple’s lineup.
-- Multi - 14915
EDIT: It would seem that they're running at identical clock speeds if the scores are the same. Am i mistaken, or it this basically indicating that there's no difference in performance, meaning that the even more cramped environment of the m4 base in an iPad pro with no fans makes no difference as compared with the mac mini. Maybe Geekbench isn't as taxing or lengthy of a test, meaning a longer loop of something like Cinebench (if it can even run on an ipad), may show a lower compared score on the iPad pro due to thermal throttling over time whereas the m4 base mac mini would push out more of that heat quicker and reduce thermal throttling. Anybody able to confirm this?
not to go too off topic,
but it looks like it was the quickbooks online desktop app, which is an electron app, that was sucking up all the juice
I think was just using quickbooks in safari on the other machine
some quick not super scientific testing seemed to show the quickbooks app using nearly 10x the power to complete a task as doing the same on the quickbooks website in safari
seems pretty crazy but that's what it looked like
on 16" MacBook Pro Cinebench hits 105-107
fans don't even turn on till around 90 and not really audible till 100
Honestly, I would have prefered if they just added front ports to the existing design. It's not like the old Mac mini was big
The same, but then we wouldn't have anything to talk about except how quiet and high-performing the M4 Pro is compared to everything else available. I'm pretty confident that this form factor will prove to be a mistake in the future, but time will tell.
If I had two rooms with similar heat and cold units to handle temp, the larger room might take longer to be out of range (too hot or cold) but also would need more energy and longer to heat up or cool down. Okay, we can all see that similarity to what you are saying. However, the architecture of the old Mini vs M4 mini is sufficiently different that a comparison of this sort doesn't work. We can't use the phrase "all things being equal" as this is nearly apples and oranges (in my opinion). I am not fully disagreeing with you but believe there is more things to consider.
BTW, I meant to say earlier: That could have been true, had Apple chosen to implement DFVS for the M4 differently, as the M4 is more efficient iso-clock. It is probably occasionally true in real life.
But in general, it won't be true, because Apple decided that they could afford to give up some efficiency in favor of higher maximum performance. So the M4 will often use more total energy for a specific fixed task than will the M3.
If you use fan control software to prevent it from running at maximum clocks, then it will be true (assuming you can fix the fan speed to where it clocks faster than the M3, but not a lot faster).
I would prefer the old design just because my 2012 fits perfectly on it's side on a shelf as a home file server and when I buy one of these in 5 or 6 years it will have a larger footprint despite being technically smaller
edit: maybe it's time to look for a base m1. I will miss being able to swap drives like in the 2012
Last edited:
Fan kicks in around 73-75C and not too bad but when it hits 90c+ it gets going pretty loud to me. Also if you run at max fans and higher temps you need another computer system for sure. Only thing I can say is it cools down rapidly. So as software is stopped the temps go down in a hurry fan quiets down. I would say lower temperatures mentioned 30c-80C would be fine.
The room Temp was 23C and computer at 3ft away directly in front of me. So under desk or out of the way would be fine also. This was my own stress test with a Video game Sim. Day to day lower graphics settings gaming would be fine also. The Sim game I'm testing was @ Ultra Every thing. Did well for 20 core GPU. Lower settings around High to Medium graphics were fine with light fan and lower heat around the 60s-c or less on some games I tried out that were not so demanding.
Hope this helps. AAA-games on ultra setting need more GPUS cores for sure. I new this going in the tests.
No complaints here.
So for those here who are also intersted in the M4 for audio production, this just dropped yesterday. There is also comments from James saying he is working on a noise and thermals video, and a Mac mini M4/M4 pro comparison in comments. This was in his Q&A.
Q: Are the fans loud when the CPU is maxed out? A: Not for 16-inch MacBook Pros, even on High Power Mode, IMO. However, the 14-inch M4 Pro MacBook Pro’s fans do get really loud on High Power Mode. I plan to make a dedicated video to discuss this!
M4 Pro MacBook Pro: HUGE Leap for Music Production | M4 Pro vs M3 Pro vs M2 Pro vs M1 Pro
Q: Are the fans loud when the CPU is maxed out? A: Not for 16-inch MacBook Pros, even on High Power Mode, IMO. However, the 14-inch M4 Pro MacBook Pro’s fans do get really loud on High Power Mode. I plan to make a dedicated video to discuss this!
M4 Pro MacBook Pro: HUGE Leap for Music Production | M4 Pro vs M3 Pro vs M2 Pro vs M1 Pro
I wouldn't think it would make a difference at all, in fact I was thinking of trying this out when mine arrives but actually running it upside down, I feel it would actually work better inverted, keeping it slightly raised off the table to allow air underneath too.
That's a good basic guide, just wanted to add a little side note. A very condensed bit of CPU history and why we got to this stage. If we go back a while, CPU's ran at 1 frequency, for example 1GHz, and that was where it sat. Though there was a pastime some got into, overclocking, to push these processors for more performance. As time went on CPU manufacturers (most likely due to their marketing departments so they could state bigger performance increases) started implementing auto-overclocking in a way. The chip was pushed (via an algorithm) to a higher frequency for more performance, how much extra performance you got was affected by a thermal wall.
The thermal wall was reached when the heatsink absorbed as much heat as it could from the CPU, reaching the CPU's temp threshold, and the fans cooling capability was less than the incoming heat. So the CPU "throttled" down to reduce heat output to allow sustained performance and the cooler to bring temps down. This is why you see a chips run really high frequencies, then drop a lot, before coming back up a bit and stabilising. There are so many variables here for a manufacturer to find that sweet spot and sometimes they don't get it right. It is important to remember though that this is normal CPU operation now and that throttling is not flaw (or a dirty word). In the early days the "boost" clock could run for seconds to minutes, and eventually infinitely with elaborate water cooling set ups. To see Apple has gotten to 10-15 minutes in this tiny thing is pretty impressive. The same thing would happen in the M4 ipad, but obviously the thermal wall would be hit much faster as it has no fan.
This is how we got to chips having an all core base clock and an "up to" max frequency. Marketing departments needed bigger numbers each year to impress consumers, consumers wanted more performance than could be gained each year, so things got pushed and it was a natural evolution to give more but with a caveat. It's very hard to gain performance and efficiency so it's always a trade off to find a balance that will, well basically, piss the least amount of people off. In the fine print though, the only guarantee was the base speed, the rest was a bonus.
Thank you for providing me this useful information
I have a smaller desk then you (140cm X 70cm) so if I place it in front of me, it will be 60cm away but to the right side corner it will be 90 cm away (I don’t think it will make any difference though haha).
I’m not going to push this machine for most of the time but I do want to have enough performance cores for some VMs that I’m running from time to time and some Logic Pro projects, that’s the reason I want to go with the Pro version. I’m not gaming and the only GPU task related I’m doing is some casual 4k video editing and LR Classic.
I’m living in a hot country so during the winter the room temp is around 20-26C and during summer it can reach 29C (without AC on of course) so I know that during summer time the Mac mini M4 Pro will have higher temps during normal usage but I’m not sure if my normal working load will get the CPU up to 73C.
Here is what I’m using daily:
- browser with around 20 tabs open.
- TradingView (stocks market).
- Apple Music.
- VS Code with some light Python scripts.
- TablePlus (running a local SQL server for my own usage).
- Terminal.
- Lightroom (24 megapixels photos, so nothing crazy).
- Discord open all the time.
- Zoom calls.
- Excel / Numbers.
- Apple Notes / Pages.
- LLMs - personal usage - just starting to play with that.
I‘m not the type of person that keeps too many applications open simultaneously just because it makes me click too many time on cmd + tab to switch between apps lol.
Do you think during this normal usage, the CPU will get to 73C?
P.S - just in case possible, it will be very helpful if you can record a short video during normal usage, medium load and heavy loads and just click on your mouse so we can have a reference point to how loud the fan runs
Ok, so I have NOT had the M4 Mini Pro (base) long enough to test it extensively yet, but my initial impressions are very good - I have not heard the fans at all. Also bear in mind it's November here in the UK, so the weather is cool
What have I tested so far:
- The mini, as you would expect, doesn't even break a sweat for general usage (web browsing, watching 4K videos, writing emails, copying files, installing software).
- Editing 4K footage in Resolve is buttery smooth. The mini handles this with ease.
- Exporting long 4K videos did make the mini quite warm (I wouldn't say hot), but I didn't notice any discernible fan noise.
- I played Tomb Raider for about 15 minutes (yea not very long) - the mini got slightly warm, but not as much as exporting the video. I will need to test a more intensive game for longer periods of time to get any useful data out of gaming on the mini pro.
Last edited:
A proper stress test for a specced out M4 Pro Mini, to test for thermals and fan noise:
Hint: It passes with flying colours.
Hint: It passes with flying colours.