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.
It's official: Macbooks have bad thermal paste applied
- Thread starter odedia
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
drake said:
On the other hand, do you think Apple is pumping these things out so fast that removing 2-3 minutes (probably a generous number when you consider how fast a trained hand would likely be able to do it properly) of labour from the process is going to add up to significant cost-savings?
Especially considering the potential damage to the brand widespread failures would cost.
The whole thing is a mystery to me:
1) Why service manuals seem to suggest so much paste, while the wiiidely held consensus is that "less is more." (I agree with this, too, just to be clear - had to do thermal paste while upgrading my AMD/Windows machine)
2) Why if this is apparently the best they can do, they didn't opt for a thermal pad, which would seem a more foolproof way of doing things.
I'm curious as to what operating temperature Apple was shooting for, and what anyone who has replaced their thermal paste has seen, before and after. I feel fortunate to be at the low end of operating temperatures (a little under 50C at idle, mid-70s at full load but quick to cool after), but I also wonder if my unit could (or should) be running cooler.
I'm gonna stop worrying about it so much, but this is an issue I'll probably keep watching to see how it evolves...
dunno. if it's a human, they can still not put on as much. There's two parts. one is the amount and one is the way it's applied. I'm sure they don't take time to thinly spread paste on the CPU, but they still don't need to pour it on.drake said:
hmm i always thought computers get that hot... i didn;t need heating in my house until it got to about 8 degrees because my vaio got so hot and was constantly blowing out burning hot air after being on for about 6 hours? and just out of curiousity, am i like the only person who never use their computers on the lap?
oh also another thing that is good about hot lap tops... in the winter you can go to bed and watch vids on it and it automatically makes it really really toasty!
oh also another thing that is good about hot lap tops... in the winter you can go to bed and watch vids on it and it automatically makes it really really toasty!
spaceballl said:
Applying too little in a hap-hazard way is even worse than too much. No, I'm certain that doing it properly WOULD increase their costs. I'm betting the number crunchers determined this is the way to go, even with a potential increase in costs to repair damaged units.
Like I said I've talked to someone who's seen assembly kits from HP (could be similar)... the thermal grease syringes are all filled with different amounts.. only some are correctly filled, and the directions say to apply the entire syringe--which if properly filled usually was fine.
@JamSandwich
I agree with the comment about thermal pads.. I mean it's not as good as PROPERLY applied thermal grease but it's really hard to screw up and works decently.
@JamSandwich
I agree with the comment about thermal pads.. I mean it's not as good as PROPERLY applied thermal grease but it's really hard to screw up and works decently.
odedia said:
Hmm, CPU tests are marginally faster... thanks to comparing the 2.0Ghz MacBook to the 1.83Ghz MacBook Pro... *WOW*, Who would think that the same chip, clocked higher might be /faster/?
As for the OpenGL testing in XBench... XBench's OGL tests are effing skewed. UT2k4 gets 1/3rd the framerate on the MacBook, versus the MacBook Pro, according to MacWorld's benchmarking. Yet, XBench says the MB is 2 times faster using integrated graphics? I call bull****. This is the problem with synthetic benchmarks, they don't mean jack squat half the time, as they are synthetic.
Run a real game, and watch the GMA950 in the MacBook break its back trying to do the heavy lifting, that even the underclocked x1600 lifts with ease. The MacBook is /as/ good in CPU tasks, but games do trail FAR behind, no matter what XBench claims.
Only thing you can conclude from the Xbench OpenGL test is that the GMA950 is extremely good at running the Xbench OpenGL benchmark. My Mac mini Core Solo pretty much beats most Macs at that benchmark, getting 165!Krevnik said:
EDIT: BTW - their Xbench results are a bit wrong, they have the Core Solo mini having a very low score for memory compared to the MB and MBP. My own benchmarking shows the Core Solo mini is pretty much the same (around 100) than those other machines, as you would expect as they have the same memory and bus speed.
Can someone link me proof that those pictures are really from the Apple service manual?
For some reason I just can't get my mind around that image, you'd think someone with an engineering degree at Apple would catch something like that and say "Hold on a minute..."
For some reason I just can't get my mind around that image, you'd think someone with an engineering degree at Apple would catch something like that and say "Hold on a minute..."
Right? You know he uses a MacBook every day. He's gotta know it's hot.rishi said:How come Steve let this thermal paste blunder occur on his watch.
SC68Cal said:
I have the service manual for the Macbook Pro PDF on my desktop. However, I cannot post or share it. There are rumors, and these are indeed only rumors as far as I know, that Apple sent lawyer-issued 'threat' letters to anyone who hosted the file on their servers. Source is here . I'm sure they wouldn't have had such a problem if someone had posted their "iMac Technology Overview" PDF. Although I can't post it, if you'll do a "little" investigation in the linked article, you might find what you need.
Oded S.
Edit: Further info about the threat letters: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1867138
I just found these pictures (in another thread) of a brand new MacBook being disassembled. It sure doesn't look like the thermal paste was over applied on this MacBook
![]()
This was posted in another thread, but for those that haven't seen it, it's a good read as the overall idea applies to MacBooks too.
http://www.macdevcenter.com/pub/a/mac/2006/05/23/thermal-paste-question.html?page=1
http://www.macdevcenter.com/pub/a/mac/2006/05/23/thermal-paste-question.html?page=1
MacBook Pro: The Thermal Paste Question said:
Good read, thanks. Reinforces what I already thought. I'm gonna leave my MacBook alonearistobrat said:This was posted in another thread, but for those that haven't seen it, it's a good read as the overall idea applies to MacBooks too.
http://www.macdevcenter.com/pub/a/mac/2006/05/23/thermal-paste-question.html?page=1
That's about exactly what I expected, and a good reason I left my MBP17 just as it isaristobrat said:This was posted in another thread, but for those that haven't seen it, it's a good read as the overall idea applies to MacBooks too.
http://www.macdevcenter.com/pub/a/mac/2006/05/23/thermal-paste-question.html?page=1
aristobrat said:All of MacDevCenter appears to be down. Let the conspiracy theories begin.
Well, the article is back up, and the findings are indeed correct /in his case/. However, it might be worth pointing out that the temps being seen for 'before' are actually a fair amount /better/ (114-117F) than what the community has been seeing (130-140F) before this article. He is already in the zone a lot of MBP owners have been trying to get to!
\Krevnik said:
Folks were getting readings of 130-140F from the bottom rear center of their MBP? I've only seen posts where the strip above the F keys was that hot.
I think you might be confusing CPU temperatures with case temperatures. No one has been reporting actual temps in that range that I've seen, even for the cooling vent.Krevnik said: