In your opinion, it's based on nothing even though there are facts presented on Apple mobile devices and that's really sad for what you are thinking.
Last edited:
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.
Kuo: Apple to Launch Several Macs With Arm-Based Processors in 2021, USB4 Support Coming to Macs in 2022
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
In your opinion, it's based on nothing even though there are facts presented on Apple mobile devices and that's really sad for what you are thinking.
We don't really know that much about the thermals of a hypothetical ARM chip in a laptop.
We don't even know that much regarding similar TDPs. For example, an iPhone 11 does about 19% better than the fastest MacBook Air, but it's also clocked at a constant 2.7 GHz, whereas the Air clocks between 1.2 and 3.8 GHz. The iPhone also has six cores; the Air has four. Would the Air do better at six constantly-clocked cores? We don't really know.
And that's not even the issue we're discussing. Your contention was that "just because it is rated for 100c does not mean it should run at that temperature". Could be? But what's your basis for this claim?
You then followed up with "The ARM-Based Macs can expect to perform better and not worry about overheat without putting a fan." Are you saying Apple's chips aren't rated at 100℃? What are they rated at?
I would guess that, as things currently stand, Apple would do better in a MacBook Air form factor than Intel. But I wouldn't extrapolate from this guess that:
- things will always be that way (Intel just improved a fair bit with Ice Lake, and they'll probably improve a little further with Tiger Lake)
- Intel has a problem at 100℃
- Apple wouldn't have that problem
That's not exactly right, your assertion does not have any support regarding it will be as bad as Intel CPU such as hitting 100-degree celsius with heavy workload. Apple ARM-Based Macs can be better due to superior performance per watt without active cooling for heat dissipation and it's a fact that on mobile device with ARM architecture had successfully achieved such possibility.
Last edited:
You still haven't substantiated why 100℃ is "bad", or why you think Apple has a different ceiling.
You probably aren't that stupid for asking such questions regarding why 100-degree celsius is bad and it's quite self-explanatory.
It’s really not. Once again, there is absolutely nothing wrong with a 100 degree C temperature. The CPU is designed with the assumption that it is running at 100C, and all our lifespan calculations, performance calculations, etc. assume that. When we design the processor, it is our intent that it runs at around 100C.
That's the thermal limit but it's not something that most people or even the chip designer recommend and it is not very good either for exposing to such high temperature that is dangerous to have any physical contact.
That is more or less hearsay or an assumption made by numerous people but not true at all; its a claim repeated so frequently that quite a lot of users assume its true.
Fyi: @cmaier IS a chip designer...
You are still making assumptions with very little basis.
Again:
- why are you so sure running an Intel chip at 100℃ is bad, even though Intel says it's fine?
- why are you so sure Apple's chips will run at better thermals?
I think that Apple's iOS-based mobile devices enjoy fanless cooling in large part because the operating system only supports the most basic forms of multitasking, relegating background tasks to being frozen with a API endpoints which mimic the behavior of true multitasking. Non-foreground apps on iOS are ruthlessly killed off without warning or only run with a significantly reduced footprint. The operating system is employing a lot of clever techniques which mean that the hardware has to do a lot less.
Simply moving maCOS to ARM does not at all imply that similar performance should be expected in that very different environment. The demands placed on the hardware with a true desktop operating system are a lot more involved than the iOS environment, and it's foolish to try to draw too many comparisons between them.
I’m the chip designer. I recommend it.
And what does danger of physical contact have to do with it? You can’t touch the die. Did you remove all the stoves and ovens from your house? How about your car? Those must be REALLY dangerous, because they get really hot.
Apple could absolutely do a fanless Intel Mac, though.
In fact, they did — the MacBook. Put an Intel Atom in there instead, or add some thermal headroom, and you're done.
Or, as you said, make the OS more restrictive.
Either way, nothing arch-specific.
I didn't even notice that part.
My actual name is Donald Trump, I'm the 45th president of the United States, you can verify it at Google too.
Keep trying.
I’ve got nothing to prove. I‘ve been on here many years. I’ve made comments about AMD, predicting things, that later turned out to be true and made the news. People know who I am, have read my technical papers, etc. But, so what. The things I say about processor design are correct, are easily verified, and anybody who bothers to do so knows it.
(Alternatively, your theory is that 13 year ago I created an account on here that happens to have the same name as a relatively obscure CPU designer, just so I could fool people? Sure. I’m playing the long con. Only another 13 years and my evil plan will be complete.)
Last edited:
Technically, that's Apple part of making macOS 2-4x less power-hungry with ARM-Based Macs superior performance per watt can provide significant improvement in battery life and heat dissipation without active cooling.
That's egregious for telling people 100-degree Celsius is safe to touch on a laptop and the chip designer is lousy as hell.
What are you even trying to say here? Are you suggesting that you think Apple's plan for macOS is to significantly reduce its multitasking capabilities in the service of lower power consumption? That makes absolutely no sense.
wut
OK, so for those who are actually wondering: no, a 100℃ CPU temperature does not translate into the palm rest of the laptop also being 100℃.
In fact, luckily, Mac laptops have separate sensors for that!
Right now, my CPU is at 55℃, and my palm rest at 28℃.
Let's stress-test it for a moment! You want to look at the parts of the chart after the big gap.
The CPU goes up to about 95℃. It stabilizes there after a while:
The palm rest also steadily goes up. But only to 29℃, after several minutes. I can feel the top of the keyboard being noticeably warm now, but not hot.
Now this isn't the 2020 MacBook Air but rather a late-2013 15-inch MacBook Pro. But the behavior won't differ that dramatically.
The point being… nothing even remotely close to 100℃ is the temperature that the user will touch.
Attachments
Last edited:
I don't believe anyone is suggesting that. For the (unaware) Americans in the room, 100ºC is the temperate water boils (unsalted, at sea level, etc etc).
Is that hot? Yes.
Are you expected to touch the CPU? No.
It is still unsafe to let the CPU run at that temperature.
[automerge]1586429618[/automerge]
It does not need to involve reducing the multitasking capabilities and Apple can further optimize the macOS to run less power-hungry on SoC with greater performance per watt.
Last edited:
It's an anecdote which not only dangerous hot and overheating is a concern that reduces the device performance.