Perhaps if the ambiant temperature is very hot and the computer is in direct sunlight... Not that operating it in direct sunlight is a good idea, but it does happen
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.
Macbook Air - 95-100C while gaming
- Thread starter Biscuitz
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Perhaps if the ambiant temperature is very hot and the computer is in direct sunlight... Not that operating it in direct sunlight is a good idea, but it does happen
Of course Apple states acceptable operating temperature ranges for where you operate a MBA, and those are 50° to 95° F (10° to 35° C).Perhaps if the ambiant temperature is very hot and the computer is in direct sunlight... Not that operating it in direct sunlight is a good idea, but it does happen
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)
These figures are te ambient room temp at which the system should be run in.
Also, yes, non-gaming on these systems should be 45-50*C idle, 55-60* regular use. You can't expect those temps when you are maxing out CPU/GPU/RAM continuously for an extended amount of time.
EDIT: Its too early. Haha. You were already citing this as ambient temp. Sorry.GGJstudios said:mrsir2009 said:Perhaps if the ambiant temperature is very hot and the computer is in direct sunlight... Not that operating it in direct sunlight is a good idea, but it does happen
Of course Apple states acceptable operating temperature ranges for where you operate a MBA, and those are 50° to 95° F (10° to 35° C).
These figures are te ambient room temp at which the system should be run in.
Also, yes, non-gaming on these systems should be 45-50*C idle, 55-60* regular use. You can't expect those temps when you are maxing out CPU/GPU/RAM continuously for an extended amount of time.
You really shouldn't make claims like "prolonged heat produced by your macbook air will not appreciably affect battery life". You are basing it on nothing but personal anecdotes.
You are clearly not an expert. It is more than logical to think that constantly running your MacBook Air at near max temps will have an affect on battery life after some time.
Or it's based on things like science. But anyone is free to believe whatever they want to about the effect of heat on things like battery & computer lifetime.
If it is based on science then where is your evidence? Science is based on evidence, not anecdote. If you were to believe that anecdotes are science then you'd think that vaccines cause autism, that vitamin C is good for colds, and that going outside in the winter with a wet head gets you sick.
My position is not that the OP will destroy his computer by playing games a few times a week. In fact, I'm quite sure that it will be fine. But that is my opinion and not based on any real evidence. GGJ's post was arrogant and paternal where he presented his opinion as fact.
It is logical to think that someone who doesn't tax their MBA as much, after a few years, will have better battery life than someone who is constantly playing games. But since nobody does studies on these kinds of things, the best you can offer is opinion and it shouldn't be given with any kind of assuredness. That's just arrogant.
Last edited:
Running any electronic component near its temperature design limit will shorten its life in the long term. Short term you may not see an effect, but excess heat indeed will break down components over time. In a CPU, it's usually (1) in the alloy diffusion of the N and P regions which results in a 'deformed' circuit over time and 2) internal part expansion/contraction on the chip which can lead to separations or cracks. This process ultimately happens at normal operating temperature, and this lifetime is called the manufacturer-specified MTBF (mean time before failure). MTBF is shortened by raising the heat applied and a few degrees can be significant. The Q10/2 method states that increasing a process temperature by 10 degrees will double a process reaction rate.
E.g. assume the Mac Air's CPU normal operating temp is 50C, and we run it at 60C, then an assumed MTBF of 100,000 hours, drops to 50,000 hours. If you run the MacAir at 100C, then the MTBF is halved four times down to 6,000 hours!
I have seen electron microscope images showing an aged chip compared to a new one. The aged one looks like a mars landscape a bit while the new one is clean.
Concerning result 2), the more common problem is intermittent problems where a cold spray on a questionable chip proved or disproved that the chip had a 'cold' connection somewhere internal (a small separation).
E.g. assume the Mac Air's CPU normal operating temp is 50C, and we run it at 60C, then an assumed MTBF of 100,000 hours, drops to 50,000 hours. If you run the MacAir at 100C, then the MTBF is halved four times down to 6,000 hours!
I have seen electron microscope images showing an aged chip compared to a new one. The aged one looks like a mars landscape a bit while the new one is clean.
Concerning result 2), the more common problem is intermittent problems where a cold spray on a questionable chip proved or disproved that the chip had a 'cold' connection somewhere internal (a small separation).
Please quote where I made such a claim. You should really read the thread more carefully.
Please quote where I ever claimed to be an expert.
No one said anything about battery life. Again, you need to read the thread more carefully.
How much time? Be specific and quote scientific proof.
When a claim is based on one person's experience, that's anecdotal. When it's based on the experience of millions, that's valid scientific evidence.
There was nothing arrogant or paternal about my post. It was nothing more than a reassurance to the OP that any reduction in lifespan would not be noticeable to the OP, as they would have likely moved on to another computer before such a reduction became evident. And it had nothing whatsoever to do with battery life, since that's not what the OP was asking about. You really need to work on your reading comprehension.
This is the whole point. No Mac user runs at full tilt 24/7 for months or years at a time. Even several hours out of a 24 hour day of gaming or other intensive activities means that most of the time the Mac is at much lower temps. Such a pattern will not reduce the lifespan of most Macs to the degree that the average user would see the effects, since the average user is not likely to keep a computer long enough to see the end of it's usable life.
In other words, even with these activity patterns, the Mac will likely outlive its usefulness to the user before it breaks down. Of course there are always exceptions, but this holds true for the vast majority of cases.
This is based on the scientific evidence that Apple sells Macs at the rate of around a million units per month, and if this weren't true, there would be reports of millions of Macs breaking down due to heat issues. The media would be buzzing with reports of Mac unreliability and Apple would be forced to do recalls if Macs failed to survive until most users had upgraded to another model.
Instead you see reports of people buying 2nd hand, 3rd hand, 4th hand Macs that are many years old that are still running fine.
All this quoting of data about how heat affects electronic components is fine, but useless to the average user or to this thread's OP. They only want to know one thing:
If I use my Mac as I want to use it, including for gaming or other intensive activities, for the durations that I typically do such activities, will my Mac be OK and continue to operate well for as long as I keep the Mac?
The answer is, in the vast majority of cases, yes.
I'm going to trust GGJstudios on this one. Thank you GGJ for alleviating my concerns.
After doing some gaming on the MBA and monitoring the CPU temp, I've noticed indeed that the CPU never once gets above 100C, though it brushes within 1 degree at moments.
I can clearly see the effects of the CPU throttling back to stay cooler than the Tj max, as my FPS begins at 60 in League of Legends but drops to 30 by about midgame and stays there to late game. At ~30 steady fps, the CPU temp dropped to 90-93C for the rest of the game, as opposed to the 95-99 early game before FPS dropped. The same FPS drop and CPU throttling was seen in Counter-Strike: Source.
Now that I think about it, I agree with GGJ, in that I trust Intel to set their CPU's Tj max at a temperature that is safe to run at. Otherwise, if it was truly damaging the CPU, they would set it lower. Makes sense to me.
Just to give some more info: while typing this reply, my CPU temp is sitting at 53C, which coincides with what many others are reporting on their temps during non-intensive tasks, so that comforts me.
So now that my fears are at ease, the issue now is not to worry about damaging my Macbook Air; rather, the issue is to try to get more performance out of my MBA during these semi-occasional gaming sessions. Last night, I purchased a cooling pad:
http://www.amazon.com/Zalman-NC1000...FT2C/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1328848397&sr=8-1
Considering the MBA design, I am not setting my hopes too high for how effective this cooling pad will be underneath a MBA, but I wanted to try anyway. If my understanding is correct, then this scenario may be possible: I may not notice a decrease in CPU temperature while gaming (it may still hit 90-100), but if I see a marginal increase in FPS (10-20 frames), then that is still an indicator that the cooling pad is doing its job well enough that the CPU does not have to throttle back as much.
Tomorrow, I plan on doing extended gaming sessions while monitoring both CPU temp and FPS rate. I'll try to find an average FPS rate after the CPU throttles back enough for the temp to remain stable. Then, on Saturday I get my cooling pad, and I'll do more testing and try to see if 1) The CPU temp does lower and 2) If the average FPS rate (after throttling) is higher than without the cooling pad.
I might imagine others would be interested in my results, so I'll be sure to try to put a new thread together detailing my results. Apologies if a thread like this has already been created.
After doing some gaming on the MBA and monitoring the CPU temp, I've noticed indeed that the CPU never once gets above 100C, though it brushes within 1 degree at moments.
I can clearly see the effects of the CPU throttling back to stay cooler than the Tj max, as my FPS begins at 60 in League of Legends but drops to 30 by about midgame and stays there to late game. At ~30 steady fps, the CPU temp dropped to 90-93C for the rest of the game, as opposed to the 95-99 early game before FPS dropped. The same FPS drop and CPU throttling was seen in Counter-Strike: Source.
Now that I think about it, I agree with GGJ, in that I trust Intel to set their CPU's Tj max at a temperature that is safe to run at. Otherwise, if it was truly damaging the CPU, they would set it lower. Makes sense to me.
Just to give some more info: while typing this reply, my CPU temp is sitting at 53C, which coincides with what many others are reporting on their temps during non-intensive tasks, so that comforts me.
So now that my fears are at ease, the issue now is not to worry about damaging my Macbook Air; rather, the issue is to try to get more performance out of my MBA during these semi-occasional gaming sessions. Last night, I purchased a cooling pad:
http://www.amazon.com/Zalman-NC1000...FT2C/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1328848397&sr=8-1
Considering the MBA design, I am not setting my hopes too high for how effective this cooling pad will be underneath a MBA, but I wanted to try anyway. If my understanding is correct, then this scenario may be possible: I may not notice a decrease in CPU temperature while gaming (it may still hit 90-100), but if I see a marginal increase in FPS (10-20 frames), then that is still an indicator that the cooling pad is doing its job well enough that the CPU does not have to throttle back as much.
Tomorrow, I plan on doing extended gaming sessions while monitoring both CPU temp and FPS rate. I'll try to find an average FPS rate after the CPU throttles back enough for the temp to remain stable. Then, on Saturday I get my cooling pad, and I'll do more testing and try to see if 1) The CPU temp does lower and 2) If the average FPS rate (after throttling) is higher than without the cooling pad.
I might imagine others would be interested in my results, so I'll be sure to try to put a new thread together detailing my results. Apologies if a thread like this has already been created.
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
Looks like the 2011 MBA does not suffer from excessive thermal paste application.
Quote: "Thankfully as the teardown progresses, iFixit note that the excessive thermal paste seen in other Apple product teardowns (see MacBook Pro teardown) recently is not evident in the MacBook Air refresh."
Quote: "Thankfully as the teardown progresses, iFixit note that the excessive thermal paste seen in other Apple product teardowns (see MacBook Pro teardown) recently is not evident in the MacBook Air refresh."
The CPU Tjmax is 100C on some older Intel processors. For the i3, i5, and i7 processors used in current Mac models, CPU Tjmax is 105C, GPU Tjmax is 100C. (Source: Intel)
I am curious about one thing: how exactly does SMC Fan control or iStat measure the temperature? How do we know it's accurate? Just curious.
My 2011 mba is exactly the same while gaming. 100c and a little over easy while gaming with the fans at full speed. They way I see it is I have to trust apple and intel to have got it right and for the laptop to shut down if things get too hot. If it does decrease the life of the mac it will probably still last longer than i need it and ill have a new one by that time anyway.
Battery life was a specific example of something that would likely be reduced by someone who constantly pegs their CPU at max. Especially with how compact the MBA is. How you fail to see that as just an example of what the OP is concerned about is confounding.
Your argument for anecdotal evidence is still baseless. You claim you are basing this on "millions" of people's experiences. That is simply ridiculous.
You implicitly claimed to be an expert when you so assuredly stated that the OP would see absolutely no noticeable difference in his computer after heavy use.
Batteries can be replaced, and if the battery goes below 80% before 3 years / 1000 cycles it gets replaced for free regardless of if it's due to high heat or not (which you can't prove anyways).
Running your computer at max for extended periods of time has no appreciable effect on the life of your computer or its components. Once certain people get this through their heads, the issue becomes much less contentious. There's enough false information flying around these forums already.
What i do know is that i used to run WoW on a 2008 unibody macbook, one night i heard a loud pop enough to wake me up, didn't pay much attention to it didn't think it was the computer, turns out the battery bulged so i had to get a new one, they wouldn't replace it and it was within a year still.
I also had to change the fan a couple of years later.
Your ambient temp. will also affect how quickly you can dissipate heat as well.
To the first, maybe if you're in the US or someplace with actual apple presence, not here tho.
My experience with the latter has been anything but, the cpu, motherboard and ram can probably take the heat, the fan might not like to be run at full load all the time, and the battery can be affected by heat.
I also had to change the fan a couple of years later.
Your ambient temp. will also affect how quickly you can dissipate heat as well.
To the first, maybe if you're in the US or someplace with actual apple presence, not here tho.
My experience with the latter has been anything but, the cpu, motherboard and ram can probably take the heat, the fan might not like to be run at full load all the time, and the battery can be affected by heat.
Again, what are you basing this on? Just because you qualify it with 'appreciable' doesn't get you off the hook.
It's not as if heat's effects on computer components is some kind of all-or-none phenomenon. Heat is bad every single component and its effects occur on a spectrum. Ie, the more heat, the worse it is. I'm not claiming this is novel. It is, in fact, NOT novel. Hence my request for you guys to back up your dubious claims that extended usage would not appreciably affect your computer's lifespan (especially battery life).
It's silly to go back and forth with this unless you are going to add something to the discussion. If you guys could post some actual evidence then I'd be happy to read and respond to it.
Just because you claim it does doesn't get you off the hook. Provide proof that your claims are true. You can't point to any reasonably significant number of computer failures due to heat.
The evidence is the absence of millions of computer failures due to heat. Where is your evidence of massive failures because of heat? If your claims were true, this forum would be filled with thousands of reports of Macs dying because of heat-related failure. It's simply not true.
That's funny; we're asking you the same thing and you've been mum. Your "smoke and mirrors" method of "proof" isn't flying, because we aren't stupid. You're going to have to change your game plan.
If you want proof, run folding on your Mac for a week. I can guarantee that unless you have an actual hardware problem it will run perfectly fine.