Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

MacBook Pro 16" - best specs to minimise fan noise / heat?

M

MonoPoly307

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Jul 30, 2020
7
1
Hey guys

I'm about to update the studio computer, replacing a desktop Mac and a MacBook Pro combo that I have now, with a single computer for studio and location. Given that the desktop being replaced is a healthily-specced Mac mini, I'm looking for a well-specced laptop.

I'm going with the 16" MacBook Pro, and will opt for 64GB of RAM. That's the easy part!

There has been a lot of discussion about overheating on the current MacBook Pro 16". It appears that i9 units are most severely effected (although some feel the i7s are problematic, too), and depending on who you ask, it seems that the problems aren't combined to a specific DAW. It's clear that Logic is affected by these problems, though.

There's also a general anecdotal consensus that these MacBooks usually only produce excessive fan noise and heat when they're used with an external display. Of course, like many of these things, there haven't been any solid analytical tests done - but it does appear that lots of people have suffered these issues with their new MacBook Pro 16".

So. I'm looking for some guidance with my purchase - to try to minimise fan noise and heat to the extent that's possible, by choosing the right specs.

As context: my setup revolves around Logic Pro X primarily, and I use fairly sample-heavy / processor heavy plug-ins like Omnisphere, Superior Drummer, and a number of large orchestral sample libraries from Spitfire. I'm aware that the choice of 64GB of RAM will significantly help with performance from these large libraries.

Anyway - here are my questions.

First: Does the internal GPU make a difference to the way an external screen functions, and the demands placed on the laptop? If I'm choosing between the Radeon 5300M or 5500M (the 5600M is out of my price range), will one of these do a better job of comfortably operating my external display, and minimising fan noise and excessive heat?

It seems pretty simple to choose either, and the pricing isn't wildly different, so I'm keen to understand whether the more powerful GPU (5500M) is more capable at keeping noise and heat at bay. (I'm not overly technical when it comes to graphics, as I don't do video work or gaming.)

Second: How about the processor? The choices I have are the 2.6GHz 6-core i7, the 2.3GHz 8 core i9, or the slight bump to a 2.4GHz 8 core i9. I'm fairly confident that all of these would run the projects I intend to run... so my question relates specifically to fan noise and heat. Does the 2.6GHz 6-core i7 unit run cooler and quieter by nature? Or do the 8-core i9 processors have the edge here? Or are these processors (all from the same 9th generation family) all similar in the circumstances in which they produce heat and noise?
If anyone has experienced both the 6 and 8 core processors personally, and compared them, I'd love to hear your thoughts? (I recall that early in the piece, a few people on here posted about returning 8-core MBP16s and replacing them with 6-core units, to try to deal with excessive fan noise they were experiencing).

If anyone's able to help - either with a better understanding of these spec choices (especially the GPUs - in a music context), or your own first-hand experience with these processors and how hot and noisy they've been when under heavy and light loads, I'd really value your thoughts!

Thanks again guys!
Mike
 
Going through the same situation as you, it seems the i9 is still causing noticeable increases in heat. Most notably from the current external monitor thread, someone did a direct comparison between two models with the i9 2.3 and 2.4. The 2.4 i9 was causing a substantial increase in heat and noise.

While I know you said it was out of your budget, people do seem to find the 5600 to be quite an improvement with external displays. Otherwise it seems the 5300 and 5500 (4GB and 8GB) are prone to heat and fan noise issues with external monitors at or over 4k. Absurd given 4k is pretty much the standard now...
 
Only the 5600M version, otherwise you're going to suffer from heat, fan noise, and high GPU watt consumption.

Please don't get the 5300/5500. It's gonna be a big mistake for you. Trust me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bomby0 and pldelisle
Blkant said:
Going through the same situation as you, it seems the i9 is still causing noticeable increases in heat. Most notably from the current external monitor thread, someone did a direct comparison between two models with the i9 2.3 and 2.4. The 2.4 i9 was causing a substantial increase in heat and noise.

While I know you said it was out of your budget, people do seem to find the 5600 to be quite an improvement with external displays. Otherwise it seems the 5300 and 5500 (4GB and 8GB) are prone to heat and fan noise issues with external monitors at or over 4k. Absurd given 4k is pretty much the standard now...
Click to expand...

Thanks for your thoughts!

This raises an interesting question though... my external monitor is an old Apple Thunderbolt monitor, so it's not even 4k. Are the fan noise / overheating issues usually only occurring when a 4k or 5k monitor is in use? Or is that not really known either? Keen to hear your experience there.

Cheers,
Mike
 
Probably not. But the 100 MHz doesn’t worth the extra price tag for it.
Spend the amount on 32 GB of RAM instead of a 100 MHz more on base clock. It worth it much more and will make it last a bit longer. 16GB is basically the bare minimum today for a power user. 32 GB will be confortable for tomorrow. But you were already going with 64 GB. Maybe spend it on additional internal storage then, or just not 😂
 
Sequentialist said:
Thanks for your thoughts!

This raises an interesting question though... my external monitor is an old Apple Thunderbolt monitor, so it's not even 4k. Are the fan noise / overheating issues usually only occurring when a 4k or 5k monitor is in use? Or is that not really known either? Keen to hear your experience there.

Cheers,
Mike
Click to expand...

Processing requirements of the bandwidth being used on the external monitor is what will determine fan/temps. 1080p movie > 1080p image regardless of monitor. Bandwidth requirements increase exponentially when increasing resolution and bit depth when comparing like content.

I use a 1080p monitor at work and its ~10F increase and still 0 RPM fan. If I plug into my 4k60 TV at home the play a 4k60hz 10bit video (HDR bit depth) the CPU temps/fans spike 90f with fluctuating fan speed maintaining that.

Laptops (not just Apple) with small form factors target around the minimum heat dissipation (as measured in watts) requirements of the CPU manufacturer to maintain base clock (aka TDP).

If the CPU has the same lithography, code name, etc, a CPU with lower performance might or might not have a lower TDP but it will have a different max power consumption (beyond TDP) and thus higher/lower heat dissipation requirements.

So for example my I5-8259U has a TDP of 28 watts however under a load will reach 36-37 watts due to turbo boost while the I7-8559U with same 28 watt TDP will easily exceeds 43 watts under a load. Since the heat sink and fan are the same between models my I5-8259U runs "cooler"......at the expense of performance. Keep in mind TDP is base clock not multicore turbo boost.

Doesn't answer your question but all systems run hot and loud given the right variables. If they do not then the heat sink and fan is massive (desktop), the performance is artificially lower or the performance was never there to begin with. Its all like saying the same thing different ways.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pldelisle
pldelisle said:
Probably not. But the 100 MHz doesn’t worth the extra price tag for it.
Click to expand...
It's more than that. The 2.4 chips are binned higher, so they may run better at lower wattage. That's what I'm currently experimenting with. Idea being they'd get the job done more efficiently and create less heat.
 
Corncab44 said:
It's more than that. The 2.4 chips are binned higher, so they may run better at lower wattage. That's what I'm currently experimenting with. Idea being they'd get the job done more efficiently and create less heat.
Click to expand...
False.
Binning doesn’t change nothing on wattage/voltage/whatever physical. On such high end CPUs, there’s probably nothing different physically. A higher clocked cpu will consume a bit more power in fact theoretically, but for 100 MHz this is very negligeable.
 
pldelisle said:
False.
Binning doesn’t change nothing on wattage/voltage/whatever physical. On such high end CPUs, there’s probably nothing different physically. A higher clocked cpu will consume a bit more power in fact theoretically, but for 100 MHz this is very negligeable.
Click to expand...

Happy to be wrong here. I'm currently testing two 16 inchers: an i9 2.3 and an i9 2.4. When benchmarking using Geekbench, the 2.3's fans start going up soon and they end up higher, consistently. This obviously doesn't reflect 100% real world use, but I find it follows my thinking.

As for OP, you might try playing around with Volta. Just to continue with the Geekbench example, I find I can run it capping the wattage at 30w and the fans stay at their minimum (this is without a monitor). It's a great option, and much better than turning off turbo boost, whichever processor you end up with.

After testing a number of 16" this past month, I can say there isn't a great deal of difference if using an external monitor unless you're paying the extortionate price for the 5600. So I had planned to generally limit the wattage to my processor, and was looking for the most efficient processor, if there was such a thing.
 
Corncab44 said:
Happy to be wrong here. I'm currently testing two 16 inchers: an i9 2.3 and an i9 2.4. When benchmarking using Geekbench, the 2.3's fans start going up soon and they end up higher, consistently. This obviously doesn't reflect 100% real world use, but I find it follows my thinking.

As for OP, you might try playing around with Volta. Just to continue with the Geekbench example, I find I can run it capping the wattage at 30w and the fans stay at their minimum (this is without a monitor). It's a great option, and much better than turning off turbo boost, whichever processor you end up with.

After testing a number of 16" this past month, I can say there isn't a great deal of difference if using an external monitor unless you're paying the extortionate price for the 5600. So I had planned to generally limit the wattage to my processor, and was looking for the most efficient processor, if there was such a thing.
Click to expand...
Are both the units you're testing using the same dGPU? And if so, which is it?

Cheers
Mike
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back