MacBook Pro Cool as a Cucumber

[raftman]

Here is a photo from the event of the MacBook Pro internals with the M1 chip.

This is the same cooling system originally designed for Intel 8th gen CPUs. The Intel CPUs consumed 15 Watts at base frequency and 28 watts at turbo boost frequency. The M1 consumes 10 Watts at base frequency and we don’t know the “turbo boost” wattage, but it looks like under 20 Watts on this graph.

After years of MacBook Air and Pro having inadequate cooling, overheating, aggressive thermal throttling, I’m stoked they kept the fluid filled heat pipe for this more efficient chip. Apple could have cheaped out and put the MacBook Air fan with no heat pipe in the Pro. But they didn’t, they gave us what we want for once.
Despite most comments I’ve read, there will be a huge performance difference between the Air and the Pro. The Air will have major thermal throttling. It might not show up in Geekbench scores, but you’ll see a huge difference in gaming and Pro software.
Is anyone else stoked about the MBP having proper heat pipe cooling with this super efficient chip?

 

[ADGrant]

Here is a photo from the event of the MacBook Pro internals with the M1 chip.
View attachment 1659580This is the same cooling system originally designed for Intel 8th gen CPUs. The Intel CPUs consumed 15 Watts at base frequency and 28 watts at turbo boost frequency. The M1 consumes 10 Watts at base frequency and we don’t know the “turbo boost” wattage, but it looks like under 20 Watts on this graph.
View attachment 1659581


After years of MacBook Air and Pro having inadequate cooling, overheating, aggressive thermal throttling, I’m stoked they kept the fluid filled heat pipe for this more efficient chip. Apple could have cheaped out and put the MacBook Air fan with no heat pipe in the Pro. But they didn’t, they gave us what we want for once.
Despite most comments I’ve read, there will be a huge performance difference between the Air and the Pro. The Air will have major thermal throttling. It might not show up in Geekbench scores, but you’ll see a huge difference in gaming and Pro software.
Is anyone else stoked about the MBP having proper heat pipe cooling with this super efficient chip?

I would have been more impressed if they had used the dual fan design in the 10th Gen Intel 13" MBP. This does seem to confirm that the M1 in the Pro will have a 15W TBP and you will need to buy the Mini if you want the fastest possible M1 Mac.

 

[Loog]

Having being bitten with the 202 MBA i7 and thermal issues I will be investing in the new M1 MBP. I think the thermal envelope will be better on the MBA but when this is pushed for longer it will see reduction in performance, otherwise why would they put a cooling system on the MBP or MM?

 

[raftman]

I would have been more impressed if they had used the dual fan design in the 10th Gen Intel 13" MBP. This does seem to confirm that the M1 in the Pro will have a 15W TBP and you will need to buy the Mini if you want the fastest possible M1 Mac.

That cooling system is for the 28 Watt CPU, my guess is that it’s not needed for the M1. You bring up an interesting point with the Mac Mini. Will the Pro thermal throttle before the Mac Mini? My guess is no, but we’ll see.

 

[zamin]

Here's a slightly higher res image

 

[leman]

This is the same cooling system originally designed for Intel 8th gen CPUs. The Intel CPUs consumed 15 Watts at base frequency and 28 watts at turbo boost frequency. The M1 consumes 10 Watts at base frequency and we don’t know the “turbo boost” wattage, but it looks like under 20 Watts on this graph.

I am fairly sure that the sustained TDP for M1 in that chassis is 15 watts, exactly same as for the Intel chip. I am also not sure that M1 even has a concept of "base" or "turbo" frequency — just a range of operating frequencies and an AI-driven power controller that will manage the heat and the frequency dynamically as the circumstances allow.

 

[ChromeCloud]

The Air will have major thermal throttling. It might not show up in Geekbench scores, but you’ll see a huge difference in gaming and Pro software.

I don't think this is gonna be the case. The M1 sounds like a rebadged A14X, which means it's designed to run at full blast in an iPad Pro with minimal throttling (around 15% IIRC).

The Air is gonna have an advantage compared to the iPad Pro already by hosting the SOC in a roomier enclosure with at least passive ventilation (the Air is not sealed like the iPad).

So I think we're going to observe mild differences between the Air and the Pro, and only in specific workloads.

I also think that the clock frequency of the M1 is gonna be the same on the Air and on the Pro. I really think this Pro is more like an Air with a Touch Bar, than a "real" Pro.

But these are just my own assumptions... we'll see!

 

[zamin]

I don't think this is gonna be the case. The M1 sounds like a rebadged A14X, which means it's designed to run at full blast in an iPad Pro with minimal throttling (around 15% IIRC).

The Air is gonna have an advantage compared to the iPad Pro already by hosting the SOC in a roomier enclosure with at least passive ventilation (the Air is not sealed like the iPad).

So I think we're going to observe mild differences between the Air and the Pro, and only in specific workloads.

I also think that the clock frequency of the M1 is gonna be the same on the Air and on the Pro. I really think this Pro is more like an Air with a Touch Bar, than a "real" Pro.

But these are just my own assumptions... we'll see!

I think the Air will fare okay in most tasks. However, it will almost certainly be running at a lower TDP and a lower clock speed compared to the Pro. Apple wouldn't stick a fan in both the Pro and the Mini for no reason.

 

[aednichols]

Here is a photo from the event of the MacBook Pro internals with the M1 chip.
View attachment 1659580This is the same cooling system originally designed for Intel 8th gen CPUs. The Intel CPUs consumed 15 Watts at base frequency and 28 watts at turbo boost frequency. The M1 consumes 10 Watts at base frequency and we don’t know the “turbo boost” wattage, but it looks like under 20 Watts on this graph.
View attachment 1659581


After years of MacBook Air and Pro having inadequate cooling, overheating, aggressive thermal throttling, I’m stoked they kept the fluid filled heat pipe for this more efficient chip. Apple could have cheaped out and put the MacBook Air fan with no heat pipe in the Pro. But they didn’t, they gave us what we want for once.
Despite most comments I’ve read, there will be a huge performance difference between the Air and the Pro. The Air will have major thermal throttling. It might not show up in Geekbench scores, but you’ll see a huge difference in gaming and Pro software.
Is anyone else stoked about the MBP having proper heat pipe cooling with this super efficient chip?

I believe they referred to 10 watts as the thermal envelope of the MacBook Air, not the chip's maximum.

 

[eicca]

No matter which way you look at it, 15W (assumed peak draw) makes less heat than 28W, which means that the M1 should be able to handle high-intensity sustained workloads much better in much smaller enclosures, right?

Which means, thanks to this improved thermal management, that the M1 may be just as powerful as my 8-core 2020 Mac Pro, and that sucker gets my bedroom toasty running dual 95W processors.

Which means the new Mac Mini or MacBook Pro could very well be my next computer—I need a machine that can run a lot of multithreading for a long time without thermal throttling, and if the MacBook Pro fits the bill, I'll happily take the portability.

It would be pretty dope to replace this big honking tower with a Mac Mini and still be increasing my Logic Pro computation performance.

 

[ADGrant]

I believe they referred to 10 watts as the thermal envelope of the MacBook Air, not the chip's maximum.

Correct. The chip will have a 15W TDP in the MBP and will reach its maximum performance in the Mini.