New 16-Inch MacBook Pro With M1 Max to Feature High Power Mode for Intensive Workloads

[BreakYurAnkles]

I'm expecting the 16" to outperform the 14" with the EXACT SAME SPECTS anywhere from 30-60%

Due to the heat management/cooling. The 16" is thicker and has a better cooling system, therefore apple will allow it to run faster for longer over the 14" and give it more power as well.

Apple is probably going to limit the 14" by software + wattage so it doesn't overheat.

This is purely theory from information given.

 

[spurpura]

I honestly think that the heat the new ARM SOC apple has designed has a LOWER heat ceiling (Meaning it cant get too hot. Think max temp 85-90 degrees for example) or it will damage the CPU/GPU/SOC since its a new design and the first of its kind (ARM) for Pro-consumers.

Because things don't quite add up..... It pushes MORE air for COOLING but.... its also COOLER and uses LESS WATTS???

Im thinking the TDP on these m1 Pro/Max are lower than AMD and Intel. Their chips can sustain up to 100 degrees (which isnt good but they "can handle it").

So apple designed the airflow for better cooling because they cannot allow their custom first of its kind SOC's to overheat (for their design NOT actual high hot temps like Intel and AMD).

But only time will tell.... And I'm not going to pay a lot of money to be that guinea pig...

At some level you have to be right. My M1 Mac Mini has a fan and a typical high watt usage of greater than 35 watts due to powering TB3 peripherals. The fan is regularly on and silent. I haven't noticed it being hot to the touch but one wouldn't assume that 35 watts would be generating a ton of heat.

The article specifically says, 'Text within the macOS Monterey beta reads, "Your Mac will optimize performance to better support resource-intensive tasks. This may result in louder fan noise."'

Also, I also assume that all of the system components contribute to the heat, including battery, powering peripherals, maxing the CPUs and GPUs, etc. The 16" has a bigger battery ... so more heat to rapid charge it.

 

[harshw]

I'm expecting the 16" to outperform the 14" with the EXACT SAME SPECTS anywhere from 30-60%

Due to the heat management/cooling. The 16" is thicker and has a better cooling system, therefore apple will allow it to run faster for longer over the 14" and give it more power as well.

Apple is probably going to limit the 14" by software + wattage so it doesn't overheat.

This is purely theory from information given.

Sure but we need more data - for example, does the High Power mode kick in for GPU related tasks? Or for CPU? Or is it related to the total TDP of the SoC? Perhaps the cooling has less to do with it - and it's more about the extra wattage and power the 140W adapter might provide: i.e. the SoC can do 30W + 60W at normal TDP and 45W + 90W at 'Turbo' TDP. Which implies it needs a 140W brick and not a 100W

Given the 14" and 16" are more similar than different - it's less likely the 14" fans cannot dissipate 140W, and more likely at some point Apple might enable High Power mode on the 14" with the appropriate 140W adapter

 

[firewood]

So after spending 3,200 grand… I can’t utilize the M1 Max to the fullest potential I upgraded to, because I bought a smaller screen?

Like almost any CPU IC, to get fullest performance potential you would need to find a way to unlock the clock and then immerse the IC package in liquid nitrogen. Not easy to do with any size laptop configuration.

 

[BreakYurAnkles]

At some level you have to be right. My M1 Mac Mini has a fan and a typical high watt usage of greater than 35 watts due to powering TB3 peripherals. The fan is regularly on and silent. I haven't noticed it being hot to the touch but one wouldn't assume that 35 watts would be generating a ton of heat.

The article specifically says, 'Text within the macOS Monterey beta reads, "Your Mac will optimize performance to better support resource-intensive tasks. This may result in louder fan noise."'

Also, I also assume that all of the system components contribute to the heat, including battery, powering peripherals, maxing the CPUs and GPUs, etc.

now think of that M1 experience BUT give it more PERFORMANCE CORES (8 to be exact) twice as much (in a laptop) and 2-24 MORE GPU cores and you have and idea how hot it could get, AND how much more power it could potentially draw.

Sure but we need more data - for example, does the High Power mode kick in for GPU related tasks? Or for CPU? Or is it related to the total TDP of the SoC? Perhaps the cooling has less to do with it - and it's more about the extra wattage and power the 140W adapter might provide: i.e. the SoC can do 30W + 60W at normal TDP and 45W + 90W at 'Turbo' TDP. Which implies it needs a 140W brick and not a 100W

Given the 14" and 16" are more similar than different - it's less likely the 14" fans cannot dissipate 140W, and more likely at some point Apple might enable High Power mode on the 14" with the appropriate 140W adapter

The 16" is THICKER and has LONGER heatsinks.

In Physics a larger surface area is well.... larger to help dissipate heat.

If your though was correct, why wouldn't apple have the 140w adapter as an option for the 14" right? To be able to "Enable high power mode". It only seems logical. If Apple can provide us with the best they can give us, do it! (or at the very least give them the option and let them know right?)

At the end of the day, Watts are watts, electricity is electricity. More watts (Like you said "turbo TDP") = more heat.
Always has, always will. So yeah I stand by my logic of the 16" is has a more capable cooling design and chassis to handle 140w of power draw = more performance.

 

[UBS28]

Why only for the M1 Max and 16"????

They could have said that before opening the pre-orders...

Honestly, i found it a bit odd that the 14” got the M1 Max.

The M1 Max probably runs below it’s limit to avoid overheating on the 14”. And the 16” can remove this limit basicaly as it has better cooling.

 

[Ynk]

That makes me nervous. That is a 32% increase. Whatever the extra budget for the screen and battery, it can't be 32% more. That is a CHUNK of extra power that the M1 can use in the 16".

Don't forget the battery in the 16 is also 42% larger - At the same power draw for the GPU/CPU/Display you would need these extra watts to be able to charge the laptop at the same rate as the 14 if the battery was low.

 

[Pezimak]

Not only does it disapear in full screen, but if you use dark mode, which turns the menu bar black, you'll never see the notch. No one is talking about this part... all of Apple's promo images and videos show the menu bar in light/color mode, with the notch prominent.

I will need to see one in the flesh and have a play to know for sure. May be able too in November if the U.K. isn’t in another lockdown. But it’s not cheap at £3300 for the one I’d want.

 

[BreakYurAnkles]

Sure but we need more data - for example, does the High Power mode kick in for GPU related tasks? Or for CPU? Or is it related to the total TDP of the SoC? Perhaps the cooling has less to do with it - and it's more about the extra wattage and power the 140W adapter might provide: i.e. the SoC can do 30W + 60W at normal TDP and 45W + 90W at 'Turbo' TDP. Which implies it needs a 140W brick and not a 100W

Given the 14" and 16" are more similar than different - it's less likely the 14" fans cannot dissipate 140W, and more likely at some point Apple might enable High Power mode on the 14" with the appropriate 140W adapter

https://www.macrumors.com/2021/10/21/2021-macbook-pro-tidbits-specs-features/

• 16-inch MacBook Pro models configured with the M1 Max chip feature a new High Power Mode to maximize performance for intensive, sustained workloads, according to Apple. High Power Mode is not available on other models.

 

[BreakYurAnkles]

has typical 500 nits brightness.... like all other MBP's. I was hoping for better outside and brightly lit visibility.

might go with a MPA M1 or wait on the rumored new MB.

 

[california_kid]

Or this "High Power" mode could be like this:

 

[mrhick01]

So after spending 3,200 grand… I can’t utilize the M1 Max to the fullest potential I upgraded to, because I bought a smaller screen? ?‍♂️

The 16 inch has a 100 Wh battery, while the 14" has a 70 Wh one. (Corrected)

 

[HylianKnight]

Does this “High Power Mode” only apply then when the MacBook is operating on battery? When plugged in, we should be able to utilize all the power that we pay for.

 

[HylianKnight]

It's probably the extra heat dissipation in the 16" model.

It’s worth pointing out there is a weight difference, and that could be because there is less heat sink material.

 

[1Mark]

Does this “High Power Mode” only apply then when the MacBook is operating on battery? When plugged in, we should be able to utilize all the power that we pay for.

That would by my guess as well. Maybe the bigger battery allows for stable voltages until lower percentages.

Basically the same mechanism which makes older iphones clock down to keep a stable current to the cpu.

 

[harshw]

The 16" is THICKER and has LONGER heatsinks.

Sure - it has a 100W battery so will be larger. But is there a screenshot showing internals of the 14" and 16" so that we can compare the heatsinks?

 

[HylianKnight]

Feels pretty dodgy for apple to have not said this...
"Thankfully" I still couldn't afford the 500$ for the 16" (at my countrie's exchange rate) so my decision was pretty much "locked"...
If the increase in performance will be within a 15% margin, I won't be mad...
But if it will be 20% or more I'll be severly disappointed...
Too expensive laptops even for apple...400$ to go from 32GB to 64GB.
Jesus...

Just throwing this out there. “Built” a Dell 15” for comparisons sake

-i9 11900H
-Nvidia 3050ti
-32 gb of ram
-1 TB NVMe
-Their best display
$2699.99

If you want 64gb of ram with everything else the same it works out to be $300 more.

And then there’s the fact that every single part of this Dell is likely significantly slower than what’s in the new MacBooks. I’ll wait for benchmarks and reviews, but I suspect that what I thought were exorbitant prices are actually reasonable for the amount of performance and efficiency relative to the best “other” laptops out there. That’s not to say those other laptops aren’t good laptops, nor am I saying that the new MacBooks are a steal. But with the design of their own SoCs, the seemingly amazing quality of the M1 Pro/Max chips, the chip shortage that we are still experiencing, I think the price makes a bit of sense. Time will tell. It’s definitely sticker shock to say the least.

 

[BreakYurAnkles]

Sure - it has a 100W battery so will be larger. But is there a screenshot showing internals of the 14" and 16" so that we can compare the heatsinks?

its literally a wider laptop. If you were someone I knew personally and we were face-to-face right now I'd put money on it, that the 16" has a longer/larger heatsink. I'd bet the house on that.

EVERY laptop manufacturer does this between their smaller and bigger models (apple included).

What makes you think they used the exact same heatsink on both 14" and 16" models?

No screenshot needed. Just pure common sense and logic.

 

[HylianKnight]

Was surprised this year that the 14 and 16 were pretty much the exact same features. Then afterwards we slowly start learning about differences, 16 has new gaan charger, 16 can't do fast charging over magsafe, 16 gets high power mode. Wish they would announce these in the fine print at order time, since while all seemingly small things, for people deciding between 14 and 16, comes down the the small details if you are plugging into an external monitor anyway most of the time.

The 16” does do fast charging over MagSafe, and only MagSafe. That new GaN charger is actually USB-C 3.1 PD compliant.

 

[nodymoha]

So, for the 14", will it perform as the 16" at least for a few minutes?

Like: Programs compiling, 10 Mins video transcoding, or even 5 Mins 3D rendering.

 

[russell_314]

Small enclosure, that would not be able to handle the thermals. Makes sense to me.

I bet it’s not the thermals. I bet it’s power supply issues. Think about it this mode will require maximum power but I suspect the power supply set up on the 14” is going to be smaller plus it has a smaller battery. Of course all this is speculation because no one knows exactly till they get the thing in their hands. I’m sure Apple had a reason even though some of us aren’t happy about it.

It’s a whole lot better than how things used to be with the crap integrated Intel graphics.

 

[KPOM]

I bet it’s not the thermals. I bet it’s power supply issues. Think about it this mode will require maximum power but I suspect the power supply set up on the 14” is going to be smaller plus it has a smaller battery. Of course all this is speculation because no one knows exactly till they get the thing in their hands. I’m sure Apple had a reason even though some of us aren’t happy about it.

It’s a whole lot better than how things used to be with the crap integrated Intel graphics.

Either way, the 14” is still basically on par with the 16”. I’m guessing this max power mode yields little marginal benefit.

 

[-BigMac-]

Well, I don't know how hot is beyond 2016 edition but I have the original retina MBP 15" 2,6Ghz and the base temperature using safari is 79ºC
Intensive workloads usually reach 102ºC (105ºC is the maximum I saw)

It is like this since the beginning and I renewed the thermal paste 2 years ago, same result.

Jesus.
Surprised it hasnt fried by now

 

[theorist9]

It's curious Apple doesn't provide a high-power mode for the 14" (which would of course be at a lower TDP than that of the 16"), in which owners of the 14" could max-out their fans, accepting higher noise in exchange for better performance in the same way the 16" owners can.

Could it be that, because of the 14" model's lower thermal dissipation, to get decent performance Apple already allows it to run hotter/noisier in its stock mode, such that a "performance" mode wouldn't be different enough to justify?

 

[cashboxz02]

So I expect my M1 max mbp to go into this “intensive” mode when browsing with Chrome ?

Or you could just run chrome in a VM. Even if you open chrome once, there's always traces running in the background on your computer unless if you manually delete a bunch of hidden files. How Apple gave Google permission to do that is beyond me.

It'd be great if Apple could allow users to manually add performance limitations on apps (like how we can on VMs). I'd keep Chrome on my host OS, but I'd limit Chrome to 1 core, and 512MB RAM. Chrome will literally eat your SSD write cycles on these machines if there's no way to limit it.