Geekbench is more of a short burst test, so I'd expect thermals wouldn't play a leading role in the difference in per-core speeds for single-core vs. multi-core operation.
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.
New 16-Inch MacBook Pro With M1 Max to Feature High Power Mode for Intensive Workloads
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Marketing is all about highlighting the great points.
Down to earth technical details emerge later which could be interpreted as not so great.
They all do it.
I was thinking that it was just component costs (larger screen, larger battery) that contributed to the increased Applecare+ price for the 16" over the 14", or that Apple's expectation is that the 16" systems will on average be configured higher than the 14" and therefore need a higher Applecare+ cost, but I guess baked into that Applecare+ cost could also be an expectation that the 16" will be pushed a bit harder and therefore may potentially experience more heat-related failures (the fan will move the heat away, but the chips will still likely get hotter)?
My rMBP 2012 is not laptop-safe from the very first boot, let's see if this ones can run in laptops for common task as intensive workloads seems logic and fair enough to need to rest in table-tops.
I am very grateful Apple is adding a mode like this. With the older 15 inch MacBook Pros, I really missed it when Apple dropped the ability to switch between integrated and discrete graphics (you could hack it back in to some extent).
Sometimes you want to engage a mode that gives you a cooler, quieter and more power-efficient laptop. Sometimes you want everything the laptop can offer.
Users are also usually better at figuring out when that moment than MacOS is.
Sometimes you want to engage a mode that gives you a cooler, quieter and more power-efficient laptop. Sometimes you want everything the laptop can offer.
Users are also usually better at figuring out when that moment than MacOS is.
These reviews can't come soon enough. If a 16" performs more than 15% better than a 14" with the same specs then i'm cancelling my order.
If 15% is more important then a smaller laptop you should probably cancel your order now ?
I think you mean 100Wh... 100Mwh is what 10 average US homes use in a year.... or one 16" Intel MBP running Chrome.
Here's what a 100MWh battery looks like...
If you want an emotional take, writers are your cappuccino.
If you want a logical take, mathematicians are your plain double shot espresso.
Except that turbo typically slowed the machine downWoot! Bring back the turbo button from the 386/486 era.?
Y'all geezers know what I'm talking about.?
but i mean it has a higher resolution with more pixels,more powerful cpu and gpu (as both 14 and 16 were tested with base models,hence 8+14 on the 14 and 10+16 on the 16" )
I’m suprised people really thought the 14” MBP would perform the same as the 16” MBP.
The 14” is a 13” MBP with smaller bezels. And a 13” MBP has inferior thermals than the 16” MBP historically (the 13” MBP couldn’t even handle a discrete GPU).
The difference in power delivery was also a giveaway (the 16” can do 140W of charging).
The 14” is a 13” MBP with smaller bezels. And a 13” MBP has inferior thermals than the 16” MBP historically (the 13” MBP couldn’t even handle a discrete GPU).
The difference in power delivery was also a giveaway (the 16” can do 140W of charging).
Disappointing is relative. If it does indeed give 11 hours of accurate basic use, I don't find that disappointing at all. I find that actually quite good for what it is. But compared to other MacBooks? Yeah, of course it's less - it's very simple. Smaller laptop + same amazing components = smaller battery.
They improved the airflow so the fans could get the same cooling at lower fan speed to reduce noise. Believe it or not but some people like having a quiet laptop on their laps that doesn’t burn them. This should be the standard way it operates. People who like a noisy hot experience should have to opt into it.
I believe those graphs were showcasing the chips. I don’t think they said anything about which MBP model they were in. So, I would assume the graphs represent the best the chips can do in the MBP with the most capable cooling system.
More internal space, larger heatsinks, more thermal paste, and larger vents so the fans can pull and push more air.
TLDR - Better cooling.
For this so called "high power mode", I think in best case (from perspective of 16 model), the high power mode gives the 24 core version about the same performance as the 32 core 14. This is based on the price point being roughly the same for 16-24 versus 14-32 cores. However, some of that premium goes to the different form factor so realistically, the high power mode is probably more like 28-30 cores running on the 16 gives equal performance to 32 cores on the 14.
Alternatively, "high power mode" could just mean that 16 runs full speed in the worst case scenario of 100% load and the battery fast charging simultaneously whereas 14 will not be able to charge at 100% load or can only fast charge at 80% load. This could be the case if one were to interpret "power" as electrical versus performance.
Alternatively, "high power mode" could just mean that 16 runs full speed in the worst case scenario of 100% load and the battery fast charging simultaneously whereas 14 will not be able to charge at 100% load or can only fast charge at 80% load. This could be the case if one were to interpret "power" as electrical versus performance.