3 ms·

Three reasons that make me disagree: Firstly M1/M2 Macbooks don't have great cooling either. The Air models use basically nothing but a thin sheet of metal, may

Three reasons that make me disagree: Firstly M1/M2 Macbooks don't have great cooling either. The Air models use basically nothing but a thin sheet of metal, maybe they'd run longer without throttling otherwise. Secondly Intel Macbooks had subpar cooling (and power delivery) much longer than the last couple of years. A video on YouTube shows more than doubled performance on a watercooled 2015 Macbook. And let's not forget that other manufacturers are sometimes even worse than Apple: Microsoft once sold a Surface Pro where the upgraded i7 version was slower than the model with i5 CPU because the cooling was so terrible! No, I don't see how that's more than a conspiracy theory. I am using an M2 Air right now and it has 2-3x better performance than my older i7 Thinkpad while being completely silent and running 3x longer on battery. Apple didn't have the need to pull any tricks.

bjoli 3y ago
What I am saying is that the cooling solution for the intel MacBooks was designed for chips with a lot lower TDP, meaning it made the m1 look a lot better. Maybe artificially so, since the intel MacBooks throttled more or less instantly. I am not saying the m1 wasn't amazing (I have one, I like it). I am saying that apple had subpar cooling solutions for several years before the m1. They had ample time to fix it, yet the last intel MacBook was probably the worst one.
- alpaca128 3y ago
  I don't have the impression Apple would intentionally cut the performance like that if they can't also make you pay for an upgrade that alleviates the bottleneck. Want a reasonable RAM & storage capacity? Pay for the upgrade. Want more IO without dongles? Pay for the Pro model. Want a 120Hz screen for smoother drawing? Pay for the iPad Pro. If it was intentional I'd expect Apple to have a more expensive Pro Max Ultra tier with actually good cooling, and then a year later they can pretend they invented a new paradigm of CPU cooling that works even in the cheaper models. There's no upside for them if cooling just sucks in general, and their switch to a more energy efficient architecture is clearly motivated by this problem.

bjoli 3y ago

What I am saying is that the cooling solution for the intel MacBooks was designed for chips with a lot lower TDP, meaning it made the m1 look a lot better. Maybe artificially so, since the intel MacBooks throttled more or less instantly. I am not saying the m1 wasn't amazing (I have one, I like it). I am saying that apple had subpar cooling solutions for several years before the m1. They had ample time to fix it, yet the last intel MacBook was probably the worst one.

alpaca128 3y ago
I don't have the impression Apple would intentionally cut the performance like that if they can't also make you pay for an upgrade that alleviates the bottleneck. Want a reasonable RAM & storage capacity? Pay for the upgrade. Want more IO without dongles? Pay for the Pro model. Want a 120Hz screen for smoother drawing? Pay for the iPad Pro. If it was intentional I'd expect Apple to have a more expensive Pro Max Ultra tier with actually good cooling, and then a year later they can pretend they invented a new paradigm of CPU cooling that works even in the cheaper models. There's no upside for them if cooling just sucks in general, and their switch to a more energy efficient architecture is clearly motivated by this problem.