3 ms·

It's a weak theory, considering how the first M1 devices used the same thermal solutions as their Intel predecessors. The M1 Air even removed the fan from the e

by dangus 3y ago

It's a weak theory, considering how the first M1 devices used the same thermal solutions as their Intel predecessors. The M1 Air even removed the fan from the existing design that already had a fan when it was powered by Intel. The only reason the thermal solutions were indefensibly bad was because Intel's roadmap had nowhere to go but to add more watts and heat. The 2016 MacBook Pro 15" had a perfectly adequate thermal solution for its hardware. Still, in a few short years, Intel's newer processors pushed the design to its thermal limits when they should have been delivering more performance within the same heat and power constraints. Apple had to relent and make the product thicker and add more wattage for the 16" MacBook Pro (Intel). It's not like Apple massively upgraded the M1 thermal solution and took a victory lap on an artificially unfair playing field. Apple dropped their chips into the same or worse thermal designs and still outperformed Intel. On some benchmarks, the 2020 M1 MacBook Air with no fan beats the 96W 2019 Intel 16" MacBook Pro. [1] For Intel, it was downright embarrassing. We can't blame Apple for designing an inadequate thermal solution for the 2016-2019 MacBook Pro 15" when it was Intel's own product line that couldn't deliver improved performance without consuming more watts. Computers are supposed to get smaller and faster over time, not bigger and hotter. [1] https://9to5mac.com/2020/11/11/macbook-air-with-m1-chip-beats-16-inch-macbook-pro-performance-in-benchmark-test/ https://9to5mac.com/2020/11/11/macbook-air-with-m1-chip-beat...

bjoli 3y ago
That is exactly what I am saying: they must have seen that the thermal solution wasn't enough. MacBooks were throttling way too much since at least 2015. The conspiracy theory is that that used a thermal solution that was enough for the m1 on the intel chips that throttled while browsing the web.
- dangus 3y ago
  What I’m saying is that the older models (like the 2016 MacBook Pro Touch Bar) didn’t throttle very much and were thermally acceptable. Fast forward to Intel’s newer chips in 2018-2019 and the same chassis was much more limiting to the newer processor SKUs. Here’s an article: https://appleinsider.com/articles/19/05/26/tested-thermal-throttling-and-performance-in-the-eight-core-2019-macbook-pro https://appleinsider.com/articles/19/05/26/tested-thermal-th... > Apple's 2016 MacBook Pro chassis was designed at the latest, in early 2016. We got the first glimpse of it in a photograph in May of 2016. It looks like Apple is sticking with a four-year chassis design, so it's entirely possible that this is the last year of this enclosure. > We aren't expecting a thicker machine. > We've also said this before — we think Apple got hosed by Intel, when they were gearing up for the 2016 MacBook Pro enclosure in 2015. We know that in 2015, Intel was promising delivery of 10nm process Core chips well before now. With any luck, Intel will finally deliver on its promises for a die-shrink that was expected nearly three years ago which will help alleviate the situation further. Or, maybe the next will be ARM-based — we don't know. Apple’s stop-gap 16” model would prove to be thicker, and the article correctly hinted at a future ARM system. This quote is important context because Intel had been promising lithography advancements that were delayed. In 2016 Apple designed a chassis that they wanted to keep around for the next several years, but Intel basically didn’t deliver on their stated roadmap. There was no way to update the system without pushing the thermal solution to its limits or partially redesigning the thing. As far as thermal performance on 2015 systems (pre-USB-C), those designs are so old that I don’t think replacing Intel was on Apple’s near-term radar.

by dangus 3y ago

bjoli 3y ago

That is exactly what I am saying: they must have seen that the thermal solution wasn't enough. MacBooks were throttling way too much since at least 2015. The conspiracy theory is that that used a thermal solution that was enough for the m1 on the intel chips that throttled while browsing the web.

dangus 3y ago
What I’m saying is that the older models (like the 2016 MacBook Pro Touch Bar) didn’t throttle very much and were thermally acceptable. Fast forward to Intel’s newer chips in 2018-2019 and the same chassis was much more limiting to the newer processor SKUs. Here’s an article: https://appleinsider.com/articles/19/05/26/tested-thermal-throttling-and-performance-in-the-eight-core-2019-macbook-pro https://appleinsider.com/articles/19/05/26/tested-thermal-th... > Apple's 2016 MacBook Pro chassis was designed at the latest, in early 2016. We got the first glimpse of it in a photograph in May of 2016. It looks like Apple is sticking with a four-year chassis design, so it's entirely possible that this is the last year of this enclosure. > We aren't expecting a thicker machine. > We've also said this before — we think Apple got hosed by Intel, when they were gearing up for the 2016 MacBook Pro enclosure in 2015. We know that in 2015, Intel was promising delivery of 10nm process Core chips well before now. With any luck, Intel will finally deliver on its promises for a die-shrink that was expected nearly three years ago which will help alleviate the situation further. Or, maybe the next will be ARM-based — we don't know. Apple’s stop-gap 16” model would prove to be thicker, and the article correctly hinted at a future ARM system. This quote is important context because Intel had been promising lithography advancements that were delayed. In 2016 Apple designed a chassis that they wanted to keep around for the next several years, but Intel basically didn’t deliver on their stated roadmap. There was no way to update the system without pushing the thermal solution to its limits or partially redesigning the thing. As far as thermal performance on 2015 systems (pre-USB-C), those designs are so old that I don’t think replacing Intel was on Apple’s near-term radar.