2 ms·
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. Mayb
by 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 agoI 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.