MBA has always had a fan and heatsink. It's only since M1 that Apple replaced it with a fanless heatspreader (not even a heatsink) to limit performance.
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.
Apple Silicon Timeline (Gurman)
- Thread starter Jorbanead
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
MBA has always had a fan and heatsink. It's only since M1 that Apple replaced it with a fanless heatspreader (not even a heatsink) to limit performance.
I have no idea what Apple actually has planned, but I don't see much reason for an annual cadence on the core architecture. I feel like every two years with the Pro/Max iterations on alternate years would work just fine from an R&D and marketing perspective. Every year they have something to announce, and every year they have new performance numbers that are better than a previous generation.
That doesn't mean Apple is slowing down, it just means they're moving in fewer but larger increments of performance. The rest of the hardware doesn't advance any faster than that anyway.
18 month cycles is just someone trying to curve fit to the data. If the core architecture is on an annual cadence to support the iPhone release cycle (which can probably still benefit from being annual) then introducing a half update in alternate years just doesn't fit the resourcing grid.
Truth is though that they'll probably make the decision what to do generation by generation based on what's happening with the rest of the hardware and the fabrication process.
That doesn't mean Apple is slowing down, it just means they're moving in fewer but larger increments of performance. The rest of the hardware doesn't advance any faster than that anyway.
18 month cycles is just someone trying to curve fit to the data. If the core architecture is on an annual cadence to support the iPhone release cycle (which can probably still benefit from being annual) then introducing a half update in alternate years just doesn't fit the resourcing grid.
Truth is though that they'll probably make the decision what to do generation by generation based on what's happening with the rest of the hardware and the fabrication process.
To build the finless, quiet computer that Steve always wanted to build. If you want a fan, you can get the MBP.
As for limiting performance, it takes a sustained workload to get the MBA to throttle. Compared to how loudly the fans run on Intel/AMD based ultrabooks, I'd say it's not a bad trade for many people. Especially considering the MBA can still perform quite well, even when throttling.
Oh, and Macs can actually reach and maintain performance on battery, something Intel/AMD laptops can't manage.
We'll never know what Jobs wanted, so I won't debate fan vs. fanless. But what is obvious with M1 MBA is that Apple wanted to limit performance.
Everybody and their dog knows you use fins to maximize heatsink surface area. The Intel MBA (2020) had a finned heatsink. With M1, Apple used a simple aluminum heat spreader instead.
I was responding to someone who thought it was "weird" to see M1 iMac with one fan and two fans. It's not weird at all. Instead of selling GHz directly, Apple sells thermal performance, which in turn limits GHz.
I did a quick search and couldn't find them, but do you have access to (non-Youtube) benchmarks showing how severely Apple limited the M1 Air performance versus the M1 MBP by removing the fan? My recollection is that the benchmarks came out essentially the same.
Everyone and their neighbour's cat know that fins are 100% pointless without airflow.
With M1 Apple decided to go fanless (which is a feature, hence why I love my 12" rMB no matter how hard it throttles) and the design of the heatsink followed that principle.
Apple also doesn't fancy to burn the user lap (some people actually use laptops on their laps) which explains the rest of the "weirdness" of that cooler.
The 13" MBP had other design goal and get a small amount extra performance out of it.
About 10-15% for sustained performance. Run Cinebench for and the first score will be high. The second and subsequent runs will be 10-15% lower.
Tell that to the engineers and Steve Jobs who designed the fanless G4 Cube. Plenty of finned heatsinks in there. The MBA chassis isn't a vacuum and convection still occurs.
On the PC side, well designed ultrabooks will use copper heat spreaders with dimples to increase surface area.
Thanks. Just did a search for the Cinebench benchmarks:
Apple M1 tested: Performance benchmarks and thermal throttling, explained
Apple has abandoned Intel. But can its new processor, the custom-designed M1, compete? Find out with our Apple M1 tests!
Your missing the point:
- there is no airflow inside the MBA (and no this does not mean it is sealed)
- it is a heatspreader, not a heatsink. The MBA's chassis is the heatsink in this design
- the Cube was build was designed to maximise convection
There was zero chance of an annual cadence for M-series. Launching M1 iMac in April 2021 told everyone what Apple's plan was. It doesn't use mini LED nor any new breakthrough technologies. Yet, it was launched 6 months after M1. Does anybody believe Apple had to delay the M1 iMac?
As early as mid-2020, Kuo predicted MacBook Pro 14 and 16 with mini LED would come in late 2Q21 or 3Q21. Apple didn't miss their timelines. This is one of those cases where Mark Gurman missed.
Kuo: Apple Silicon Macs to Include 13-inch MacBook Pro and MacBook Air This Year, 14.1-inch and 16-inch MacBook Pro Models Next Year
At last month's WWDC, Apple officially announced that its Mac computers will be transitioned from Intel x86 to homegrown Apple Silicon chips....www.macrumors.com
While I don't know what Apple's planned cadence is for the Mac chips, I can imagine all sorts of variations, even Kuo's original window is significantly earlier than the late October launch we got - 2/3Q21 is 1-7 months earlier. He later amended it to be 2nd half of 2021 and sources other than Gurman said that there was a production shift due to mini-led delays:
Two New Apple Silicon MacBooks Expected to Enter Mass Production in Second Half of 2021
Apple is planning redesigned 14-inch and 16-inch MacBook Pro models powered by Apple silicon for release in the second half of 2021, according to...
www.macrumors.com
The M1 iMac was still a redesign and there was a rumor (having trouble finding the links) that team members were pulled off other projects (including the upcoming larger iMac) to complete it.
So again, I make no predictions about cadence. I could imagine and justify a whole suite of different cadences. But a massive product transition during a global pandemic and supply chain crises is probably not the best indicator of where things will end up if they have a stable cadence going forwards at all.
Thanks. Just did a search for the Cinebench benchmarks:
Apple M1 tested: Performance benchmarks and thermal throttling, explained
Apple has abandoned Intel. But can its new processor, the custom-designed M1, compete? Find out with our Apple M1 tests!www.androidauthority.com
8-12% reported by Notebookcheck.
You'll find varying numbers because nobody reports their ambient temperature or what "warm" means.
Apple MacBook Air 2020 M1 Entry Review: Apple M1 CPU humbles Intel and AMD
The M1 based entry-level Macbook in our extensive technical test.
Don't really see the point of them leaving the previous iPad chip strategy tbh. They mostly skipped odd numbers (except A9) and brought updates every 2 years. Though I think all these coincided with die shrinks which probably was more important.
There doesn't need to be outside airflow for convection to occur.
Your point #2 means convection is happening in MBA! Otherwise, the chassis wouldn't serve as the heatsink.
Yes, the Cube was designed to maximize convection. That doesn't mean it's not happening in MBA.
At a 1-2mm gap between the heatspreader and the chassis that won't do much good.
What you do have is various masses and heat getting transferred between them.
The CPU pushes heat into the heatspreader and once that is saturated it will throttle. Put fins into that and you reduce mass making it saturate faster.
The heatspreader pushes the the heat into what little air there is in the Air which then transfers it to the case.
This is done this way to prevent a hotspot on the outside (as demonstrated by those youtubers "fixing" the Air by putting a thermal pad in that space).
So in short, putting fins on there would make the Air throttle faster and !maybe! a little less while also maybe spreading the heat less evenly out to the chassis.
I think the point is that if there isn't enough airflow then adding fans just increases manufacturing costs without improving sustained performance by enough to justify it. The more typical mods of M1 Airs that I've seen were just adding a way to directly transport the heat to the chassis but this had the obviously undesirable effect of increasing the surface temperatures past the legal limit they are allowed to be at. In fact, LTT's observation was that Apple was already at this limit with the current very basic system.
In other words, there probably isn't a way to decrease the thermal throttling *and* keep it passively cooled *and* keep it below the legal surface temperatures for a laptop.
Fins won't reduce the mass of the heatsink. Modders have identified that they can fit in 3mm thick thermal pads. This indicates Apple hasn't maximized the size or mass of the MBA heat spreader.
Very few need more than a M1 (or A14) for a foreseeable future so the performance is not driving the update cycle. It is the concept of "outdated" that drives it. Stagnation is a sign of weakness (look at intel or the MP2013) so the frequency of released new chips will be tuned to keeping the interest of the customer. Following that reasoning, new chips will be more governed by marketing than actual requirement for more power (for most people). Come to think of it, we have seen lots of rebranding of CPU and GPU which is only marketing.
As the Mac SoCs are not really linked to iPhone SoCs in case of naming (Ax, Mx), we will likely see different upgrade cycles without confusing the customers. Yearly for Ax is given. Mx? Yearly is possible in the future well after the initial transition is over.
As the Mac SoCs are not really linked to iPhone SoCs in case of naming (Ax, Mx), we will likely see different upgrade cycles without confusing the customers. Yearly for Ax is given. Mx? Yearly is possible in the future well after the initial transition is over.
Bring it closer to the chassis and you create a (possibly illegal) hotspot.
Find it fascinating that some people always assume malice without even considering the possibility that well paid engineers actually did their job when doing it the way they did.
All you would probably accomplish is trivially delaying the onset of throttling since most of the heat is going to the chassis which is what is actually dissipating the heat. The skin temperature has to be below a certain amount and Apple are already at that limit.
Last edited:
It's not even necessarily malice. For example, every PC gamer is convinced they know more about cooling Macbook Airs because of that Linus video.
The funny thing is that the LTT video on the M1 Air concluded that Apple did it right …
The funny thing is that the LTT video on the M1 Air concluded that Apple did it right …
Ain't nobody got time to watch an entire video...!
Gotta get the jist of it with the clickbait thumbnail & opening ramble, then straight to your favorite internet forum to let the world know how screwed Apple is...! ;^p