Throttling will be an issue in any device that is thermally limited by passive cooling, that's not even an argument.
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.
First M2 benchmarks
- Thread starter EugW
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Even if it throttles 10-15%, that's not a big deal for most people, since it would still be roughly as fast as M1.
BTW, my fanless m3 throttled all of 7% after 30 minutes of sustained Cinebenchmarking.
I find all synthetic benchmarks to be indicative of theoretical not practical usages. I'd rather see a real world usage to gauge efficiency. Don't get me wrong, these synthetics give us a nice overview.
cant wait to see how the M2 with 24 shared memory for the gpu is going to play out
I cant have this from Intel or Amd cpu....theirs igpu are a joke even in 2022....i have to go with at least dGpu to have some-kind of decent vRam and graphic power
I cant have this from Intel or Amd cpu....theirs igpu are a joke even in 2022....i have to go with at least dGpu to have some-kind of decent vRam and graphic power
depends..you put the binned M2 into an 15" laptop without active cooling and will never ever throttle
I think not even in the Mba the binned M2 will not throttle...since the cores are running cooler and you dont have the higher end 10gpu cores
We are talking about passive cooling here. You slap a fan in, that's no longer considered passive, it's active and therefor as you stated, will not throttle.
me too..i was talking about a fanless 15" laptop
you said any device with passive cooling
Nvm the binned M1 and probably the binned M2 will not throttle
I want to see how the M2 10 core gpu that draws 16W performs under load
Lots of numbers here:
www.notebookcheck.net
Apple MacBook Pro 13 2022 M2 Laptop Review – Debut for the new Apple M2
Notebookcheck reviews the updates 2022 Apple MacBook Pro 13 with the brand-new Apple M2 SoC and 16 GB RAM.
At least three strikes. Half the CPU performance, half the network throughput and still substandard 720p webcam. Remove Pro from name and just call it Macbook.
This particular chart is inverted and should be bottom up from fastest to slowest.
This particular chart is inverted and should be bottom up from fastest to slowest.
Cinebench is not a valid basis for comparison. As has been explained ad nauseum, it depends on the intel Embree library. It isn’t optimised well for non intel chips.
Cinebench is horribly unoptimised for Apple Sillicon and ARM. I would test real world apps like Final Cut or native games like Bauler Gate 3
Probably if you overlock the M1 family chips, you will be close to the M2 family. But ofcourse, Apple won't allow overclocking.
M1 can't go higher cause of way its built. M2 decreased the ROB to get a higher clock.
That’s a popular assertion among x86 apologists, but there is nothing suggesting it’s true.
It may well be that they wouldn’t clock as high as the x86 designs, but of course the chips could use higher clocks than Apple chooses. Not that I want them to. For systems that you operate in your vicinity, keeping power draws low makes total sense, and if you can get it low enough to totally be rid of depending on fans, it’s great. The trend of ever increasing power draws is because the computer market learned to expect, and perhaps more importantly was sold rapidly increasing performance levels, and the silicon process technology simply doesn’t support it to nearly the same extent today. Apple choosing to not follow their chip supplier Intel along that trajectory is one of the best things to happen in personal computing for a long while. IMHO, obviously.
Since when am I an x86 apologist? 🤪
And yes, there is both direct and indirect evidence that the maximal clock of M-series is an inherent limitation of their design rather than arbitrary policy.
I agree with everything you say here. Buy none of it proves that M1 clock speed is an arbitrary policy. Apple doesn’t just choose to operate on a more efficient segment of the power curve, they actually deliver comparable peak performance at 2-3 times lower power consumption than their d86 competitors. That’s not something one can explain with node advantage alone, this has to be a fundamental property of their CPU design. And it’s unlikely that this design comes with no drawbacks. It it entirely unreasonable to speculate that limited maximal clock might be among those limitations?
What evidence? What does this statement even mean? "the maximal clock is an inherent limitation"?
There is no doubt, that you can clock the M1/M2 much higher, if Apple would decide that the power increase would be acceptable for its customers. And since any clock increase comes with significant power penalties, it is a deliberate decision of Apple.
Last edited:
That the design decisions behind M1 make it impossible to systematically achieve stable operation at higher clocks than 3.2 ghz.
Direct evidence: tests done by Anandtech some years ago that showed a sharp exponential increase in power consumption when approaching the maximal operating clock. If I remember correctly, this was done for A12, but if Apple's basic design didn't change it could suggest that the current chips already operate at or close to their limit.
Indirect evidence: just a few considerations. First, if Firestorm could support higher clocks at the expense of higher power consumption, it is likely that Apple could have squeezed at least 10-20% more at 100-150% higher power consumption. That would still conformably place them under desktop Intel or AMD — with a very wide margin, but deliver higher performance. So why is the M1 in the Studio still limited to 3.2Ghz? Surely it has a budget of 20W or so for single-core operation? Second, it has been observed that Firestorm has relatively long pipeline stages, which would limit the maximal attainable clock.
The overall idea is that Apple's design is probably very different from Intel or AMD. Modern x86 CPUs are designed to achieve very high clock rates while remaining scalable and operational across wide clock ranges. Apple CPUs are designed to do as much work possible with as little energy usage as possible, which is not the same as just running a CPU at a lower clock to save energy.
See above. I don't believe that Apple would miss the chance to claim the absolute performance crown in single-threaded operation.
I do. It makes perfect sense that Apple would be happy to forego that one performance crown, since it doesn't really help them sell Macs in any meaningful way.
I disagree. Apple did claim M1 "FireStorm" was the fastest CPU core in 2020 and Apple was right. In November 2020 Apple had the best CPU core and Apple gladly said so in their November M1 Event.
Sure, but now it isn't, and honestly, only some geeks here care. Nobody else does. They've given up the single-core crown and Macs will sell as well as ever. I'm sure they could create some boutique chips that ran at super high power to get that crown back but they won't in the main consumer and pro M series because it just doesn't make much sense from their perspective, from both a technical and business point of view.
But who knows, maybe they'll have a Mac Pro SKU that wins back the crown, since those are boutique flagship machines anyway, likely selling less than 0.1% of all Macs.
Last edited:
Apple does. They have relentlessly pushed for having as much single-core performance as they can. They delayed products in the past just so that they can get that premium SKU, and their phone(!!!) outperforms most premium laptops on the market.
I don't believe they gave it up. M2 single-core is faster than pretty much any laptop out there. It's just that they are behind the schedule.
Intel didn't give up the single-core laptop CPU speed crown. They're just 10 years behind schedule.
