well, if you don’t your comment get's likely removed… aaaanyway: you are right.
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.
Is Apple now a chip company first and design second?
- Thread starter Retskrad
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The 2021 case also offers more internal volume due to it being shaped rounded. My guess is they wanted more internal volume for ports and bigger speakers. The M2 Air also has 20% more volume than the M1 Air.
but the new chassis has bigger fans and that is a also a big factor why it can cool the chips better. The M1 Max gets as hot as the i9 under full load. i9 and M1 Max can also reach >95 degrees.
M1 Max/Pro is more efficient when doing normal tasks but it can still get hot like i9 when pushing it hard.
Actually the internal volume is quite same, if you look at the specs, the flattening of base, has led to better speakers, by pushing them to the edges, and also, the smaller logic board, as visible occupies significantly low and regionally concentrated volume, enabling a better and efficient cooling system, thanks to Apple Silicons SoC Architecture, and if you observe, lower circuit components have enabled Apple to push up larger fans, hereby reducing heat generated, and providing large volume of displacement for airThe 2021 case also offers more internal volume due to it being shaped rounded. My guess is they wanted more internal volume for ports and bigger speakers. The M2 Air also has 20% more volume than the M1 Air.
and about the M2 Air thing, well doesn't have fans, so guess that we need not talk of size or thickness, since both use the same Aluminium Heat Dissipators if I am not wrong
Yeah good analysis. Lets just leave it here. Apple Silicons SoC Architecture will only get more efficient as it moves to 3nm TSMC in the future. Nice having a chat with you.
thats irrelevant...physics never lie, chassis and bigger fans always are better. Yes thats also because the M1 Max is far smaller than the i9+dGpu so apple can provide with better cooling
we saw that even M series can get over 100C hot too...but i never experienced with my M1 max the melting behaviour of my i9 intel 16"
There is no question that Apple Silicon is much more efficient than any other currently available hardware. But this doesn't mean that it's incapable of high power operation. I can easily make it run at 80W without even trying by starting
an ALU-heavy GPU kernel as well as some intensive work on all cores, see below. I could probably push it further by also adding some memory bandwidth heavy stuff to the GPU (that would be additional 5-10W for the main RAM) as well as loading up the AMX units.
The new chassis has no problem whatsoever with this kind of load. It can run this 80 watts workloads pretty much indefinitely, and the fans stay quiet for a while. Even after several minutes they are still way below their max RPM.
In contrast, with the 2019 16" chassis you would start observing CPU throttling if you tried to push the CPU+GPU over 70 watts and the machine would immediately get very loud (in Cpu only operation, the 2019 chassis can run the CPU at 60W sustained, in CPU+GPU it quickly drops the limit down to 30W or less). All this despite the 2019 hardware capable of much higher peak power consumption. This suggests that the 2019 chassis struggles with these higher power operation while for the new chassis it's a breeze.
P.S. Regarding power efficiency — the M1 Max summary CPU+GPU compute throughput is at least 2-3 higher than the 2019 Intel model at the same power consumption. So this does not in any way contests your statement about higher efficiency of Apple hardware.
Attachments
Last edited:
I reckon recent Apple products are a more sensible mix of pragmatism, good design and high-quality manufacturing. The one area where I think they have dropped the ball is adopting the notch on laptops, I don’t think it is a good tradeoff of design elegance versus pragmatic use of screen area.
You are comparing 2 different chips, that are completely different in nature, the Intel one is a power hungry 14nm Chips in comparison to M1 Max/Pro Chips which are 5 nm Power Efficient Chips, comparing these chips is absolutely right, but comparing their cooling requirements and efficiency all together, isn't right, the Silicon is quite efficient, its all the merging of Small Logic Board, Large Size Fan, Large Air Displacement that has enabled this thing (Apple Silicon MBPs) to work better than ever
I never said the new chassis is bad in anyway regarding performance, what I initially said was that the new Macs look ugly, and the older ones looked better, rather I said that the old chassis looked better, and I was defending that chassis regarding the air volume displacement thing, that we were discussing
So when did I deny anything of what you said, rather I have actually agreed with everything what you said, just look at my previous reply friend, I have agreed with everything you said
I am comparing the actual power usage of these systems. The Apple Silicon system is capable of using more total power without throttling in the new chassis than the (less efficient) Intel system in the 2019 chassis. These are facts. Thich suggest that the new chassis is better for power dissipation than the 2019 chassis.
You wrote, quote "you would realise the older (2019 to 2020) Macs Exterior Chassis was better for cooling, for the newer Apple Silicon". Maybe I am interpreting this wrong, but it sounded to me like you are suggesting that the 2019 version has higher potential for thermal dissipation than the new 2021 chassis. I showed empirical data demonstrating that this is not the case and that the new chassis can in fact dissipate more heat with less fan involvement. Which again is not surprising as the new chassis has bigger fans, much larger air intake and exhaust ports and also beefier heatsinks.
It seems to me that you're taking your own opinion of style as an objective, observable fact and then trying to impose it on others here... good luck with that
One of Apple's core tenets has always been not change a design for the sake of change (unlike most companies), but only to change a design because it is clearly superior to the previous design.
If that's really true, what are you even doing here anymore?
I'd argue that the simple fact that you are here arguing about Apple is proof that you still emotionally respond to the company and its products.
Otherwise, why bother?
How is that fresh and modern looking? That’s just an iteration on the tapered MBA design Apple was using five years ago. Only Dell seems to be using plastic.
I think a lot of people are still in the late 90's, or think Apple has a more flamboyant past than what really happened.
The first iMac, the one with the indigo colors, was released in May, 1998. In 1999, it was replaced with "five flavors" that lasted until 2001 with minor refreshes. In early 2001, the "Blue Dalmation" and "Flower Power" colors were released, and in summer 2001 was replaced with the more conservative snow, indigo, and graphite. In 2002, the "lampshade" iMac was released, which continued being sold until 2004 when the iMac G5 was released. Apple's design language continued being similar after 2004. That's only 6 years of designs that are unique just to be unique.
Apple's PowerMacs were much more conservative. In 1999, Apple released the Powermac G3, with a blue and white color scheme. In late 1999, this was replaced with a more traditional looking gray color, which continued being sold (with some refreshes) until 2001. In 2001, the PowerMac G4 "Quicksilver" was released, in a silver color, which continued being sold (with various updates) until 2005. In 2005, the Power Mac G5 was released, using a very similar design language to the most recent machines. That's only about 6 months of a completely radical design, and 6 years until the current design language was used (excluding the "trash can" PowerMac, of course).
Apple's iBooks were much more conservative. The "five flavors" of iBooks were sold from July, 1999 to May, 2001 before being replaced with the much more conservative looking (and lighter) white iBook with it's squared off edges. That's only two years of a radical design.
Apple's PowerBooks were extremely conservative, with only about two years of a "radical" design being used. That design is the Powerbook G3 "Bronze" keyboard, which was sold between May, 1999 to January, 2001. In January, 2001, the Powerbook G4 was released, using a squared off, professional Titanium enclosure, and the design didn't change much after that. That's a little under two years of a radical design.
Apple hasn't been radical in their design and I can't imagine them changing anytime soon.
The first iMac, the one with the indigo colors, was released in May, 1998. In 1999, it was replaced with "five flavors" that lasted until 2001 with minor refreshes. In early 2001, the "Blue Dalmation" and "Flower Power" colors were released, and in summer 2001 was replaced with the more conservative snow, indigo, and graphite. In 2002, the "lampshade" iMac was released, which continued being sold until 2004 when the iMac G5 was released. Apple's design language continued being similar after 2004. That's only 6 years of designs that are unique just to be unique.
Apple's PowerMacs were much more conservative. In 1999, Apple released the Powermac G3, with a blue and white color scheme. In late 1999, this was replaced with a more traditional looking gray color, which continued being sold (with some refreshes) until 2001. In 2001, the PowerMac G4 "Quicksilver" was released, in a silver color, which continued being sold (with various updates) until 2005. In 2005, the Power Mac G5 was released, using a very similar design language to the most recent machines. That's only about 6 months of a completely radical design, and 6 years until the current design language was used (excluding the "trash can" PowerMac, of course).
Apple's iBooks were much more conservative. The "five flavors" of iBooks were sold from July, 1999 to May, 2001 before being replaced with the much more conservative looking (and lighter) white iBook with it's squared off edges. That's only two years of a radical design.
Apple's PowerBooks were extremely conservative, with only about two years of a "radical" design being used. That design is the Powerbook G3 "Bronze" keyboard, which was sold between May, 1999 to January, 2001. In January, 2001, the Powerbook G4 was released, using a squared off, professional Titanium enclosure, and the design didn't change much after that. That's a little under two years of a radical design.
Apple hasn't been radical in their design and I can't imagine them changing anytime soon.
I still love Apple. I want them to succeed. I love the products but I'm just stating that Apple is not special anymore. But I do think they can do better.
"Almost the same experience" suggests an inferior experience. Even excluding smart watches where Apple has a huge lead, an Apple avoiding ecosystem would have to use Android on mobile and Windows on the Desktop or Laptop. A very inconsistent user experience (Windows alone offers an inconsistent user experience).
Then there is tablets. An Android tablet just offers phone apps on a screen too large for them. Or you could get a Windows tablet and run touch unfriendly desktop apps on a screen too small for them. Either way it's a mess.
Speaking of chips, the sooner Apple moves their manufacturing to USA, the better. Kowtowing to China about Taiwan isn't going to help. I like Apple and I want to keep using their solid phones even if they are not cutting edge all the time.
I’m conflicted. MacRumors newbie posts something controversial posed as a question. Is the poster A: a troll
B: Lonely and seeking to provoke as many responses as possible, dipping in from time to time to stir the pot when the number of responses start to drop away.
C: A member of MacRumors staff, intent on driving up the number of “ clicks “ on the site to make the interaction numbers more attractive to potential advertisers. 🤔😉
B: Lonely and seeking to provoke as many responses as possible, dipping in from time to time to stir the pot when the number of responses start to drop away.
C: A member of MacRumors staff, intent on driving up the number of “ clicks “ on the site to make the interaction numbers more attractive to potential advertisers. 🤔😉
Some XY Watts chips produced more heat than other XY Watts Chips, due to their blunt old architecture, 5nm is more efficient, than 14nm, this is the same reason why we have similar performance on Mac Studio with M1 Max, (though has more cooling volume), than MacBook Pro with M1 Max, this suggests that the current chassis is really good for cooling, but what I mean is we can have better with those older shape, I repeat shape (the external enclosure, not internal components), not like that congested logic board we had in older MacBook Pros, this is the point I am trying to make since a long time, lastly
I guess things will get more and more complicated to discuss, searching and showcasing, copying and pasting pictures etc. so let's put end to this here 👍
Pretty sure the basic physics of the thing requires that watts dissipated is exactly proportional to heat generated. A more efficient chip doing exactly the same thing dissipates fewer watts. That's what the words mean. Temperature is a different thing. You can have more heat generated with lower device temperatures if you have good heat transfer or higher temperatures with lower heat generated if you have lower heat transfer. Efficiency and temperature are not directly related. Watts and heat generated are basically the same thing.
Every device that Apple makes (yes, there is still and Intel Mac Mini and Mac Pro, those will be gone soon) has Apple's own custom Silicon as well. So, they are designing every device and also creating a chip for every single one. However, ASi allows them to make new designs, so you COULD say it still all centers around design more than chip manufacturing. Though, to be honest, they are just fully doing both. They are fully chip designers, and all of their products still have a depth of design that I believe to be unmatched in the industry.
