Imagine all those people getting MBAs with M2, they'll be able to cook bacon.
That remark aside, it seems I was quite right when it comes to the power draw and heat generation.
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.
M2 is really just m1.1 (Update, I was wrong).
- Thread starter macguy360
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That remark aside, it seems I was quite right when it comes to the power draw and heat generation.
Wasn’t aware that Apple started to disrupt the market of custom made baking molds by moving to silicone… 😂🤣🥹
Sorry, I see myself out… 🤪🤓
You’re still looking at it through the glasses Intel/AMD would prefer you use.
It’s more “Why would I NOT want my low end to have the same single core performance as a desktop chip?” People buying i3’s, do they WANT to use a far inferior chip to the top end? No, but that’s all that’s available for them to use. It’s better for users because the macOS system they buy today will be more performant than the last one they bought of that type. It’s worse for users that, instead of looking for a more performant macOS system, are looking for wattage and heat numbers that match Intel. Luckily for Apple, the vast majority of folks aren’t looking for wattage and heat production to match Intel, they’re looking to check their email, surf the web, check their social media accounts, edit some pictures/videos, etc. Also, fortunately for Apple, they only have to sell about 20 million Macs in a year to be profitable enough to keep making them. I’m guessing it’ll be pretty easy for them to find 20 million folks that aren’t closely focused on their system’s heat output.Yeah, but now you’re talking about a very small group of people, not the masses buying current laptop Macs (80% of all the Macs Apple sells). And, as things that are possible cross platform have been faster on Intel for quite awhile, there’s very likely not many in that small group (if any) that are still using Apple today.
you cant cook eggs only if you remove everything and place them into the SoC itself
The body of the laptop is around 40C...can you make a difference between SoC temp and the body of the laptop temp?
Intel/amd laptops under heavy load you feel the laptop around 44-46C so that a difference that you will notice every second (not to mention those Intel+dGpu laptops that reach even 47-48C.
On gpu department this is a true M2 , second generation, while the cpu is just a nice increase, and even with these increase the battery life it seems it stay the same, that impressive
It seems not...the Mba will run the same as this 13" Mbp...since Apple apparently is limiting the cores around 3.2ghz and the temp are let to reach 100-104C (so the fan was kind of useless here)
So the Mba will run almost exactly like this, 100-104C 3.2ghz in full load with a body that is around 40C
But we still have to wait and see ourselves
Not quite, as was mentioned, the MBP throttles as the fan curves seem to be broken. As soon as the reviewer fixed that, the MBP performed as expected. However, an MBA will not have a fan to help once the entire thermal system soaks in heat.
Yes, I'm fine with that. A small reduction in performance once in a while is worth the tradeoff to not have a fan. Don't do a lot of sustain processing tasks on my MBA now.
Does it throttle? From what I’ve seen the performance doesn’t vary with fan speed. Perhaps a longer test would cause throttling, but nothing in the Max tech video showed that.
The video review did state the fan curve was broken on M2. So the fan was not raving up as it should. When compared to the M1, the M1's fan rev'd accordingly.
That said, performance kept on going perhaps on the premise that the CPU was going to get cooled down but it actually wasn't.
I like Max tech’s videos, but I’m not sure they’re qualified to judge whether the fan curve is broken
If performance continues despite temperature and fan differences, I don’t think it can be called throttling.
Edit: I seem to recall Max tech claiming the M1 Max was underperforming because they claimed the temperature never went above 50C. It turned out the software they used hadn’t been updated and was misreporting temps. Just something to keep in mind when quoting them.
Last edited:
You’re still looking at it through the glasses Intel/AMD would prefer you use.
I really think you’re looking at this upside down…. Of course I’d like my phone to have desktop performance, but I don’t want to hobble my desktop to make that relationship work. You’re talking like Apple designed the best desktop chip they could and then miraculously scaled it to iPhone. That’s not how this worked— they started with the best phone chip they could and, lo and behold, it gave x86 a run for its money. But everything about the M1 line is still built upon a thermally limited design. Sure the bigger chips take some additional thermal management, but that’s because they’ve packed more stuff onto the die, not because they’ve adapted the cores for desktop use.
So your MBA has the same single threaded performance as a desktop because the desktop is using a laptop chip, not because the laptop is using a desktop chip.
Imagine you had a screaming fast desktop, and demanded that your laptop and desktop be the same performance without question— so they took your desktop processor out and replaced it with a slower laptop processor to say they were the same. I don’t think you (or anyone) would be happy with that compromise.
The fact that the Studio Ultra seems to peak at something like 50C* means there’s more it can be doing. I also think it means Apple knows this, which is why they over-designed the thermal management. My guess is we’ll see little change in the housings from generation to generation, but the heat sinks will be better used in future generations. If I were building out the Mx line, I’d probably follow this approach as well— minimize the amount of new in each new chip to reduce effort and risk and build confidence. I’d expect that someday we’ll see the Max/Ultra chips engineered differently to give more performance in a desktop setting, but for now they decided not to add a whole other architecture design to their slate and, frankly, didn’t need to.
*note I pulled that number from a user report in these forums. I just read @JimmyjamesEU ’s comment above that there seems to have been a bug in some temp reporting tool, so not sure the user I’m relying on fell victim to the same bug…
The M1 brought a bunch of first time Mac buyers to Apple. Why? Because it’s a superior chip and users want what an Apple laptop can provide. If the PC/Windows world starts to leave AS in their dust, I expect those people to go back, along with others. You’re implying as much when you say Apple needs to keep beating their own previous generation. Why? If those users are chained to MacOS, they don’t need to beat anything. But they‘re not, and they’re not stupid, and if the system they’re using starts to fall behind the curve, they’ll abandon it. As I said above, some people, such as myself, will put up with some compromises because I appreciate the benefits of the Apple ecosystem, but I have a limit. Apple has to keep pace, they can’t be unconcerned if Intel starts to outperform them as you suggest.
Last edited:
Well, given that the fans kicked in until the M2 reached 100* then yes, I'd say it was broken. A fan curve should start reving up fans as the CPU gets hotter, not until it reaches 100*. That is one way to rapidly kill silicon.
I’m pretty sure this has been discussed here before. I think @leman had some information? In any case iirc it doesn’t kill silicon in any meaningful way.
We’ll see what happens with software updates, but they might just be comfortable with the M2 reaching those temps because they have the data and know it’s ok.
well Apple has had a history of quite a few logic board replacements as they always favored silence and sleek design above sane temperatures, so...
Well, it does. I can't remember which MacBook Pro was it, but it suffered from issues from the heat generated which detached the GPU's BGAs.
Heat doesn't "kill" it silicone chips, it just allows them to desolder.
It can do a lot of things if the device doesn’t take some action to stop the heat build up— right up to and including letting out the magic blue smoke.
that was mostly the boards with Nvidia GPUs and probably one reason why Apple never went back to them again.well Apple has had a history of quite a few logic board replacements as they always favored silence and sleek design above sane temperatures, so...
Yes, a laptop Apple Silicon chip that outpaces most of the desktop chips produced today. Which really shouldn’t be a situation that exists. The current huge disparity in low to high single threaded performance in non-Apple Silicon processors shouldn’t be acceptable. Multithreaded, sure, because more cores=more performance. But, single core performance across the line should be what people expect. I’m sure AMD and Intel will continue to have their way, though, and, get folks to continue to accept “mobile just can’t provide good performance unless we put in a desktop part”.
You know the number one system those first time Mac buyers bought? The Air. Not REALLY folks that are desiring for their systems to generate more heat and consume more power.
And, the PC/Windows world won’t leave mobile AS in the dust as, remember, PC/Windows has chip vendors telling them “you can’t get single threaded performance like the top end in a mobile system (ignore that Apple stuff)”. Where the PC/Windows world will ALWAYS beat the Mac is in the highest end bleedingest edge systems pumped with power and liquid cooling. Fortunately for Apple, that’s a fairly small market compared to, say, folks that just need to send email and edit pictures.Apple, related to performance from this point forward, only has to perform better than the last Mac released in that form factor. There is little concern within Apple if the mobile systems they create (which are most of what they sell) doesn’t beat Intel’s bleedingest edge desktop systems pumped with power and liquid cooling, it really doesn’t matter.
Well, yes, that's also true. Once that magic smoke happens, the chips is completely dead.
Yes, a laptop Apple Silicon chip that outpaces most of the desktop chips produced today. Which really shouldn’t be a situation that exists. The current huge disparity in low to high single threaded performance in non-Apple Silicon processors shouldn’t be acceptable. Multithreaded, sure, because more cores=more performance. But, single core performance across the line should be what people expect. I’m sure AMD and Intel will continue to have their way, though, and, get folks to continue to accept “mobile just can’t provide good performance unless we put in a desktop part”.
You know the number one system those first time Mac buyers bought? The Air. Not REALLY folks that are desiring for their systems to generate more heat and consume more power.
Apple, related to performance from this point forward, only has to perform better than the last Mac released in that form factor. There is little concern within Apple if the mobile systems they create (which are most of what they sell) doesn’t beat Intel’s bleedingest edge desktop systems pumped with power and liquid cooling, it really doesn’t matter.
Alright, I think you‘re dug in on the idea that it’s worth sacrificing desktop performance to be able to say it’s the same as laptop performance. I just don’t see it that way. I want the best performance I can get given the system constraints, and if an extra 4 inches or whatever in a MacStudio means I can eke out more performance, I’d like it.
And frankly, not doing so will give x86 an ongoing edge in desktop computing. While AS will continue to be the killer laptop processor, Apple’s competitors will continue to be able to claim the highest raw performance. And I specifically disagree that x86 should always have the upper hand in these systems. Looking at what Apple can do in a thermally limited system, they should be able to wipe the floor with x86 at the high end to— as long as we don’t artificially hold desktops back and force them to perform like laptops.
Multicore performance is another path to performance growth, but it’s a compromise. Not all workloads are adapted to multicore systems and when they are they rarely scale linear with core count. Improving the single core performance improves the multicore as a bonus.
I’m actually quite interested to see what the MacPro has in store. Do they keep their architecture sipping power, or do they open the throttle a bit?
Do you somehow think that I’m saying the laptop chips should get hotter? I feel like I’m being quite explicit that laptop and desktop chips should be different and optimized to their form factor. Apple taking your advice to not worry about what’s happening at Intel, AMD, Qualcomm or anywhere else will doom the Mac to being a toy.
Last edited:
Apple didn't self-report 18% single-core, that number was explicitly multithreaded.
The reason M2 multithreaded scores improved a lot more than its ST scores is a big upgrade in performance for its efficiency cores relative to M1. The E cores do nothing for ST benchmarks which are only run on a single P core, but they can matter a lot in multithreaded benchmarks.
Catch up with alder lake? So funny. Alder lake sucks power to achieve what it does, no offense but Intel groupies need a reality shot. No doubt alder lake is good for a high power chip, it’s small gains over m1 were cool, but m1 was 2020 and still much lower power than alder lake. Now m2 is right in line, no doubt next version of high power Intel chips will probably surpass m2, but so?
Yep. You also get 5% more headroom to increase clock speed for the same power with TSMC's N5P process compared to N5 in the M1/A14. Apple ramped up the clock speed a bit more than 5% though.