Thanks for clearing that up, I was confused! Yes we are saying the same thing. A computer should not die even if you use it for something its not suited for it - trying to play AAA games on a $300 Dell for example. So this was clearly a defect.No I did not say that. I was answering to a remark which implied that the way of using had something to do with the fail of the device. I was merely trying to say that a computer should not fail by the way how one uses it. Of course there are always exceptions to the rule (when a device is DOA or a lemon in the first place). But under normal circumstances that does not matter. So, don't be confused, I think you and I mean the same
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.
Returned M1. Won’t Beta test this
- Thread starter FilmIndustryGuy
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The OP never said the device was fried... someone else said that. He said the Apple Tech told him the system was toast. Meaning non-operational. There is a whole host of ways to arrive at non-operational, frying it (overheating) is just one of them.
But the 12" MacBook uses a processor that's "known" to have a T junction of 100C. Also all recent Intel MacBooks have chips that have T junction of 100C.
We don't know what the T junction of the Apple M1 chip is. Apple never gave us that information.
People are assuming 100C, but... the fact is that Apple never allows the chip to reach 100C. It throttles shortly after it reaches 90C.
I got AppleCare on my M1 ... I like it that much that im hoping I will keep it for 3 years ... unless of course a better M1x or whatever is that much more impressive ... I know in 3 years there will be upgrades, but AppleCare will also help this computer sell that much better as well ...
The info hasn't been publicly released, which means we can't really assess the measured temps.
Yea, the logic of some users goes like this: the m1 is a beta test. So is the A14 a beta test, too? Or the next generation of Ax? Considering Apples bad choices when they bring out a new design, the new Macbook Pros next year or the next Macbook Air in 2022 will be much more a beta test than the M1.
Well, note that the M1 does have a few things that Apple is doing for the first time:
1. It's the first ARM chip that they are pushing to this level of power and thermal. The iPhones and iPads were never this powerful.
2. It's the first ARM chip from Apple forced to deal with an OS that runs everything concurrently, iOS is nothing like MacOS.
3. It's the first ARM chip that actually requires active cooling to sustain max performance.
Did Apple "know very well what they were doing" with Intel chips? I think many here will say "no" (and mind, Apple has used Intel chips in their designs for far longer than any ARM chip in any iPhone or iPad). Granted, the M1 is Apple's own design. They should know it better than Intel chips. But you're assuming they're executing everything flawlessly, with absolutely no fault whatsoever.
It's a 1st gen product. There are bound to be some issues here and there. The problem is... when will we see such issues? And what triggers them? That's what's concerning.
is not a first gen product. Its an first mac with m1 in the same design like last year
To be a 1 st product means everything to be new..design inside out
Since m1 macbook air has less issues than intel one..says a lot
Again, apple did had 2-3 generations of 12 macbook and nothing like this happened
Every product mass sold will have some issues to few customers
This, until contrary, is an limited issue, maybe this will be the only device with it
Lets not make a big deal until the contrary
To be a 1 st product means everything to be new..design inside out
Since m1 macbook air has less issues than intel one..says a lot
Again, apple did had 2-3 generations of 12 macbook and nothing like this happened
Every product mass sold will have some issues to few customers
This, until contrary, is an limited issue, maybe this will be the only device with it
Lets not make a big deal until the contrary
Maybe he didn’t knew this m1 is like an A14x but in a larger envelope than an iphone and ipad
1. It’s still effectively built to run at 10-15W like the iPad chip. It’s not that big a change. The M1 and the A12Z are very similar beasts. 4+4 CPU cores, 8 GPU cores. The key difference is using the newer A14-derived CPU/GPU cores, a reasonable uplift in max clock speed over the A14, and adding Thunderbolt I/O. The performance difference between an A12Z and the M1 lines up really well. The A14 in particular is a 3Ghz chip, while the M1 is 3.2Ghz. The M1 isn’t new in this regard.
2. iOS and macOS are both Darwin OSes. How the Window Server decides to keep things resident in memory or not is an orthogonal issue. Your average iPhone runs dozens of services in the background. Especially as Apple has been letting 3rd parties do more and more in the background on iOS as their SoCs have been getting better, more concurrent things have been happening on iOS. This isn’t new, nor is it relevant in terms of chip failure rates.
3. iPads and iPhones both thermal throttle under full load. iPads can usually go a bit harder than the iPhone. This isn’t new.
Apple introduced the iPhone when, in 2007? Two years after the Intel shift. “far longer” is a pretty ingenuous way to describe it. The folks running the silicon team at Apple have been designing silicon longer than Apple’s been using Intel CPUs.
The only thing “first gen” about the A14/M1 design is that it’s on a new process node. ??♀️
They're also going to have completely brand new screen technology (Mini-LED) in a redesigned chassis. I'd expect there to be more growing pains with those MacBooks than the M1 MacBooks.
M1 is still the first chip Apple has built that has to sustain 15W max power. Or are you going to tell me it doesn't matter because the iPhone and iPad can do the same?
P.S.: also, you're basically suggesting that when the Mac Pro gets a 32-core M1Z or whatever processor Apple wants to push into it, that... it's basically using an "overgrown" iPhone chip.
Uh... no. The way iOS and MacOS handle background processes and services are still vastly different:
Preparing your UI to run in the background | Apple Developer Documentation
Prepare your app to be suspended.
You're grossly over-simplifying key mechanical differences by saying the OSes are built on the same architectures. By that token, you're basically saying Android is just like Ubuntu because they are both based on the Linux kernel. That cannot be any further from the truth.
There's a massive difference between running some tasks and stressing a part of the SoC, versus being able to fully saturate all processors in the SoC for extended period of time (note: "hours", not "minutes"). The latter is possible with MacOS, but not even remotely possible with iOS unless someone builds an app that specifically does that. But if such an app exists, iOS will eventually show the usual "iPad needs to cool down before you can use it" message, while MacOS will seemingly keep going until it crashes.
Throttling also means reducing both the thermal and power requirements. In a way, it makes the chip more stable than clocking it up and drawing more power. If you're going to tell me "that doesn't matter", then you're basically suggesting that overclocking a chip does not make it more unstable. I don't think that's how it works.
Sigh...
Mac transition to Intel processors - Wikipedia
Please know your history?
P.S.2: also, officially, if we're talking about Apple-designed SoC, the A4 was the first one:
Apple A4 - Wikipedia
And it wasn't released until 2010. That's still long after Apple released the first Intel Macs.
Last edited:
Yes he did. First 4 words of his statement.
it seems a little like every computer that is put out has some level of beta testing to it (new features, OS etc.) we are all beta testers forever and ever.... People worry too much about apple first gen stuff my IPP 2018 12.9 is still running strong my 10xs max is still a beast and this M1 isn't too shabby.
January 2006 to June 2007 is far longer? The first Intel Mac was released in January 2006, the first iPhone in June 2007. I make it 18 months. Doesn't meet my definition of "far longer".
OP, no worries....we will Beta test for you and enjoy quite a bit while doing it....you sweat back and read about it ??
Moving the goal posts much? Your statement was that Apple has Intel chips in their designs far longer than any ARM chip. Not that they investigated using Intel or that Apple designed their own CPU. No, Apple has not used Intel designs in their computers "far longer" than Arm. As a matter of fact, Apple was using ARM for the Newton and the iPod long before they decided to switch to Intel in Macs. Learn history yourself.Sigh...
Mac transition to Intel processors - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Please know your history?
P.S.2: also, officially, if we're talking about Apple-designed SoC, the A4 was the first one:
Apple A4 - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
And it wasn't released until 2010. That's still long after Apple released the first Intel Macs.
I plan on beta testing one soon but right now I just bought an iPhone 12 and AW S6 for beta testing so it's going to be a few months.
Uh, no.
Please don't quote me out of context? I specifically mentioned iPhone and iPad.
The rest of the point is as you can read. I don't think I'll say much more on it.
Uh, yeah. What is out of context? Or did you not claim that Apple has used Intel chips in their designs for far longer than any ARM chip in any iPhone or iPad? And doesn't that imply that Apple has less experience with Arm than with Intel. Which BTW is ridiculous considering that Apple was one of the co-founders of Arm Ltd in the middle 90's. So yeah, Apple has just as much experience with Arm as they have with Intel and more besides which makes your whole point incorrect.
Now you're the one moving the goal post and also putting words in my mouth.
But I'll play along: you're missing the point. The point is this: Apple has designed computers with Intel chips for a while before they even tried to design their own silicon with ARM CPUs in something that can be considered "computer-like" like an iPhone or iPad.
Why bring the iPod into this discussion? Did the iPod run on Darwin? No? Is the iPod a "computer" or simply just an "appliance"? I think it is an "appliance", but I suspect you're going to claim it is a "computer".
You can argue that Newton was a "computer", I guess. But I sincerely doubt Newton added much to Apple's expertise at building an ARM "computer".
Also, being a "co-founder" did not immediately lead Apple to introduce any successful ARM device for almost a decade, and by 2000, their shares in ARM fell to less than 15%. I doubt that translates to "experience" either, but obviously, you're thinking otherwise. Let's just agree to disagree here and move on, shall we?
Did you by any chance tried doing a system restore or it just died suddenly?
Just asking because there were some threads about system restores bricking them, a completely software related issue.
I made a reservation and went to Apple store to speak with a tech. The tech told me it just needs a firmware update as they have had those happen. She took it and 15 min later I was told it’s toast and they can’t power it on. No sign of life. They took the lid off to inspect and can’t see anything going wrong. They advised me to just take the refund and no M1 in stock.