Few thoughts about MacBook processors
Many people on different forums had already noticed, that MacBook is not actually the coolest notebook around. Moreover, one of the reviewers had already faced the OS crash because of overheating problem.
That suggested me an idea to explore, what could be done to decrease the heating and I?ve found out, that Apple actually could decrease the MacBook price, increase the notebook active time and make it cooler just by changing the CPU!
The fact is that Intel has two types of Core Duo processors that differ from each other by their clock speed and power consumption:
Processor\t\t\t\t\tPrice\tClock speed\tPower consumption
T2500 (2M L2 cache 667 MHz FSB 65nm)\t423$\t2.00GHz\t31W
L2400 (2M L2 cache 667 MHz FSB 65nm)\t316$\t1.66GHz\t15W
T2400 (2M L2 cache 667 MHz FSB 65nm)\t294$\t1.83GHz\t31W
L2300 (2M L2 cache 667 MHz FSB 65nm)\t284$\t1.50GHz\t15W
http://www.intel.com/intel/finance/p..._Price_web.pdf
The ?L? type Core Duo is quite the same processor as ?T? type, that consumes 50% less power.
I'd like to point out, that there is an accurate dependence between the power consumption and heating. Depending on quality of the notebook heatsink, each watt of power spent by CPU increase the temperature at certain amount of °C. This dependency is called ?thermal resistance?. As far as I could find, the MacBook maximum temperature could be up to 85 °C. It that allows me to suppose, that the thermal resistance of this notebook cooler is about 1.45°C/W, so the maximum temperature of the same MacBook with low-voltage Core Duo could be only 63°C. The 28% difference seems quite significant to me - it would allow using the notebook on the lap and decrease the necessity of turning the cooler at high RPM making the notebook more silent.
Another issue I'd like to notice is that 16 watt difference could really benefit the notebook active time. As far as I know, MacBook consumes up to 65 watts of power and almost half of that may be consumed by CPU. That means that low-voltage version of Core Duo may decrease the overall peak power consumption of the notebook for more than 24%. As I suppose, it could be about an additional half an hour of intensive work, or even about hour of maximum battery life.
Of course, there is a drawback of such solution: the price difference between the normal and LV Core with same clock speed is 76$ and "L" line fastest chip clock speed is "only" 1.66GHz... but to my mind, even that could be a side benefit for Apple, because it could allow them to make more sensible difference the MB and MBP notebooks. The cheapest version of MacBook could be equipped with L2300, and other could have L2400 processors ? this variant actually could reduce the prime cost of these notebooks.
So, Apple could make MacBooks colder, more power-efficient, cheaper and a somewhat less powerful but they didn?t. As for me, I dreaming of it as an option. What do you think about it?
That suggested me an idea to explore, what could be done to decrease the heating and I?ve found out, that Apple actually could decrease the MacBook price, increase the notebook active time and make it cooler just by changing the CPU!
The fact is that Intel has two types of Core Duo processors that differ from each other by their clock speed and power consumption:
Processor\t\t\t\t\tPrice\tClock speed\tPower consumption
T2500 (2M L2 cache 667 MHz FSB 65nm)\t423$\t2.00GHz\t31W
L2400 (2M L2 cache 667 MHz FSB 65nm)\t316$\t1.66GHz\t15W
T2400 (2M L2 cache 667 MHz FSB 65nm)\t294$\t1.83GHz\t31W
L2300 (2M L2 cache 667 MHz FSB 65nm)\t284$\t1.50GHz\t15W
http://www.intel.com/intel/finance/p..._Price_web.pdf
The ?L? type Core Duo is quite the same processor as ?T? type, that consumes 50% less power.
I'd like to point out, that there is an accurate dependence between the power consumption and heating. Depending on quality of the notebook heatsink, each watt of power spent by CPU increase the temperature at certain amount of °C. This dependency is called ?thermal resistance?. As far as I could find, the MacBook maximum temperature could be up to 85 °C. It that allows me to suppose, that the thermal resistance of this notebook cooler is about 1.45°C/W, so the maximum temperature of the same MacBook with low-voltage Core Duo could be only 63°C. The 28% difference seems quite significant to me - it would allow using the notebook on the lap and decrease the necessity of turning the cooler at high RPM making the notebook more silent.
Another issue I'd like to notice is that 16 watt difference could really benefit the notebook active time. As far as I know, MacBook consumes up to 65 watts of power and almost half of that may be consumed by CPU. That means that low-voltage version of Core Duo may decrease the overall peak power consumption of the notebook for more than 24%. As I suppose, it could be about an additional half an hour of intensive work, or even about hour of maximum battery life.
Of course, there is a drawback of such solution: the price difference between the normal and LV Core with same clock speed is 76$ and "L" line fastest chip clock speed is "only" 1.66GHz... but to my mind, even that could be a side benefit for Apple, because it could allow them to make more sensible difference the MB and MBP notebooks. The cheapest version of MacBook could be equipped with L2300, and other could have L2400 processors ? this variant actually could reduce the prime cost of these notebooks.
So, Apple could make MacBooks colder, more power-efficient, cheaper and a somewhat less powerful but they didn?t. As for me, I dreaming of it as an option. What do you think about it?
Comments
Originally posted by Aquatic
Should be an option. And perhaps a Core Solo. There are your 3 digit prices for notebooks. Call 'em...iBooks.
Well, changing the processor only coudn't, because the difference between T1300 and T2400 is only 85$, but the HDD with smaller capacity could be used... so, 3 digit price is real.
Originally posted by Aquatic
Should be an option. And perhaps a Core Solo. There are your 3 digit prices for notebooks.
Seeing as low-power CPUs are more expensive, rather than less expensive, I completely fail to see your logic.
Originally posted by Chucker
Seeing as low-power CPUs are more expensive, rather than less expensive, I completely fail to see your logic.
There are two types of Core Solo too: T-type costs 209$ and U-type (that are ultra low-voltage) price varies from 241$ to 262$. Official Intel price for T2400 is 294$ so any Core Solo is cheaper.