I got a 2 GHz Macbook over the weekend. It gets a little warm but so does the Dell POS notebook I have to use for work, so it seems fairly normal to me.
He had a kernel panic. The question is obviously "why?" I haven't had one yet, and my iMac only had one when I loaded an early beta of Parallels. This doesn't sound like a heat problem to me.
FWIW, mine runs warm but not hot, and is incredibly quiet. have nothing but great things to say about the MacBook after three days.
I just had one this morning I have had now at least 10 kernal panics since buying the MBP.
I think it is just a function of the immature hardware and apple goodness.
I can't wait till they work out the bugs and I can buy another. This one will go on ebay. I might however, have to walk to the new apple store in NYC and have them fix it....
grrr!!! not because it overheats but because of the huge lines at the store!!!
I've had my MacBook for a few days now and haven't had any significant heat issues... It seems to hover around 40C when idle... it peaks at about 70C under a significant load. It seems to run warmer under XP (using BootCamp)... I'm not sure if that's a power management issue or because I pretty much just installed XP... and as everyone knows... unlike OS X... after you install XP... next you install anti-virus software, anti-adware software, cd/dvd burning software, DVD viewing software... and so on... and so on. I think the temp probably cranked up a bit because I had it running at full throttle for a while. But even then the fan was barely noticeable. To be honest... when the fan first came on... it was just for a second or two at a time and I could barely hear it. With all the problems with different noises the Pros had... I was afraid they MacBooks may be suffering from some "newborn" problems as well. When I checked the temp, I realized it was high enough for the fan to go on. It was just so quiet and brief I thought it was something else. Some of my Compaq/HP notebooks sound like jets when the fans come on... but I know how much Steve hates fans. I haven't had any problem with using it on my lap. To be honest... and for the life of me I can't figure out the design concept here, I have 4 Compaq / HP notebooks and they all have the air intake for the fan on the bottom. Put those babies on your lap and you pretty much kill 90% of the cooling ability.
Here is a guy who experimented with the thermal paste theory for the MBP
The result of the test shows there was very little change with applying new thermal paste.
He discovered with the heat sensors disconnected the fans blew full on. He said this situation actually kept the MBP cool. He said extremely cool, but extremely loud.
From this he feels the thermal paste has less to do with the over heating than the fans blowing. And that Apple needs to find a balance between fan noise and keeping the MBP at good working temperatures.
[B]Here is a guy who experimented with the thermal paste theory for the MBP
The result of the test shows there was very little change with applying new thermal paste.
He didn't measure the MacBook before he went in, did he? He's comparing it against an "unmodified" unit, but there may be variations on how hot each unit gets due to variations on the chip fabrication, and variations on the thermal paste thickness. Some get hot enough to be taken back (128F), others don't. The better way would have been to measure before and after, not against a similar unit to be sure those other variations are acounted.
128F is hot enough to be taken back? That's just over 53C... my machine reaches that with a modest load and feels warm (not hot) at that temp. With a heavy load, I have seen it go up to the 60s (I'd imagine it has gone higher, but I didn't have a utility running to see the temp). I'm hoping that 128F isn't considered especially hot.
128F is hot enough to be taken back? That's just over 53C... my machine reaches that with a modest load and feels warm (not hot) at that temp. With a heavy load, I have seen it go up to the 60s (I'd imagine it has gone higher, but I didn't have a utility running to see the temp). I'm hoping that 128F isn't considered especially hot.
An external surface temperature hotter than 128F is supposedly hot enough to take it back, and that surface temperature was what was being tested. The CPU core gets even hotter than the surface temperature, and that is what you are measuring, I think.
My 1.83GHz MBP gets a minimum core temp of about 60C and has hit 80C, comparing to your numbers, mine is a good canidate for a mod, which I am preparing to do soon.
Even though the guy in the article did not measure before his modification. I'm sure he would have noticed his MBP decrease from 140F-170F (damn that's hot) to 114F-120F.
Apple should perhaps give us the choice of running the fans longer (more noise) for a cooler machine or run the fans less (less noise) with a warmer machine.
Even though the guy in the article did not measure before his modification. I'm sure he would have noticed his MBP decrease from 140F-170F (damn that's hot) to 114F-120F.
You are mixing up core temperature and surface temperature. No one suggested that the surface was getting to 140F and above. The core temperature is allowed to get that hot though.
Pictures of Macbook crash due to overheating sounds like bad news to me.
I really want one of these but now..i dont think so.
To you and the others who leapt to that conclusion: can you say "overreact"?
That review has been updated: "getting an exchange unit took about 30 minutes. ..So far with the exchanged MacBook there's been no crashing so it is definite fact that the original MacBook I had was faulty"
One report in isolation does NOT constitute information on which to draw conclusions. It's called ANECDOTAL evidence. The forums are getting disappointingly juvenile (note other forum thread on 911 conspiracy theory: if we're to take these two threads together and grant them any credence, it's the world-wide conspiracy that caused that particular macbook to fail).
I am an electronics engineer, and I can tell you, it is a non-disputable fact that the amount of thermal paste illustrated in that photo is around two orders of magnitude too much. If it isn't the sole cause of heat problems, it is definitely a contributor (in the MacBook Pro, and possibly in the MacBook if that is how much they are using in production).
edit: fixed a spelling mistake
What is the purpose of the thermal paste? Does the paste get put over the hottest part of the processor so the heat is dissipated, or does the paste absorb heat, but does not get hot?
You are mixing up core temperature and surface temperature. No one suggested that the surface was getting to 140F and above. The core temperature is allowed to get that hot though.
What is the purpose of the thermal paste? Does the paste get put over the hottest part of the processor so the heat is dissipated, or does the paste absorb heat, but does not get hot?
Whilst a chip surface and metal surface look totally smooth to the naked eye, on a microscopic level they look more like mountain ranges. This means that when you bring them together, there will only be a few places where you actually get chip->metal contact. The rest of the surface area is chip->air->metal.
Air is a pretty good insulator when compared to copper. The idea of thermal paste is to replace the air gaps with paste, which is a much better conductor of heat than air, but still a lot worse than copper.
When trying to remove heat (which is energy) from a CPU die, you need to minimise the thermal resistance between it and the place you are trying to move the heat energy to (in this case, the ambient air). The higher the resistance, the higher the die temperature will rise. There is a small thermal resistance between the die and the topside of the chip, but there is a large thermal resistance between the topside of the chip and the ambient air (it cannot dissipate heat well to the atmosphere). So, you need to mate the top of the chip to something that has a low thermal resistance to ambient air: a heatsink. You want to minimise the thermal resistance between the topside of the chip and the heatsink. Using no thermal paste will introduce a thermal resistance due to the air, which can be reduced if the air is replaced with paste. Use too much paste, however, and not only have you replaced the air with paste, you've also separated the points that used to closely touch with paste. There's also the possibility, if the paste doesn't spread evenly, that areas of chip and metal that used to be in proximity are not anymore. Finally, when the paste spills over the side, you have reduced the thermal resistance to other parts of the chip, enabling heat to flow more easily than before to those areas (which you don't want it to do - you want it all flowing to the heatsink). It would be easier to explain with a picture, but it would take me ages to knock one up. Hope you get the gist of it.
Comments
Heat?
Now we know who the MacBooks were really designed for:
Originally posted by netdog
He had a kernel panic. The question is obviously "why?" I haven't had one yet, and my iMac only had one when I loaded an early beta of Parallels. This doesn't sound like a heat problem to me.
FWIW, mine runs warm but not hot, and is incredibly quiet. have nothing but great things to say about the MacBook after three days.
I just had one this morning I have had now at least 10 kernal panics since buying the MBP.
I think it is just a function of the immature hardware and apple goodness.
I can't wait till they work out the bugs and I can buy another. This one will go on ebay. I might however, have to walk to the new apple store in NYC and have them fix it....
grrr!!! not because it overheats but because of the huge lines at the store!!!
Originally posted by TednDi
I just had one this morning I have had now at least 10 kernal panics since buying the MBP.
I'd be taking that baby back for a checkup. I don't care how long the lines are..
On topic: Yesterday I was at the local Apple store and I noticed that the white Macbooks were much warmer to the touch than the Black models.
Originally posted by sunilraman
Originally posted by Bergermeister
Heat?
Now we know who the MacBooks were really designed for:
That is so cute it makes my eyes bleed.
Originally posted by sunilraman
Originally posted by Bergermeister
Heat?
Now we know who the MacBooks were really designed for:
you can tell that's an iBook from the power connector. But yes, Macs make pussy warm.
Originally posted by sunilraman
Originally posted by Bergermeister
Heat?
Now we know who the MacBooks were really designed for:
Originally posted by sunilraman
[B]Originally posted by Bergermeister
Heat?
Now we know who the MacBooks were really designed for:
Just wait till the little kitty grows into a fullsize cat... You will need a 17" MBP...
The result of the test shows there was very little change with applying new thermal paste.
He discovered with the heat sensors disconnected the fans blew full on. He said this situation actually kept the MBP cool. He said extremely cool, but extremely loud.
From this he feels the thermal paste has less to do with the over heating than the fans blowing. And that Apple needs to find a balance between fan noise and keeping the MBP at good working temperatures.
http://www.macdevcenter.com/lpt/a/6605
Originally posted by TenoBell
[B]Here is a guy who experimented with the thermal paste theory for the MBP
The result of the test shows there was very little change with applying new thermal paste.
He didn't measure the MacBook before he went in, did he? He's comparing it against an "unmodified" unit, but there may be variations on how hot each unit gets due to variations on the chip fabrication, and variations on the thermal paste thickness. Some get hot enough to be taken back (128F), others don't. The better way would have been to measure before and after, not against a similar unit to be sure those other variations are acounted.
But even after the re-pasting his MBP still got up to 114F-121F in some places.
Which shows there still is not dramatic decrease in temperature.
Originally posted by Joey
128F is hot enough to be taken back? That's just over 53C... my machine reaches that with a modest load and feels warm (not hot) at that temp. With a heavy load, I have seen it go up to the 60s (I'd imagine it has gone higher, but I didn't have a utility running to see the temp). I'm hoping that 128F isn't considered especially hot.
An external surface temperature hotter than 128F is supposedly hot enough to take it back, and that surface temperature was what was being tested. The CPU core gets even hotter than the surface temperature, and that is what you are measuring, I think.
My 1.83GHz MBP gets a minimum core temp of about 60C and has hit 80C, comparing to your numbers, mine is a good canidate for a mod, which I am preparing to do soon.
Apple should perhaps give us the choice of running the fans longer (more noise) for a cooler machine or run the fans less (less noise) with a warmer machine.
Originally posted by TenoBell
Even though the guy in the article did not measure before his modification. I'm sure he would have noticed his MBP decrease from 140F-170F (damn that's hot) to 114F-120F.
You are mixing up core temperature and surface temperature. No one suggested that the surface was getting to 140F and above. The core temperature is allowed to get that hot though.
Originally posted by matracer
Oh no..just read this review.
Pictures of Macbook crash due to overheating sounds like bad news to me.
I really want one of these but now..i dont think so.
To you and the others who leapt to that conclusion: can you say "overreact"?
That review has been updated: "getting an exchange unit took about 30 minutes. ..So far with the exchanged MacBook there's been no crashing so it is definite fact that the original MacBook I had was faulty"
One report in isolation does NOT constitute information on which to draw conclusions. It's called ANECDOTAL evidence. The forums are getting disappointingly juvenile (note other forum thread on 911 conspiracy theory: if we're to take these two threads together and grant them any credence, it's the world-wide conspiracy that caused that particular macbook to fail).
Let's all be calm and use considered thought.
peace
terry
Originally posted by Mr. H
I am an electronics engineer, and I can tell you, it is a non-disputable fact that the amount of thermal paste illustrated in that photo is around two orders of magnitude too much. If it isn't the sole cause of heat problems, it is definitely a contributor (in the MacBook Pro, and possibly in the MacBook if that is how much they are using in production).
edit: fixed a spelling mistake
What is the purpose of the thermal paste? Does the paste get put over the hottest part of the processor so the heat is dissipated, or does the paste absorb heat, but does not get hot?
You are mixing up core temperature and surface temperature. No one suggested that the surface was getting to 140F and above. The core temperature is allowed to get that hot though.
OK you are talking about internal temp.
Originally posted by troberts
What is the purpose of the thermal paste? Does the paste get put over the hottest part of the processor so the heat is dissipated, or does the paste absorb heat, but does not get hot?
Whilst a chip surface and metal surface look totally smooth to the naked eye, on a microscopic level they look more like mountain ranges. This means that when you bring them together, there will only be a few places where you actually get chip->metal contact. The rest of the surface area is chip->air->metal.
Air is a pretty good insulator when compared to copper. The idea of thermal paste is to replace the air gaps with paste, which is a much better conductor of heat than air, but still a lot worse than copper.
When trying to remove heat (which is energy) from a CPU die, you need to minimise the thermal resistance between it and the place you are trying to move the heat energy to (in this case, the ambient air). The higher the resistance, the higher the die temperature will rise. There is a small thermal resistance between the die and the topside of the chip, but there is a large thermal resistance between the topside of the chip and the ambient air (it cannot dissipate heat well to the atmosphere). So, you need to mate the top of the chip to something that has a low thermal resistance to ambient air: a heatsink. You want to minimise the thermal resistance between the topside of the chip and the heatsink. Using no thermal paste will introduce a thermal resistance due to the air, which can be reduced if the air is replaced with paste. Use too much paste, however, and not only have you replaced the air with paste, you've also separated the points that used to closely touch with paste. There's also the possibility, if the paste doesn't spread evenly, that areas of chip and metal that used to be in proximity are not anymore. Finally, when the paste spills over the side, you have reduced the thermal resistance to other parts of the chip, enabling heat to flow more easily than before to those areas (which you don't want it to do - you want it all flowing to the heatsink). It would be easier to explain with a picture, but it would take me ages to knock one up. Hope you get the gist of it.
See also this thread.
You may also want to read this wikipedia entry and the associated topics.