is the IBM fan obnoxiously loud, or just runs a lot?
The IBM is cooler, but it is only a 1.6ghz pentium-m which probably clocks down to 1gz under low load?. The fan is not on for oh maybe 5 mins when the machine is turned on. Then it comes on a full speed as the machine reaches temp.
It's not that noticable in the office (except for the blast of air that blows past my fingers when my hands are near the exhaust on the side), but in the home environment it's very noticeable.
Power management on the Intel chips seems to be quite different compare to the power PC's (No automatic / max performance options in energy saver settings) I guess Apple is still learning here?
Power management on the Intel chips seems to be quite different compare to the power PC's (No automatic / max performance options in energy saver settings) I guess Apple is still learning here?
Supposedly the ability to control Intel's "Enhanced Speedstep" in the Core Duo is less than the old SpeedStep. With my old PIIIm notebook, I could install a program under Windows XP such that it forces the minimum speed, keeping the thing lap-cool. The Core Duos will run at any speed they desire, depending on the software load. I don't agree with or really understand this loss of user control.
Supposedly the ability to control Intel's "Enhanced Speedstep" in the Core Duo is less than the old SpeedStep. With my old PIIIm notebook, I could install a program under Windows XP such that it forces the minimum speed, keeping the thing lap-cool. The Core Duos will run at any speed they desire, depending on the software load. I don't agree with or really understand this loss of user control.
That is kind of annoying, but I guess the increased performance of the Intel chips over the Power PC is worth it, huh?
also, I think I'm going to invest in a laptop cooling pad...anyone gone down this road before?
I'm sorry but i think that's bollocks. The core duo has varying FIDs (multipliers) and VIDs (voltages), and there is no such thing as magic controlling them. Software CAN be used to control them, I don't know if such software is available for OSX yet, but hopefully it will come, or Apple will configure the settings better.
Frankly I'm shocked by these temperatures of the Macbook. 80 degrees is simply unbelievable as the Core Duo is rated for about the same watts as my Acer laptop's AMD Turion-processor is. Acer also has an ATI X700 mobility chip warming up the system by quite a bit. Still the highest I can get to is 69 degrees celsius, also the Turion will never throttle so I don't have to worry about that.
Either the fans really are a lot quieter in the Macbook, or the cooling design has been a disaster. I've seen difference in battery life estimate of about 20min when the fan is on and when it's off.
I'm sorry but i think that's bollocks. The core duo has varying FIDs (multipliers) and VIDs (voltages), and there is no such thing as magic controlling them. Software CAN be used to control them, I don't know if such software is available for OSX yet, but hopefully it will come, or Apple will configure the settings better.
I didn't say it was "magic" controlling them, I don't know where you get that silly idea. All I said was that the CoreDuo's SpeedStep controller supposedly doesn't have the external controls that the PIIIm and earlier chips had, that the SpeedStep part of the die did all the management automatically, presumably through load detection logic. I've found ways to extract the clock speed, but no way to control it. If it's there, I don't understand why Apple didn't expose it in the Energy Saver control like they do with the G5.
Quote:
I've seen difference in battery life estimate of about 20min when the fan is on and when it's off.
You mean the system's battery life estimate? I wouldn't put any faith in those numbers, and you'd need to be certain that it isn't higher CPU utilization that is triggering the fan, which is a lot larger draw than the fan when running at load. It would need to be tested by a controlled full-to-die trial with only the difference of the fan.
I didn't say it was "magic" controlling them, I don't know where you get that silly idea.
You mean the system's battery life estimate? I wouldn't put any faith in those numbers, and you'd need to be certain that it isn't higher CPU utilization that is triggering the fan, which is a lot larger draw than the fan when running at load. It would need to be tested by a controlled full-to-die trial with only the difference of the fan.
Sorry if I sounded rude mate, I just understood that you thought there was no control what-so-ever in the clock speed changes, which is naturally impossible. If it's been programmed to do the clock changes, it can be reprogrammed (configured) to do the changes otherwise, just like virtually all the CPUs from AMD and Intel on the market. I'm not familiar with the controls in OSX, but I'm sure a third-party program is on it's way if Apple won't give the controls to the user. I'm quite sure you can fully change your speedstepping with RMClock in Windows, thus there should be no obstacle in doing the same in OSX, if given a proper program.
Yes, the estimate that Windows gives. I'll explain. First the fan is running until the temperature reaches 48 degrees, and that is when it shuts off, until it reaches 59 where it turns back on. The 20min difference i've seen when the system is idling with 800mhz clocks on cpu and no load, but the fan running. Then it reaches 48 and switches the fan off, and the system increases it's battery life estimate by 20min. Not too scientific of course, but should give some idea of the power usage of the fan (at least in this particular laptop).
I guess it's not a huge difference in battery life either way. But I guess it shows that the fan does effect it somewhat, maybe just not significantly.
Comments
Originally posted by builttospill
is the IBM fan obnoxiously loud, or just runs a lot?
The IBM is cooler, but it is only a 1.6ghz pentium-m which probably clocks down to 1gz under low load?. The fan is not on for oh maybe 5 mins when the machine is turned on. Then it comes on a full speed as the machine reaches temp.
It's not that noticable in the office (except for the blast of air that blows past my fingers when my hands are near the exhaust on the side), but in the home environment it's very noticeable.
Power management on the Intel chips seems to be quite different compare to the power PC's (No automatic / max performance options in energy saver settings) I guess Apple is still learning here?
Originally posted by tadunne
Power management on the Intel chips seems to be quite different compare to the power PC's (No automatic / max performance options in energy saver settings) I guess Apple is still learning here?
Supposedly the ability to control Intel's "Enhanced Speedstep" in the Core Duo is less than the old SpeedStep. With my old PIIIm notebook, I could install a program under Windows XP such that it forces the minimum speed, keeping the thing lap-cool. The Core Duos will run at any speed they desire, depending on the software load. I don't agree with or really understand this loss of user control.
Originally posted by JeffDM
Supposedly the ability to control Intel's "Enhanced Speedstep" in the Core Duo is less than the old SpeedStep. With my old PIIIm notebook, I could install a program under Windows XP such that it forces the minimum speed, keeping the thing lap-cool. The Core Duos will run at any speed they desire, depending on the software load. I don't agree with or really understand this loss of user control.
That is kind of annoying, but I guess the increased performance of the Intel chips over the Power PC is worth it, huh?
also, I think I'm going to invest in a laptop cooling pad...anyone gone down this road before?
Frankly I'm shocked by these temperatures of the Macbook. 80 degrees is simply unbelievable as the Core Duo is rated for about the same watts as my Acer laptop's AMD Turion-processor is. Acer also has an ATI X700 mobility chip warming up the system by quite a bit. Still the highest I can get to is 69 degrees celsius, also the Turion will never throttle so I don't have to worry about that.
Either the fans really are a lot quieter in the Macbook, or the cooling design has been a disaster. I've seen difference in battery life estimate of about 20min when the fan is on and when it's off.
Originally posted by acidapples
I'm sorry but i think that's bollocks. The core duo has varying FIDs (multipliers) and VIDs (voltages), and there is no such thing as magic controlling them. Software CAN be used to control them, I don't know if such software is available for OSX yet, but hopefully it will come, or Apple will configure the settings better.
I didn't say it was "magic" controlling them, I don't know where you get that silly idea. All I said was that the CoreDuo's SpeedStep controller supposedly doesn't have the external controls that the PIIIm and earlier chips had, that the SpeedStep part of the die did all the management automatically, presumably through load detection logic. I've found ways to extract the clock speed, but no way to control it. If it's there, I don't understand why Apple didn't expose it in the Energy Saver control like they do with the G5.
Quote:
I've seen difference in battery life estimate of about 20min when the fan is on and when it's off.
You mean the system's battery life estimate? I wouldn't put any faith in those numbers, and you'd need to be certain that it isn't higher CPU utilization that is triggering the fan, which is a lot larger draw than the fan when running at load. It would need to be tested by a controlled full-to-die trial with only the difference of the fan.
Originally posted by JeffDM
I didn't say it was "magic" controlling them, I don't know where you get that silly idea.
You mean the system's battery life estimate? I wouldn't put any faith in those numbers, and you'd need to be certain that it isn't higher CPU utilization that is triggering the fan, which is a lot larger draw than the fan when running at load. It would need to be tested by a controlled full-to-die trial with only the difference of the fan.
Sorry if I sounded rude mate, I just understood that you thought there was no control what-so-ever in the clock speed changes, which is naturally impossible. If it's been programmed to do the clock changes, it can be reprogrammed (configured) to do the changes otherwise, just like virtually all the CPUs from AMD and Intel on the market. I'm not familiar with the controls in OSX, but I'm sure a third-party program is on it's way if Apple won't give the controls to the user. I'm quite sure you can fully change your speedstepping with RMClock in Windows, thus there should be no obstacle in doing the same in OSX, if given a proper program.
Yes, the estimate that Windows gives. I'll explain. First the fan is running until the temperature reaches 48 degrees, and that is when it shuts off, until it reaches 59 where it turns back on. The 20min difference i've seen when the system is idling with 800mhz clocks on cpu and no load, but the fan running. Then it reaches 48 and switches the fan off, and the system increases it's battery life estimate by 20min. Not too scientific of course, but should give some idea of the power usage of the fan (at least in this particular laptop).