Based on earlier tests I'm pretty sure that Apple is throttling the system regardless of chip temperature. There's no reason in the world why a M1 Max in a MBP should run at the same speed as a M1 Max in a Studio with a desktop-class cooling system and when not limited by battery life... but it does.
There is no throttling, it runs at the same speed because the M1 Max doesn’t consume like a desktop class processor. That is its nature, it isn’t designed to behave like Intel CPUs with turbo boosts, with high clock speeds.
The speed at which a given processor can run is largely a function of available power vs available cooling. All modern processors use a variable speed clock and have onboard sensors to detect when heat builds up and so when to throttle down. The M1 Max in a Mac Studio performs almost identically to a M1 Max in a MBP... despite having more power and cooling available.
In fact, it actually runs quite a bit cooler under the same load. So it's either being throttled to a max clock speed, or there's some internal issue which prevents it from running faster... which gets us basically back to the same point.
I watched the video as a curiosity and it didn't disappoint. If anything, it just reaffirmed for me the silliness that is the PC-fanboy mantra of over-complicating things. It's silly, and in the end it proved that Apple actually did something right with thermal designs.
Oh no. That's not just PC-fanboy culture. It's Youtube. Or, it's humanity's propensity to watch car crashes, and social media will amp up anything that will keep you watching. So, "car crashes" it is. The funny faces. The teaser images for the video. The cliff hanger words. For every topic of interest you may have, Youtube, and it encourages either directly or indirectly its creators to do it, will continually feed you videos that give you a dopamine hit. The creators are always trying to get that 1+ million view hit, and do it all the time. It's a bit of crap shoot on which videos gives them multi-million views. A lot of stuff is tried.
It's a variation of broadcast news where it is bad news all the time. All the anchors have intonation, absolutely practiced, in their voices that dramatize events. It's gotten very grating for me. Local news is not better as really, I don't need to know of some murder-death-kill-robbery some 60 miles away from me, every day. Kind of surprise the local news haven't gone all in on the mayhem that is social media. They still kind of keep a decorum, but is dressed-up poop better than random-poop?
Based on earlier tests I'm pretty sure that Apple is throttling the system regardless of chip temperature. There's no reason in the world why a M1 Max in a MBP should run at the same speed as a M1 Max in a Studio with a desktop-class cooling system and when not limited by battery life... but it does.
There is no throttling, it runs at the same speed because the M1 Max doesn’t consume like a desktop class processor. That is its nature, it isn’t designed to behave like Intel CPUs with turbo boosts, with high clock speeds.
The speed at which a given processor can run is largely a function of available power vs available cooling. All modern processors use a variable speed clock and have onboard sensors to detect when heat builds up and so when to throttle down. The M1 Max in a Mac Studio performs almost identically to a M1 Max in a MBP... despite having more power and cooling available.
In fact, it actually runs quite a bit cooler under the same load. So it's either being throttled to a max clock speed, or there's some internal issue which prevents it from running faster... which gets us basically back to the same point.
Apple designed M1 Max to run at max 30 W for the CPU and 60 W for the GPU. That's it. Whether it is enclosed in a laptop, a SFF desktop, or big desktop, it isn't going to use more. They aren't designing it to use more even though a desktop could provide it more power and cooling.
This is their design choice. They think this is what makes their computers great. They run cool and quiet, has competitive performance, and in the case of laptops, offers a great runtime advantage.
Experienced PC builders will be familiar with the benefits of water cooling, including the potential to offer better thermal conditions than air-based methods, the possibility of improved chip performance, and a reduction in noise.
Reminder that the "water cooling" here is basically like how "wireless charging" is used to describe induction charging. Using the words "water cooling" is conveying more than what it is actually doing. Ultimately, these cooler designs are transferring heat from the chip to the ambient atmosphere. Virtually all them do it by blowing air across radiator fins (heat sink in my parlance). This is an "air-based" method.
Basically every single "water cooler" is a closed loop that pumps water from the chip block to a radiator and a fan is used to blow air across it to transfer heat to the ambient air. So if there is a Venn diagram, PC water coolers would be a circle inside an "air-based" cooler.
Moreover, all of the high performance "air-based" coolers, as you are thinking of them, like what is inside the Mac Studio or the MacBook Pro or Mac Pro, are "liquid coolers". They employ a heat pipe which employs a fluid medium that transfers heat from the chip block to the radiator fins. They might employ a 2 phase loop, or just be single phase, but it's a pipe with a fluid inside. The fluid transfers heat from the chip block to the radiator fins, just like what a water cooler does.
The one big advantage a water cooler has is that it uses flexible hosing. Note that I didn't say heat transfer performance. Flexible hosing enables a PC builder to do neat stuff in their case in an affordable way. The heat pipes in "air-based" coolers are basically inflexible and are custom designed for the application. You get what you get from the vendor. "Heat pipes" are as efficient if not more efficient in transferring heat than pumped water, I think. So the heat transfer properties of pumped water is not a heat transfer advantage. Flexible hosing is nice though, as PC cases have a lot of variation. PCs often have limited volume or not-optimal volumes for heatsinks or radiators. The flexible hosing enables the radiator to be 6", 12", 18" long with more advantageous fan setups and radiator locations. This is good for the PC market where there is a lot of case and motherboard variation.
If you start from a blank page, you can do everything with what you think of as air-based coolers. Just look at the Mac Pro.
Experienced PC builders will be familiar with the benefits of water cooling, including the potential to offer better thermal conditions than air-based methods, the possibility of improved chip performance, and a reduction in noise.
The one big advantage a water cooler has is that it uses flexible hosing. Note that I didn't say heat transfer performance. Flexible hosing enables a PC builder to do neat stuff in their case in an affordable way. The heat pipes in "air-based" coolers are basically inflexible and are custom designed for the application. You get what you get from the vendor. "Heat pipes" are as efficient if not more efficient in transferring heat than pumped water, I think. So the heat transfer properties of pumped water is not a heat transfer advantage. Flexible hosing is nice though, as PC cases have a lot of variation. PCs often have limited volume or not-optimal volumes for heatsinks or radiators. The flexible hosing enables the radiator to be 6", 12", 18" long with more advantageous fan setups and radiator locations. This is good for the PC market where there is a lot of case and motherboard variation.
Actually today's PC custom cooling loops can be built using hard tubing or soft flexible tubing.
Hard tubing must be shaped using heat guns and assembly is much trickier. Many hard tube builders favor right angle bends which tends to increase water resistance within the loop.
Soft (flexible) tubing is easier, faster, and cheaper to install. It also allows for more direct tube runs and any bends are more gradual thus reducing water resistance from sharp bends.
In most houses, there's a combination of both in the plumbing system.
For PC builds, both hard and soft tubing can be used with the same components (waterblocks, reservoirs, pumps, radiators). It's mostly the fittings that change.
Since these are low-pressure loops, there's no advantage in hard tubing. Using hard tubing is mostly an aesthetic choice. Some people enjoy the challenging of configuring a hard cooling loop in a small case. (I do not.)
Well whattayaknow, Apple's engineers really know what they are doing. /s
Not exactly. If they did they would test Spotlight indexing on Intel based macs and do it properly or add cooling to prevent system hanging and not responding as well as permanent failures on WiFi, USB and Apple own Ethernet dongles due to chipset overheating. That happens on Mac Pros. Since I am electronics design with degree and also decades of software i worked with Apple support and then my own research that determined that problem. They escaped it by doing mediocre support and moving to M1/M2 processors, but that does not mean they solved problems. Simply they declared that Intel is bad. Not good enough and if it goes like that it will start happening with ARM processors in years to come. Bad mentality and habits do not go away by themselves or hiding problem.
Based on earlier tests I'm pretty sure that Apple is throttling the system regardless of chip temperature. There's no reason in the world why a M1 Max in a MBP should run at the same speed as a M1 Max in a Studio with a desktop-class cooling system and when not limited by battery life... but it does.
There is no throttling, it runs at the same speed because the M1 Max doesn’t consume like a desktop class processor. That is its nature, it isn’t designed to behave like Intel CPUs with turbo boosts, with high clock speeds.
The speed at which a given processor can run is largely a function of available power vs available cooling. All modern processors use a variable speed clock and have onboard sensors to detect when heat builds up and so when to throttle down. The M1 Max in a Mac Studio performs almost identically to a M1 Max in a MBP... despite having more power and cooling available.
In fact, it actually runs quite a bit cooler under the same load. So it's either being throttled to a max clock speed, or there's some internal issue which prevents it from running faster... which gets us basically back to the same point.
If it’s running at max clock speed you cannot say it is being throttled, it makes no sense! Every processor has a max clock speed from the manufacturer... the way they are designed and then validated is based on a max clock speed that needs to be achieved. In this case the processor is designed for lower clock speeds and lower power consumption, while still achieving great processing power. Your problem is that you are so used to Intel and AMD laptop chips not being able to sustain their max clock speed and having to constantly throttle, that you cannot fathom a processor not behaving the same way!
Based on earlier tests I'm pretty sure that Apple is throttling the system regardless of chip temperature. There's no reason in the world why a M1 Max in a MBP should run at the same speed as a M1 Max in a Studio with a desktop-class cooling system and when not limited by battery life... but it does.
There is no throttling, it runs at the same speed because the M1 Max doesn’t consume like a desktop class processor. That is its nature, it isn’t designed to behave like Intel CPUs with turbo boosts, with high clock speeds.
The speed at which a given processor can run is largely a function of available power vs available cooling. All modern processors use a variable speed clock and have onboard sensors to detect when heat builds up and so when to throttle down. The M1 Max in a Mac Studio performs almost identically to a M1 Max in a MBP... despite having more power and cooling available.
In fact, it actually runs quite a bit cooler under the same load. So it's either being throttled to a max clock speed, or there's some internal issue which prevents it from running faster... which gets us basically back to the same point.
If it’s running at max clock speed you cannot say it is being throttled, it makes no sense! Every processor has a max clock speed from the manufacturer... the way they are designed and then validated is based on a max clock speed that needs to be achieved. In this case the processor is designed for lower clock speeds and lower power consumption, while still achieving great processing power. Your problem is that you are so used to Intel and AMD laptop chips not being able to sustain their max clock speed and having to constantly throttle, that you cannot fathom a processor not behaving the same way!
Well then how do those competitive overclockers get those crazy speeds?
It’s hard to stomach these guys knowing that they despise Apple and its products.
And their hyperbolic tone is hard to take.
Conclusion: They’re goobers first class.
They really don’t, they’re very complimentary of a lot of Apple products, especially notebooks and especially since M1. The MBP is one of their baselines for comparing all other notebooks too.
They’re tinkerers, so they don’t like the lack of repairability, expansion, and proprietary technology, but it’s a con rather than a condemnation.
They actually like a lot of Apple's products. The AirPods Pro is one of Linus' favorite earbuds ever. As you say, it's the perceived lack of their idea of consumer friendliness that they don't like. And in fairness, some of Apple's choices in that regard do seem bizarre at times. And of course, the prices.
Water cooling by itself doesn't boost performance. It gives you expanded headroom to change and boost performance parameters.
Yes, but maybe not. That was definitely true in the old days when CPUs ran at a fixed clock speed. Extra cooling would allow you to boost the clocks without overheating the chips, but you don't get more performance unless you actually do boost these frequencies.
But modern CPUs have variable frequencies, even in their stock configurations. They run at a baseline frequency, but they will "turbo boost" to higher frequencies when software demands more performance. They will also run at reduced frequencies when idle. When temperatures get too high for the cooling solution, they will "thermally throttle", limiting the maximum frequency they can boost to, the amount of time they can run at boosted frequencies, and may (if necessary) even force it to run at frequencies below the baseline.
With modern chips (at least high-end ones from Intel and AMD), an air-cooled system generally can't keep up with the thermal output of the chip running at its maximum turbo boost frequency. When you add more/better cooling, the CPU can remain boosted for longer periods of time before throttling, and therefore perform better overall. With enough cooling so the CPU never throttles, it can remain running at its boost frequency pretty much all the time, which is pretty much as good as it will get without "overlocking" (that is, increasing the maximum boost frequency beyond manufacturer specs).
And if you've got a separate GPU, all of the above applies to it as well.
What the Linus experiment proves is that Apple's air-cooling system is sufficient to prevent thermal throttling even when the M1 is running at its maximum performance. So extra cooling won't benefit it unless you figure out a way to overclock it beyond what the stock air-cooler can handle. Which we could have predicted, because prior tests show that the Mac Studio doesn't experience thermal throttling under load.
This is in contrast to (as the video mentioned) a MacBook Air, where the completely passive cooling system isn't sufficient. If the M1 in there is pushed hard, it will thermal-throttle. Improving its cooling (e.g. with a fan, as with the MacBook Pro, or with some Frankenstein water cooling system like Linus is fond of) will improve performance, because the CPU will be able to run at maximum load for longer (perhaps indefinitely) before throttling.
Gotta love the triumph of marketing that is "Turbo Boost" - the reality is that the CPU is always throttled but if you can put up with the extra noise (and energy cost) of running the cooling system flat out the throttling gets reduced.
Apple's approach is that the chip is only throttled when it has to be, but the attitude of LTT and the PC enthusiast crowd is that "the Turbo Boost sucks." Don't try to bend the spoon, instead recognise that there is no Turbo Boost.
The CPU is not always throttled, that's completely wrong. The throttling only occurs during sustained loads. A lot of things (web browsing for example) can take advantage of this because the couple of seconds the page takes to load can be processed at 5GHz, then throttle back down to 500MHz. No thermal throttling occurs and yet the page loads twice as fast as if the CPU was limited to its base frequency of say 2.5Ghz.
Your second point is also rubbish. There is "Turbo boost" on almost all modern CPUs, but Intel's trademarked "turbo boost". All it means is the CPU raises its speed above the nominal frequency, most CPUs do this.
It’s hard to stomach these guys knowing that they despise Apple and its products.
And their hyperbolic tone is hard to take.
Conclusion: They’re goobers first class.
They really don’t, they’re very complimentary of a lot of Apple products, especially notebooks and especially since M1. The MBP is one of their baselines for comparing all other notebooks too.
They’re tinkerers, so they don’t like the lack of repairability, expansion, and proprietary technology, but it’s a con rather than a condemnation.
Their compliments to Apple are usually backhanded compliments and even then they are begrudgingly saying something remotely positive about Apple. Usually it’s followed up by saying that Apple is unreasonable or bad in other ways.
Moreover, all of the high performance "air-based" coolers, as you are thinking of them, like what is inside the Mac Studio or the MacBook Pro or Mac Pro, are "liquid coolers". They employ a heat pipe which employs a fluid medium that transfers heat from the chip block to the radiator fins. They might employ a 2 phase loop, or just be single phase, but it's a pipe with a fluid inside. The fluid transfers heat from the chip block to the radiator fins, just like what a water cooler does.
Yes, but that's not really the same thing. Those small heat pipes that run from a CPU to a radiator in an air-cooled system may be similar at a conceptual level, but describing it this way misses the point.
With all "air cooled" systems, there must be substantial airflow across the heat sink radiators in the case. This means there must be room for air to flow through the case, so cold outside air can pick up heat from the components before it is exhausted back outside the case. This means that high performance devices must be installed in a relatively large case, possibly with baffles to direct airflow, in order to keep all of the components operating within their temperature specifications.
With a "liquid cooled" system, however, all that airflow space isn't necessary. As long as there is sufficient airflow across the radiator (which can be located in a small part of the case, or even be external to it), there doesn't need to be any empty space within the case. This allows high performance equipment to be installed in cases that would otherwise be too small to allow for adequate cooling.
Some of these folks are using LN2 to provide cooling beyond conventional thermal solutions.
You said it yourself: "overclocking". They are running the chips at frequencies beyond the manufacturer's specifications.
Depending on the chips involved, this will either fail (producing an unstable system) or it might work with some motherboard tweaks (e.g. increasing voltages to different components). But since these higher speeds always generate extra heat, they usually require more robust cooling than that CPU/GPU/motherboard/case would otherwise require.
Some chips can be pushed to much much higher frequencies than normal if extreme cooling solutions are used, hence those impressive videos. But that's definitely not the case for all chips.
Now, could Apple Silicon similarly be overclocked? We don't know. I've not read of anyone trying it. I suspect Apple's motherboards don't provide a means to do that through SMC configuration, so it would require quite a bit of hacking (both hardware and software, I'd guess) to even attempt it. But I think that if someone can figure out how to drive an M1 or M2 at a higher clock speed, and therefore get higher performance, it would probably require a more robust cooling solution as well.
But the cooling alone won't accomplish much without accompanying overclocking unless Apple's stock configuration is thermally throttling. And these tests show that this is not the case.
Moreover, all of the high performance "air-based" coolers, as you are thinking of them, like what is inside the Mac Studio or the MacBook Pro or Mac Pro, are "liquid coolers". They employ a heat pipe which employs a fluid medium that transfers heat from the chip block to the radiator fins. They might employ a 2 phase loop, or just be single phase, but it's a pipe with a fluid inside. The fluid transfers heat from the chip block to the radiator fins, just like what a water cooler does.
Yes, but that's not really the same thing. Those small heat pipes that run from a CPU to a radiator in an air-cooled system may be similar at a conceptual level, but describing it this way misses the point.
With all "air cooled" systems, there must be substantial airflow across the heat sink radiators in the case. This means there must be room for air to flow through the case, so cold outside air can pick up heat from the components before it is exhausted back outside the case. This means that high performance devices must be installed in a relatively large case, possibly with baffles to direct airflow, in order to keep all of the components operating within their temperature specifications.
With a "liquid cooled" system, however, all that airflow space isn't necessary. As long as there is sufficient airflow across the radiator (which can be located in a small part of the case, or even be external to it), there doesn't need to be any empty space within the case. This allows high performance equipment to be installed in cases that would otherwise be too small to allow for adequate cooling.
I don't think you are making a distinction here. The big reason "liquid coolers" are marketable is because PC motherboard designs and cases typically are constrained in how heat sinks are designed, for both the CPU and dGPUs. The flexible hosing (or custom solid piping per another poster) frees the cooler designer to design a possibly better cooling system, really just a better radiator and fan design, largely by not being constrained by the volume of space typically afforded a CPU or GPU, and allows people to have a nicer looking computer.
So, "liquid coolers" largely settled on long radiator designs where 2 or 3 large fans can blow air across them. This allows them to use lower RPMs, and makes for a quieter system. The long radiator designs are also a constraint of the case makers too, which make mount points and room for liquid coolers. If there is sufficient volume above a CPU or in a PCIe slot, a solid heat pipe system will due the same job. Otherwise, OEMs are left with small volumes for radiators and have to use high RPMs to blow more air across it.
Apple, who designs customer boxes and coolers have solid heat pipes for all their designs. Radiator surface area, air flow rate and radiator material. There's a bunch a trades OEMs can do with that. Apple always chooses lower RPMs to reduce fan noise as much as possible. So, the Mac Pro uses gigantic radiators with solid heat pipes for the Xeon CPU and MPX GPUs. The Mac Studio is volume constrained, and Apple still wants lower RPMs, so they went with copper radiators for the M1 Ultra.
My issue is that "liquid cooler" is basically a branding term. It's doing its job of inferring more than it does. It's just your same heat transfer system that you see in basically 99% of computers today: a CPU/GPU interface, a heat transfer pipe to radiator fins, and fans that blow air across the fins. The liquid cooler just uses flexible hosing with a pump instead of a heat pipe, which is also a fluid system or a phase change system (liquid and gas).
Obviously adding a liquid cooler to a Mac Studio doesn't do much for performance as Apple design it to operates at max clock speeds in-perpituity. Without any ability go boost clocks above Apple's rated frequencies, there wasn't much point. Also basically a stunt, as they could have just ran with higher RPMs all the time, and it would basically be the same thing.
Comments
In fact, it actually runs quite a bit cooler under the same load. So it's either being throttled to a max clock speed, or there's some internal issue which prevents it from running faster... which gets us basically back to the same point.
It's a variation of broadcast news where it is bad news all the time. All the anchors have intonation, absolutely practiced, in their voices that dramatize events. It's gotten very grating for me. Local news is not better as really, I don't need to know of some murder-death-kill-robbery some 60 miles away from me, every day. Kind of surprise the local news haven't gone all in on the mayhem that is social media. They still kind of keep a decorum, but is dressed-up poop better than random-poop?
This is their design choice. They think this is what makes their computers great. They run cool and quiet, has competitive performance, and in the case of laptops, offers a great runtime advantage.
Basically every single "water cooler" is a closed loop that pumps water from the chip block to a radiator and a fan is used to blow air across it to transfer heat to the ambient air. So if there is a Venn diagram, PC water coolers would be a circle inside an "air-based" cooler.
Moreover, all of the high performance "air-based" coolers, as you are thinking of them, like what is inside the Mac Studio or the MacBook Pro or Mac Pro, are "liquid coolers". They employ a heat pipe which employs a fluid medium that transfers heat from the chip block to the radiator fins. They might employ a 2 phase loop, or just be single phase, but it's a pipe with a fluid inside. The fluid transfers heat from the chip block to the radiator fins, just like what a water cooler does.
The one big advantage a water cooler has is that it uses flexible hosing. Note that I didn't say heat transfer performance. Flexible hosing enables a PC builder to do neat stuff in their case in an affordable way. The heat pipes in "air-based" coolers are basically inflexible and are custom designed for the application. You get what you get from the vendor. "Heat pipes" are as efficient if not more efficient in transferring heat than pumped water, I think. So the heat transfer properties of pumped water is not a heat transfer advantage. Flexible hosing is nice though, as PC cases have a lot of variation. PCs often have limited volume or not-optimal volumes for heatsinks or radiators. The flexible hosing enables the radiator to be 6", 12", 18" long with more advantageous fan setups and radiator locations. This is good for the PC market where there is a lot of case and motherboard variation.
If you start from a blank page, you can do everything with what you think of as air-based coolers. Just look at the Mac Pro.
Actually today's PC custom cooling loops can be built using hard tubing or soft flexible tubing.
Hard tubing must be shaped using heat guns and assembly is much trickier. Many hard tube builders favor right angle bends which tends to increase water resistance within the loop.
Soft (flexible) tubing is easier, faster, and cheaper to install. It also allows for more direct tube runs and any bends are more gradual thus reducing water resistance from sharp bends.
In most houses, there's a combination of both in the plumbing system.
For PC builds, both hard and soft tubing can be used with the same components (waterblocks, reservoirs, pumps, radiators). It's mostly the fittings that change.
Since these are low-pressure loops, there's no advantage in hard tubing. Using hard tubing is mostly an aesthetic choice. Some people enjoy the challenging of configuring a hard cooling loop in a small case. (I do not.)
Your problem is that you are so used to Intel and AMD laptop chips not being able to sustain their max clock speed and having to constantly throttle, that you cannot fathom a processor not behaving the same way!
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/ryzen-9-7950x-soars-to-65-ghz-shattering-two-cpu-records
Some of these folks are using LN2 to provide cooling beyond conventional thermal solutions.
They actually like a lot of Apple's products. The AirPods Pro is one of Linus' favorite earbuds ever. As you say, it's the perceived lack of their idea of consumer friendliness that they don't like. And in fairness, some of Apple's choices in that regard do seem bizarre at times. And of course, the prices.
Your second point is also rubbish. There is "Turbo boost" on almost all modern CPUs, but Intel's trademarked "turbo boost". All it means is the CPU raises its speed above the nominal frequency, most CPUs do this.
So, "liquid coolers" largely settled on long radiator designs where 2 or 3 large fans can blow air across them. This allows them to use lower RPMs, and makes for a quieter system. The long radiator designs are also a constraint of the case makers too, which make mount points and room for liquid coolers. If there is sufficient volume above a CPU or in a PCIe slot, a solid heat pipe system will due the same job. Otherwise, OEMs are left with small volumes for radiators and have to use high RPMs to blow more air across it.
Apple, who designs customer boxes and coolers have solid heat pipes for all their designs. Radiator surface area, air flow rate and radiator material. There's a bunch a trades OEMs can do with that. Apple always chooses lower RPMs to reduce fan noise as much as possible. So, the Mac Pro uses gigantic radiators with solid heat pipes for the Xeon CPU and MPX GPUs. The Mac Studio is volume constrained, and Apple still wants lower RPMs, so they went with copper radiators for the M1 Ultra.
My issue is that "liquid cooler" is basically a branding term. It's doing its job of inferring more than it does. It's just your same heat transfer system that you see in basically 99% of computers today: a CPU/GPU interface, a heat transfer pipe to radiator fins, and fans that blow air across the fins. The liquid cooler just uses flexible hosing with a pump instead of a heat pipe, which is also a fluid system or a phase change system (liquid and gas).
Obviously adding a liquid cooler to a Mac Studio doesn't do much for performance as Apple design it to operates at max clock speeds in-perpituity. Without any ability go boost clocks above Apple's rated frequencies, there wasn't much point. Also basically a stunt, as they could have just ran with higher RPMs all the time, and it would basically be the same thing.