woo. new macs are hot, temperature-wise.

i went to my college's bookstore to check out the mac book, and mac book pro. i have heard it runs pretty hot but i didn't believe it was that bad until today.

i first landed my hand on a macbook, i was like. woo, this baby runs pretty cool, no more than 25 Celsius (i felt). then i found out that was a powerbook G4. lolz.

then i put my hand one a macbookpro, a ture 15 inch macbookpro. i felt my hand start buring instantly, the temperature was soo high (especially on the left speaker side) that the staff has to put a cool pad on the bottom of that notebook.

then i tested out 2 other mac bookpro and two differnt colors of macbook, HOT. HOTTT. macbook, however, is okay on the top but hot on the bottom.

one other issue, macbook is heavy, or dense? i don't understand why it weights more than my 3 years old 15.4 inch compaq, consider it doens't even have a graphic card, full plastic cover and only get 13 inch display.


for those people who are considering buying them, please go to apple store and test it out before you place your order.

seriously, i use to think apple has a good design, but after today? no, apple's design (at least in notebook) is way worse than sony and lenovo, maybe just a bit better than dell and on par with HP.

 

yah, and the mac book pro's aren't as powerful as they say they are, an Aver traveMate 8204. beat one in almost every bench mark test and they are alot cheaper too, i think

 

No pun intended but a 2.0Ghz Core Duo in a MacBook/Pro is exactly as fast as a 2.0Ghz Core Duo in a PC equivalent.

They differ in certain areas, as design and the ability to run Mac OSX. The latter being severely important for people using Mac OSX daily and depend on it.

The heat issue can be a problem but if you are just using the computer for surfing the internet, writing in word, playing music through iTunes, playing around in Photoshop and InDesign (or similar) it isn't a problem if you run the computer on Better Energy Savings. This setting will still give you all the processor power any application need.

Been running my MacBook Pro all day and it is still only hovering around 33-34°C.

 

maybe all 3 mbp that i saw at UCI bookstore are all defects? becaues i can swear that it is way hotter than 33C, and since it is for display use, it wasn't running anything heavy duty programs such as video encoding/audio encoding.
i just feel it is extreme hot at the left speaker side (with AC power), it is hot overall when surfing internet. and it gets very hot when playing WoW (there was once a staff logged on that computer and run WoW for display purpose).

 

I am certain they were either set for Better Performance or Normal under Energy Saver. I strongly suspect that these settings also affects the Mobility X1600 in terms of clockspeed.

I will be the first to admit that when you push the MacBook Pro it will get hot, especially around the areas you mentioned e.g. the left speaker area.

 

The MBP has a lower performance when compared to its Acer counterpart is because of its inefficient cooling system, which forces the notebook to run the CPU at slower speeds for the most part of the time, than other windows notebooks, such as the acer. The underclocked GPU also can play a role in decreased performance in graphic intensive apps.

EDIT: The left speaker on the MBP gets hot because its where the GPU is located.

 

Don't you feel like crap having to underclock that process because it's too hot? Definitly not why I would want to buy a Macbook. Been looking at these things for a while, but I still can't get past that heat issue.

 

I am not underclocking anything. Whenever an application calls for more processor power, it throttles back up to 2.0Ghz. When it is not needed, it downclocks the processor. This in return gives better battery-time and a lower heat output.

It happens automatic with the Core Duo. It is rarely an application pecks the processor at 100% all the time (one of the exceptions being games).

 

The thing is, the MBP could not hold a clockspeed of 2.0GHz for very long without getting extremely hot. Other notebooks could hold their top clockspeed without overheating/getting extremely hot.

 

Is there any heat advantage of getting a 1.83GHz Macbook instead of the 2.0GHz model? Does the slower one run cooler?

 

I would say yes, but very marginal (maybe a 3-6 degrees centigrade). If the heat is the only thing holding you back from a 2.0GHz, I would put the 1.83GHz aside and get the 2.0GHz - both notebooks are almost equally as hot as each other.

 

i agree with, seanlee. I saw one yesterday at CompUSA and couldn't believe how hot they were. I bought an iMac instead.

 

Here are som temp values for Apple MacBook Pro 15."
Upper side
34,6 °C 35,5 °C 34,1 °C
37,6 °C 32,2 °C 33,9 °C
33,9 °C 30,6 °C 32,7 °C

Lower side
40,7 °C 43,1 °C 42,6 °C
38,3 °C 41,2 °C 40,2 °C
36,4 °C 33,0 °C 36 °C


Here are the link to the review:
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-Apple-MacBook-Pro.732.0.html

Here are som temp values for Apple MacBook Pro 17."
Upper side
42 °C 42 °C 38 °C
40 °C 40 °C 38 °C
35 °C 32 °C 32 °C

Lower Side
48 °C 53 °C 50 °C
40 °C 51 °C 41 °C
32 °C 45 °C 35 °C

 

Just read that the overheating problem is due to that Apple assemblers forgot to remove the easy to remove plastic film that is on the cooling vent to prevent dirt and dust from clogging the cooling fins.Some Steve type assembler isnt doing there Job.

http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=188702132&subSection=Breaking+News

TherRealist

 

Unfortunately that has only happened on a VERY few cases, just a handful.

 

CPU-wise, yes, you're right. Since they both use the same processor, obviously, they're equally as fast. However, I don't think that's what he really meant. You see, the Mobility X1600 on the Apple is underclocked whereas the Acer is fully clocked. Although I have no idea what their exact clockrates are, their 3D speed difference is rather noticeable. Don't believe me? Take 3DMark 2005 for example. Travelmate 8204 gets 3500-4000 points and the Macbook Pro only gets 2600 max. Where does the performance come from? Aha! So there is a difference afterall.

Don't get me wrong, I'm no PC fanboy. As a matter of fact, for the reason of stylish design alone, I'd easily choose a mac over PC. What I'm most dissapointed about is the aforementioned heat issue. I mean, if you're going to put in something as high-end (not to mention power hungry) as a Mobility X1600, why not advance the cooling system a bit to compensate such a GPU? An integrated graphics notebook that have major heat problems? Before the release of the Macbook, that's utterly unheard of. Oh come on Apple, you can do better than that.

 

I own the product, I am well aware of what the Mobility X1600 in the MacBook Pro is clocked at
Remember that FutureMark's 3DMark2005 is a static benchmark, using a graphic engine not used in any games. Perhaps comparing Frames Per Second from a game that runs on both Windows and Mac OSX would be more meaningful.

I am pretty sure that the majority of applications for Mac OSX any person is running will depend heavily on the processor, rather than the graphic card.
I see the Mobility X1600 as an added plus, so I can game a little when I want to
But then again, how many games do you have for Mac OSX?

Can only agree on what you said about the design, I absolutely love it!

A repost of something I've posted earlier about the Mobility X1600

Not that I am hopelessly and blindly "defending" the MacBook Pro for its lower performance compared to other models, which are targetted at a different market to begin with

It's just not an issue for me

 

Also, remember that 3DMark05 is a Windows-only(as far as I know) program. Apple may have to change the clocks for Windows. Or they may not have the best DirectX 9 implementatio in the world since it is an Apple driver. I have yet to see any 3D benchmarks run in OS X(are there any?) and no one knows what the card is clocked at in OS X. In fact, as I have said before, most all the complaints on the MacBook Pro have little real proof. Now, I would like to see someone run a universal binary game on the Acer and Apple to see frame rates. I suspect the Acer will still be ahead, but the gap will probably be far less and due more to DirectX 9 and not the card.

 

Well, as non-technical as this may sound, you can check its GPU temp to make sure. If the GPU isn't as half as hot to touch in Windows, than you've got your answer.

And Pressure, lol, you totally pwned me in that one. I totally agree with what you said.

 

Sorry, don't hope I came off as an arse

If that was the case, I apologize.

 

I checked out a Macbook Pro and a Mackbook at CompUSA a few days ago. The Macbook seemed cool enough on display but the Pro was quite warm, but far from scorching hot. I would have easily gotten the Macbook if Apple's stingy bean counters would have at least put 128 MB shared RAM in it. I could have overlooked the lack of a PC/expresscard slot and used a Broadband Bluetooth or USB from a Mobile phone. But noooooo...looks like the SZ-230 is the best choice for me, especially since I learned the ones in my are3a have Cingular WAN included, which sucks compared to EVDO, but you get a 30 day free trial.

Too bad, sure the Macbook is a bit heavier but it looks Bangarang in black; perfect with my black Hummer H3. Apple could have nailed it IMO, and I don't think I want to wait 6 more monthes for the 128 MB GPU version.

 

<cough> Enjoy your Sony SZ-230 . . .