Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: New Macbook Air run any cooler ?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    62

    New Macbook Air run any cooler ?

    My difficulty with the current MacBook Air models is that they run tremendously hot when used for wide-ranging multimedia tasks, therefore we want to know what you is your major priority, fast performance or cooler operation? It is fair to say that the Core 2 Duos available in MacBook Airs today are somewhat absent therefore a revive is needed, however the moderately slow (for today’s high standards) Core 2 Duo chips seem to bear cooling problems in the MacBook. Any idea ?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,066

    Re: New Macbook Air run any cooler ?

    The the original Air. I have used this version now. Though it has been extraordinarily reliable, the Intel graphics (housed in the chipset) is its Achilles' heel. And I'm discussion about heat problems, not performance shortcomings. The offender for me is video-intensive tasks (I don't play games). Any comprehensive video turns up the heat to lap-warming, or a great deal toastier, stage. This can get total rough at times. Not only does the underneath of the laptop acquire hot but the keyboard too.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    951

    Re: New Macbook Air run any cooler ?

    The new MacBook Air just isn’t powerful sufficient to be used as a main computer for expert users. The Core 2 Duo processor, 2GB of RAM, and 64GB SSD won’t sufficiently run applications with large resource necessities like VMWare, Final Cut Pro or Photoshop. Luckily, the RAM can be bumped to 4GB (+$100) and the SSD can be bump to 128GB (+$200) — which help — but even after that the new MBA won’t be useable as a main computer for power users.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    950

    Re: New Macbook Air run any cooler ?

    In new macbook air, Nvidia'a graphics-oriented chipset (the GeForce 9400M) and Intel's updated processor used in the new version of the Air bring the heat down to inferior levels. In general, this Air runs cooler and longer with the higher-performance graphics. (The Nvidia 9400M graphics chipset is also second-hand in Netbooks from Lenovo and Samsung.) I won't repeat the performance benchmarks, which have been sufficiently cited in many reviews on the Web. Suffice to say, Nvidia's 9400M delivers enhanced gaming benchmarks than the Intel graphics in the original Air.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    780

    Re: New Macbook Air run any cooler ?

    It’s time to twist on throttling and Coolbook. Check both boxes and let your organization reboot when encouraged. When your system is rebooted, it will be organization Coolbook in the background. You do not require to open the application. Threre is a free version, but it doesn’t let you do no matter. Don’t waste your instance with it; pay for the full version right away. The instructions are a small puzzling, so I’ve outline some pointer below. When you’re configuring frequencies, it’s vital to uncheck the “Throttle Active” checkbox.
    1. Select the occurrence from the drop-down box.
    2. Select the voltage from the drop-down box.
    3. Click the set button.

Similar Threads

  1. CPU Cooler for replacing i7 2600 Intel factory cooler
    By Jhonny.Bravo in forum Overclocking & Computer Modification
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 05-03-2012, 03:22 PM
  2. Compatible Fans for Cooler Master V6GT CPU cooler
    By Echa in forum Hardware Peripherals
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 03-02-2012, 12:54 PM
  3. I want to fit cooler master hyper 212 cooler on Asus p8p67 evo
    By Quintessa in forum Motherboard Processor & RAM
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 26-01-2011, 12:10 AM
  4. MacBook Pro Cooler
    By Ashton in forum Overclocking & Computer Modification
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 31-08-2009, 05:01 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Page generated in 1,713,860,977.57558 seconds with 17 queries