PeterBocan

Stop shifting the blame for the love of God ... you are doing it the whole week and it looks very silly on your side. Intel has no say in the decision what Apple puts in their macbooks, so stop it.

In the spirit of Apple, they will continue selling them. Apple rarely admits their fault. They almost never rollback, look at "antennagate" - it's your fault, you don't know how to hold a slab of glass in your hand. Apple does not halt the production and the board needs a complete reworking of VRMs and cooling, which also makes a trouble where to put all new heatsinks - It does take a while to figure out the origami they have to go through when designing the motherboard. I think the decision came from higher places and it trickled down. No serious hardware engineer would make such a rookie mistake, whether it's insufficient cooling or overheating VRMs, somebody had to green-light the decision of slapping Core i9 into it and dismissed the "issues", which, in my opinion, had to be the executive decision of whoever supervises the Macbook line up. They may come up with a bios update and manage the voltage, but they will do that rather silently without public notice. So, thanks to that Reddit guy who did a dirty work for Apple.

Yeah, because ARM will outperform x86 when there's need to render 4K, 5K, or 8K footage. Those ARM processors would rather die of old age than render 30 minutes of raw 8K video. These machines are for professionals who require the performance right here, right now. Apple can boast of having the same performance in Cinebench when it comes to iPhone/iPad performance, but try to do something compute intensive with those processors. Intel just need to shrink their technology on 10 or 7 nm, and everything's gonna be alright.

Apple in their super duper brand new HQ. Hope they don't run around in there... EDIT: their's civil engineers are as bad as hardware engineers.

Well, yes, it's not a TRNG, there's clearly some bias/pattern. IIRC the rand method in C is implementing the linear congruence RNG, so it clearly can not be as good as TRNG. However, it still may be a well enough for the use case of a dice roll. If it's not enough, implementing Blum Blum Shub (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blum_Blum_Shub) or using other - simpler PRNGs (like XorShift) may be sufficient. http://www.pcg-random.org/ I don't think it's absolutely necessary to go overboard with it.

I do wonder how much is this issue prevalent on the MacBook Pro 13" ...

No. 45W is a TDP on a base clock. On Turbo Boost you are looking on 2-2,5x larger TDP. Intel makes Core i5, i7 in a ULV fashion, but not i9. So Apple should have been looking at 22W Intel Core i7, not to upper side.

Yeah, for some dice rolls this seems perfectly fine. RNGs should have a uniform distribution so they don't skew towards some interval.

Please do. Maybe they start listening.

I was absolutely fine with the form factor of 2015 Macbook Pros. Nobody asked for it to be thinner.

Well, duh... I think Intel had ULV Core i7s for quite some time now, they are at 10, 15, 22W TDP on a Base clock ~2.5GHz Which, including TurboBoost can get up to 40-45W TDP. If your processor starts at 45W TDP and you multiply it by a factor of 2. or 2,5 as a Turbo you get the 110W. Sooo, which Apple Engineer doesn't understand the TurboBoost and TDP?

When Intel says that Intel Core i9 can boost up to 4.8 GHz it means the following: Under optimal cooling using proper heat dissipation your CPU can run at 4.8 GHz When Apple says that Intel Core i9 can boost up to 4.8 GHz it means the following: We are able to deliver the cooling to handle 45 W TDP to run at 4.8 GHz. When two companies says the same, it doesn't mean the same.

Yeah, the removal is useless, but I think it was removed on the Intel's discretion as it hurts their product marketing as well as Apple's

How to remove overheating problem - Remove all temperature sensors from motherboard next year

Exactly, he started with throttling and video transitioned into comparing i7 with i9 performance...Clickbait much?

Okay, so now it's #AllNotebooksThrottle it seems. Apologetics 101... or shall we start flinging shit around? EDIT: Water is wet, an i9 which has base clock of 2.9 GHz is faster than an i7 which is 2.2 GHz baseclock. I love these kind of "benchmarks" with clickbaity headlines.

Then Core i5 with 15 W TDP is good enough. But you are not buying a professional portable workstation to do Excel spreadsh*ts.

They put a CPU with 45 W TDP into this thin, one long heatpipe shared with discrete GPU. The CPU will not push over 3 GHz clock which is TWO THIRDS of the TurboBoost's Maximum. Absolutely abhorrent.

This will be a little rant of mine on Tech Youtubers who clearly don't understand the whole concept of Turbo boosting (Namely this guy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ikBgdkbvgI ) in the latest drama of Macbook Pros, so I will write up a little rant in here: The whole idea of computing is to crunch the numbers and have the correct result on the table as soon as possible. One of techniques deployed is to raise the clock (frequency) to raise the number of operations/instructions executed within a second. Having a CPU which executes 40-60 % less operations in a second means a lot of lost potential, it's like having a 100mph speed limit on a highway and your car is going only 50 mph because your engine is overheating and you can't push it to the limit because of bad engineering... Apologising for Apple or somehow trying to "fix" the unfixable which is clearly a problem with a design of heatsinks and heat dissipation is inexcusable, especially when you are a youtuber who should know a thing or two about the whole idea around computing.

I think, I already did that, but I will redo that, because I don't remember anymore.

It never shows an option to select a bootable drive (with exception of external devices). It would be logical, if the BIOS was tweaked with the "ExpressCache" in mind, but BIOS does recognise both drives (photo provided additionally) in SATA ports. It's on SATA0 but BIOS is always pointing at SATA1. Yes, and they show up even after the installation, when you install onto bootable 24 GB SSD. Even Windows 10 is saying that both drives are healthy.

Hey guys, my sister had ASUS UX32VD ultrabook for quite a while, I have upgraded from HDD 500GB to SSD 240 GB (OCZ Trion 150 Series 240GB) in late 2016, installed Windows 10 onto it. Everything worked fine, but just recently the Windows 10 crashed and she gave it to some chap/pot head who installed Windows 10 on the internal integrated SanDisk SSD 24GB (It was previously working as a Cache Storage for Windows, some of you may know "ExpressCache" or Intel Rapid Storage Technology) and thus nuked all the recovery files, Windows Boot Manager and the EFI setup that was there from ASUS. The issue is that notebook's BIOS somehow forces the installation of the Windows onto this small SSD, and refuses to launch anything other than Windows (tried Ubuntu 16.04 LTS). One of the solution would be getting rid of the integrated SanDisk SSD, but I am not skilled enough to do that, so that is not an option. Also BIOS options are pretty sparse, both SSDs are recognised by the BIOS (SATA0 points to OCZ drive, SATA1 points to SanDisk). BIOS wants me to boot only from the integrated SSD. I am able to install Windows 10 onto the integrated SSD but the free space gets smaller with each restart as Windows 10 starts pulling nonsense within a few seconds after install. I am also in the possession of the original 500 GB HDD which is untouched, unformatted, but I dont think this will help me much. Any ideas? Tips? Should I submerge it into battery acid? RANT: I have attached the photos for better visualisation how sparse the BIOS is - there is literally nothing to do. I already wasted 10 hours of my life to deal with the problems her friendo caused.

not at all, dude, just have a laugh

"Linus" sells Razer Valeria on Czech craigslist ?! He even has a Czech phone number and he actually speaks fluently Czech! And what about this http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-38565913 ?!