Brooksie359

Or maybe if that's what is required to run an i9 without throttling then apple shouldn't have tried putting it in their laptop. The thing is basically an i7 8700k with how high it's boost clock is so yeah putting it into their laptop was a mistake. It would be like putting a gtx 1080 into the Mac book pro and then blaming nvidia for the fact that it requires a good amount of cooling to run optimally. 

Actually, a lot of people (predominantly pros and power users) share the same opinion.
 
The entire MacBook Pro range didn't have to be thinner. The MacBook 12" and the MacBook Air (although really outdated now) existed for people who wanted an ultraportable Mac. They can make a Macbook Pro variant that was more compact, but IMHO, the MacBook Pro should be focused on power, performance and features relative to its namesake while being in a reasonably compact chassis that was portable enough to carry around easily yet still allowed beefy components inside and allowing them to run without overly sacrificing performance.

How many people would have asked this question if we weren't talking about an Apple product?

I thinks it is just after market coolers as the founders additions are usually released around a month before. 

That's pretty neat. 

I i remember correctly ddr6 is supposed to be 16gb for the standard config kinda like 8gb was with ddr5 for the 10 series. I honestly don't think this is too far fetched tbh. 

The maybe with the new chrome security update and 100+ tabs. 

All of them with the right bios. 

There is a diffrence between saying I prefer Intel or saying I think Intel is better and saying Intel is the best. The first two statements clearly indicate that it's an opinion and not a fact while the latter implies it's a fact. If you want to state your opinion with no reasoning behind it then that's fine but you should try and convey that it's an opinion. I believe this is the root of why people dont like your comment and not that you have an opinion that differs from them. 

That doesn't help much. It is nice to see if either there is something wrong with the cpu or gpu while in game. Also try capping the fps and see if that helps at all. 

We have no idea if they are adding more cores and we don't know if they are hitting a wall in terms of frequency. My guess is that with 7nm it will improve clocks by a good amount to where the frequency difference won't be nearly as large as it is now. Also the IPC difference isn't that large and with a relatively new architecture it is much easier to find ipc improvement compared to a mature one so the gap could close relatively quickly. I would say we will just have to wait and see but I think there is a good possibility that Zen 2 will have major performance improvement compared to Zen and Zen+. 

Nobody will take the time to code their program to use more cores if the vast majority of people have 2 to 4 cores. If the vast majority of people start having 4 to 6 or even 6 to 8 then it gives devs an actual reason to program to utilize more cores. 

It's kind of ironic that "sonic runs slow" if you think about it 

The 980ti had 6gb of ram while the 1070 has 8. That's 25% more vram. So 16gb vs 11 gb is about the same tbh. 

That's pretty neat. 

I i remember correctly ddr6 is supposed to be 16gb for the standard config kinda like 8gb was with ddr5 for the 10 series. I honestly don't think this is too far fetched tbh. 

I see my point flew right over your head because you still don't seem to get it. The reason why the i7 u series was considered better was because of the higher clock speed. Nobody would buy an i7 u series if it was the same clocks as the i5 but a bit more cache especially if the price difference was 300 dollars. If you gimp the i9 cpu to lower frequencies then there is no point of it being an i9 you might as well get an i7 at that point. Funny thing is the i7 version actually performs better anyways because it didn't thermal throttle itself so hard. The i9 is a high performance cpu that is supposed to have the proper cooling for it regardless of the rest if Intel's lineup. If this was a u series part then yeah I would give Intel shit for it but it's the flagship high performance mobile cpu that really only makes sense in heavy thermal solutions like a gaming laptop. You put that chip in a small laptop with bad cooling then it's obvious what is going to happen. 

Nobody will take the time to code their program to use more cores if the vast majority of people have 2 to 4 cores. If the vast majority of people start having 4 to 6 or even 6 to 8 then it gives devs an actual reason to program to utilize more cores. 

Nobody is going to pay 300 extra dollars for more cache. it is basically an i7 with a higher frquency so don't argue over semantics. You also if you can find a low power i9 option be my guest but for now the only mobile i9s out are high power cpus. You seem pretty fixated on making a cpu that wasnt designed for thin and lights work in one. You are honestly ridiculous at this point in putting the blame on Intel. 

The only difference between the i9 and an i7 is the frequency. So yeah the i9 is a higher power product. If you want a low power product get a u series processor that is designed to be low power. If you try and then the frequency to have the MacBook pro be able to cool it then it's no better than an i7. It honestly insane to me how you fail to realize the obvious. If you try and put the most powerful mobile cpu Intel offers into a laptop with shit cooling it's going to be a shit product. That is 100% apples fault. 

Yes let's just not progress and sit at the same core count for 7 gens again, that was much better.

Just write a lower TDP on the spec sheet, that'll solve the problem .
 

Both are good cpus. The 2700x is the better value but the 8700k is a better performance cpu when overlooked to 5ghz. So either get the 2700x and run it at stock with it's stock cooler or get the 8700k and get a nice beefy cooler or aio and crank it up to 5ghz. Those are the only 2 options that make sense. I love my 2700x and it is a great value cpu and will suit your needs well. The 8700k is really good for high single threaded performance but at a premium. 
 
I would say both cpus are going to be relevant for a long time tbh. I wouldn't say the 8700k has any advantage over the 2700x when it comes to being future proof. 

The strix is probably the best. The ftw3 is also great. 

Both are good cpus. The 2700x is the better value but the 8700k is a better performance cpu when overlooked to 5ghz. So either get the 2700x and run it at stock with it's stock cooler or get the 8700k and get a nice beefy cooler or aio and crank it up to 5ghz. Those are the only 2 options that make sense. I love my 2700x and it is a great value cpu and will suit your needs well. The 8700k is really good for high single threaded performance but at a premium. 
 
I would say both cpus are going to be relevant for a long time tbh. I wouldn't say the 8700k has any advantage over the 2700x when it comes to being future proof.