Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
TECHNOKID

iMore's reply to Linus on why macs are slower than PCs

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

I don’t believe that. 

You can not believe it all you like but I've used all of them from that era, 13"/15"/17", and they were all damn excellent. They got hot, often very hot but not to the point where Final Cut would be noticeably slower. There were some issues with bad performance due to failing thermal paste but that could be fixed under Apple Care.

 

As much as I don't like Mac OS their hardware back then was only rivaled by Lenovo, which style wise looked like ass in comparison not that I minded that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

That never happened. Those models “overheated” as well. 

only because of fan curve though. my mid-2012 with the stock paste with max rpm on the fan gets to 70 degrees and stays there. 


DISCLAIMER: ANYTHING I SAY COULD BE WRONG. DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH! 

Have a look at my set up your linux gaming pc from start to finish topic if you want to get started with linux :) 

My Laptop: HP EliteBook 9470m | I5 3437U | HD4000 | 1TB SSD | 16GB RAM | Ubuntu Disco Dingo

My Phone: LG G3 | 16GB | 64GB SD | Lineage OS

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, leadeater said:

which style wise looked like ass in comparison not that I minded that.

looked like ass? still looks like ass lol. 


DISCLAIMER: ANYTHING I SAY COULD BE WRONG. DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH! 

Have a look at my set up your linux gaming pc from start to finish topic if you want to get started with linux :) 

My Laptop: HP EliteBook 9470m | I5 3437U | HD4000 | 1TB SSD | 16GB RAM | Ubuntu Disco Dingo

My Phone: LG G3 | 16GB | 64GB SD | Lineage OS

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, firelighter487 said:

looked like ass? still looks like ass lol. 

I'd insert a Lenovo designer joke here, but they are non-existent, just like Lenovo designers. 


The ability to google properly is a skill of its own. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, leadeater said:

not throttled down to base

If they're not going below base, they're not throttling.


Seagull eat fish. But fish belong to Mafia. Mafia punch seagull for not respecting Mafia. Seagull say "No, please! I have child!"

Mafia punch seagull with child.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pyo.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, leadeater said:

1990 Thinkpad

 

2018 Thinkpad

 

I'm going to be honest, that is probably my favorite aspect of some of lenovos products.

 

Now they just need to bring back that damn 3.5" floppy drive and internal power supply...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Linus's reply, "No U!"


VashTheStampede 4.0:

CPU: AMD Threadripper 1950x | CPU Cooling: EKWB S280 with the EK Supremacy sTR4 RGB Nickel Water Block and Scarlet Red Premix | Compound: Thermal Grizzly Kryonaut | Mobo: Asrock X399 Taichi | Ram: G.Skill Ripjaws V 32GBs (2x16) DDR4-3200 | Storage: Crucial MX500 500GB M.2-2280 SSD/PNY CS900 240GB SSD/Seagate Constellation ES.3 1TB 7200RPM/Toshiba X300 4TB 7200RPM | GPU: Zotac Geforce GTX 1080 8GB AMP! Edition | Case: Fractal Define R5 Blackout Edition w/Window | PSU: EVGA SuperNOVA G2 750W 80+ Gold | Operating System: Windows 10 Pro | Keyboard: Corsair Vengeance K70 with Cherry MX Reds | Mouse: Corsair M65 Pro RGB FPS | Headphones:  AKG K7XX Massdrop Editions | Mic: Audio-Technica ATR2500 | Speakers: Mackie MR624 Studio Monitors

 

Prince of Dark Rock:

CPU: AMD Ryzen 3 2200G(Temp/Upping to a Zen 2 CPU) | CPU Cooling: be quiet! Dark Rock Pro 4 | Compound: Thermal Grizzly Kryronaut | Mobo: Asrock x470 Taichi | Ram: G.Skill Ripjaws V 8GBs (2x4) DDR4-3200 | Storage: Crucial MX200 240GB SSD+Seagate Constellation ES.3 1TB 7200RPM | GPU: EVGA GTX 1060 6GB 6 GB SSC GAMING  | Case: Fractal Focus G | PSU: EVGA SuperNOVA G2 750W 80+ Gold | Optical Drive: Random HP DVD Drive | Operating System: Windows 10 Home | Keyboard: Gigabyte FORCE K83 with Cherry MX Reds | MouseRazer DeathAdder Elite Destiny 2 Edition Speakers: JBL LSR 305 Studio Monitors(At some point)

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, SenpaiKaplan said:

Yes, actually...

yeah there're problems with using grammarly on this forum (maybe also others using the invision engine). the suggestion so far has been to turn off grammarly when commenting on this forum ._.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, VegetableStu said:

yeah there're problems with using grammarly on this forum (maybe also others using the invision engine). the suggestion so far has been to turn off grammarly when commenting on this forum ._.

Yep. Had the same issue on Cooler Master's forum. I just deleted it, as I don't use it anyways...


Main PC: AMD Ryzen 1700 (8c/16t), MSI B350 Tomahawk, NDH 15, T-Force Delta RGB 16GB, Asus ROG STRIX RX-580, Samsung 128GB NVME, Crucial MX-300 1.05TB, 8TB WD Red/White, Seasonic S12II 620W.

School Laptop: Early 2014 Macbook Air. Intel i5-4260U, 4GB RAM, 128GB Apple PCI-E SSD, Intel HD Graphics 5000

Phone: iPhone XS Max 64GB: A12 Bionic. 4GB RAM, 6.5-inch 2,688 x 1,242 OLED, 3,174 mAh 

Wearables: Samsung Gear S3 Frontier, Sony 1000XM2

Random devices in various stages of working: Dell Inspiron 1000 (Works perfect other than battery), Late 2008 Macbook Aluminum Unibody (For Sale), Gateway Solo W2000 Laptop (For writing floppies, needs a battery), iBook G4 (For Sale.), Surface 3 (Touch screen is borked, perfect otherwise.), Lenovo G580 (For Sale)

 

Spoiler

"I looked to the sky in angst and yelled into the vast blue emptiness in hopes for an answer I would not receive. The very next day the sky fell."

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The reality here is that the general population are not hardware enthusiasts.  The general population want thin and light, even if we'd rather have full power as enthusiasts.  Apple goes for that market, and that market generally likes them.

 

Apple does actually design quite well most of the time.  Are there exceptions, like the silly keyboard and the OLD GPU that wouldn't stay stuck on because the graphics partner wouldn't provide the chip in the package format they had designed for?  Of course.

 

But, the reality of today is that, while the typical PC will tune fans and the like to make you deaf to keep temps down a bit longer and keep the system less throttled, Apple keeps the fans quieter longer, optimizing for noise and battery life over raw power.  If I'm sitting in the living room working on the laptop around others, I appreciate the quieter fan curves, lighter weight, and longer battery life.  If I'm at my desk on my own, or gaming, I use SMC Fan Control and crank them up ahead of time, then never get to throttle temps (i7 in mine, not the impossible to cool in thin laptop i9).  I know to do that because I'm an enthusiast.

 

Sure, we could say it would be nice to have a "performance" or "silent" switch someplace to adjust that for end users…but even in Windows that has similar ways to manage power profiles, people don't actually use the feature…so why bother?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I see no problem with that video, the title is what it is, but Linus explains the problems with Macs which you can't deny. iMore might be right that there are products with similar problems, but they shouldn't aim to be better than the worst, but to be among the best. Ultrabooks with i9s are an upgrade over i7s for a very small amount of users, most producers put that kind of CPUs in bigger form factor devices, where they can be properly cooled and utilised. As unbelievable as it sounds, I believe Apple should make their performance oriented devices bigger, because you can't fool physics at this point and it'd be much easier way to get top performance from macOS than virtualisation on tower PC/big thick laptop.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, DrMacintosh said:

Design, performance, battery life. 

 

Pick two. 

I wont lie, im about half a bottle of vodka in right now and it took me a solid like 5 minutes to grasp what ye were trying to say.

100% this though seems to be apples reasoning.

I dont know though off the top of my head if the macbooks even get that solid of battery life compared to competitors, because they certainly appear to have sacrificed about everything they can to have that clout worthy design. I can't deny though, apple products feel high end when you handle them at least lol. i could go one for literally paragraphs at this point lol but imma stop myself here; damn vodka lmao

-edit holy shit agreeing your post was really hard lmao


Updated Build 2019 | 4790K @4.7ghz | EVGA FTW 1080 | 16gb 1866mhz DDR3 Corsair Vengance | Asus z97a | Case: be Quite Base 800 | Acer k272hul | Sennheiser 558 + MXL 770 + Soundblaster K3+

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, TheSLSAMG said:

It's not only Apple's fault though, since Intel wants to push the spiciest possible chips onto the market with hilariously optimistic TDPs. Can someone tell me how Intel managed to get the same TDP on the i9-8950HK as they did on the i7-7700HQ? The i9 has 2C/4T more, it has a higher base and boost clock (1GHz higher in fact) and a higher sustained clock assuming cooling and power aren't an issue (4.3GHz.) As far as I'm concerned, there's no justifiable answer beyond Intel being liars.

Intel are being liars with their TDP ratings, however that doesn't make MacBooks throttle. Poor cooling design does.

What I'm getting at - it's not Intel's fault in the slightest, even if they are being assholes with their TDP numbers.

Apple has skilled, educated and experienced engineers designing those laptops and there's no way that they just slapped the cooler on and called it a day without any testing. They knew how their cooling solution performed before they started selling those MBP's. They just did not care.


CPU: Intel Core i7-6700K @ 4,7GHz GPU: MSI GTX 1080 Ti GAMING X TRIO 11GB GDDR5X Motherboard: ASUS ROG MAXIMUS VIII HERO ALPHA
CPU Cooler: Corsair H100i V2 RAM: Corsair Vengeance LED 16GB DDR4 3200MHz Case: Phanteks Eclipse P400 TG White PSU: Corsair TX650M Gray Unit
Displays: AORUS AD27QD, DELL UltraSharp U2711 Storage: Samsung 850 EVO 120GB, ADATA SP550 240GB M.2, Kingston UV400 240GB, WD Red 2TB & 1TB
Laptop: Acer Nitro 5 CPU: AMD Ryzen 5 2500U GPU: AMD Radeon RX 560X 4GB RAM: 16GB Storage: 240GB M.2 SSD, 1TB HDD Display: 15.6" IPS

Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Morgan MLGman said:

Intel are being liars with their TDP ratings, however that doesn't make MacBooks throttle. Poor cooling design does.

What I'm getting at - it's not Intel's fault in the slightest, even if they are being assholes with their TDP numbers.

 

Why do people still tout this?  There is absolutely nothing erroneous with Intel's TDP figures.  There has not been a single case where Intel's chips have required more cooling to maintain Tj than the spec called for.  


QuicK and DirtY. Read the CoC it's like a guide on how not to be moron.  Also I don't have an issue with the VS series.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Why do people still tout this?  There is absolutely nothing erroneous with Intel's TDP figures.  There has not been a single case where Intel's chips have required more cooling to maintain Tj than the spec called for.  

They're designed to be misleading and are measured differently to what AMD does with their TDP ratings.

9900K - 8C/16T (3.6/5.0GHz) has 95W TDP, 6700K - 4C/8T (4.0/4.2GHz) has 91W TDP. They're the same architecture... How is that rating accurate? Also, the 7800X which is a 6C/12T chip also based on the same architecture (it has a different cache architecture but that doesn't cause a drastic TDP increase) is rated for a TDP of 140W.

AMD's Threadripper 1920X has TDP rating of 180W and yet at stock settings it draws only 10W of actual power more than the 95W 9900K :P Note that it has four physical cores more...


CPU: Intel Core i7-6700K @ 4,7GHz GPU: MSI GTX 1080 Ti GAMING X TRIO 11GB GDDR5X Motherboard: ASUS ROG MAXIMUS VIII HERO ALPHA
CPU Cooler: Corsair H100i V2 RAM: Corsair Vengeance LED 16GB DDR4 3200MHz Case: Phanteks Eclipse P400 TG White PSU: Corsair TX650M Gray Unit
Displays: AORUS AD27QD, DELL UltraSharp U2711 Storage: Samsung 850 EVO 120GB, ADATA SP550 240GB M.2, Kingston UV400 240GB, WD Red 2TB & 1TB
Laptop: Acer Nitro 5 CPU: AMD Ryzen 5 2500U GPU: AMD Radeon RX 560X 4GB RAM: 16GB Storage: 240GB M.2 SSD, 1TB HDD Display: 15.6" IPS

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Morgan MLGman said:

They're designed to be misleading and are measured differently to what AMD does with their TDP ratings.\

 

What?  how are they misleading?  and why does it have to be thee same as AMD's? 

Just now, Morgan MLGman said:



9900K - 8C/16T (3.6/5.0GHz) has 95W TDP, 6700K - 4C/8T (4.0/4.2GHz) has 91W TDP. They're the same architecture... How is that rating accurate? Also, the 7800X which is a 6C/12T chip also based on the same architecture is rated for a TDP of 140W.

AMD's Threadripper 1920X has TDP rating of 180W and yet at stock settings it draws only 10W of actual power more than the 95W 9900K :P

 

You can't compare Intel's TDP to AMD's that not how it works.   They use different criteria and have different guarantees on performance.

 

Here's a reasonable write up, and it;s even written from the perspective of someone who doesn't like it:

 

https://www.anandtech.com/show/13544/why-intel-processors-draw-more-power-than-expected-tdp-turbo

 


QuicK and DirtY. Read the CoC it's like a guide on how not to be moron.  Also I don't have an issue with the VS series.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, mr moose said:

What?  how are they misleading?  and why does it have to be thee same as AMD's?

To quote anandtech:

Quote

By Intel’s own definitions, the TDP is an indicator of the cooling performance required for a processor to maintain its base frequency. In this case, if a user can only cool 95W, they can expect to realistically get only 3.6 GHz on a shiny new Core i9-9900K. That magic TDP value does not take into account any turbo values, even if the all-core turbo (such as 4.7 GHz in this case) is way above that 95W rating.

So Intel can pretty much add more cores to their CPUs and simultaneously lower their base clock to keep the same TDP value as on previous gen despite the fact that those chips can draw a lot of power, even twice as much as previous 91W generations (based on the same architechture), don't you think it's made to mislead people who don't know the specifics of how TDP is measured? And that it even varies from vendor to vendor?

I prefer the way AMD gets their TDP figures because they're a bit more "realistic", considering that I'm pretty sure no 9900K owner runs it at its base clock of 3,6GHz and that fact makes the TDP value useless because you can't even realistically look at this number to buy a good-enough CPU cooler... If you bought a 95W cooling solution to use with a 9900K, you'd have a pretty bad time ^_^


To conclude what I mean - Intel's TDP rating is technically not wrong, meaning that it's possible that the 9900K running ONLY at its base clock can be considered a 95W chip. That doesn't change the fact that AMD's own 1800X with the same core & thread count and the same TDP rating draws 50W less of power when both run at stock settings. Both chips have the same base clock speed.
 

22 minutes ago, mr moose said:

You can't compare Intel's TDP to AMD's that not how it works.   They use different criteria and have different guarantees on performance.

I know that, but I can compare their TDP ratings to the actual power draw of those CPUs. And to be fair, you can't even compare Intel's TDP to Intel's TDP either.

7820X - same architecture (with a different cache structure), same core count and the same base clock has a 140W TDP
9900K - same architecture, the same base clock & core count has a TDP of 95W

Makes sense, right? :P


CPU: Intel Core i7-6700K @ 4,7GHz GPU: MSI GTX 1080 Ti GAMING X TRIO 11GB GDDR5X Motherboard: ASUS ROG MAXIMUS VIII HERO ALPHA
CPU Cooler: Corsair H100i V2 RAM: Corsair Vengeance LED 16GB DDR4 3200MHz Case: Phanteks Eclipse P400 TG White PSU: Corsair TX650M Gray Unit
Displays: AORUS AD27QD, DELL UltraSharp U2711 Storage: Samsung 850 EVO 120GB, ADATA SP550 240GB M.2, Kingston UV400 240GB, WD Red 2TB & 1TB
Laptop: Acer Nitro 5 CPU: AMD Ryzen 5 2500U GPU: AMD Radeon RX 560X 4GB RAM: 16GB Storage: 240GB M.2 SSD, 1TB HDD Display: 15.6" IPS

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Morgan MLGman said:

They're designed to be misleading and are measured differently to what AMD does with their TDP ratings.

9900K - 8C/16T (3.6/5.0GHz) has 95W TDP, 6700K - 4C/8T (4.0/4.2GHz) has 91W TDP. They're the same architecture... How is that rating accurate? Also, the 7800X which is a 6C/12T chip also based on the same architecture (it has a different cache architecture but that doesn't cause a drastic TDP increase) is rated for a TDP of 140W.

AMD's Threadripper 1920X has TDP rating of 180W and yet at stock settings it draws only 10W of actual power more than the 95W 9900K :P Note that it has four physical cores more...

Iirc Intel measures TDP at base clock, AMD measures TDP at Turbo clocks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, RejZoR said:

Iirc Intel measures TDP at base clock

Yes, I put that in a quote in my second post.


CPU: Intel Core i7-6700K @ 4,7GHz GPU: MSI GTX 1080 Ti GAMING X TRIO 11GB GDDR5X Motherboard: ASUS ROG MAXIMUS VIII HERO ALPHA
CPU Cooler: Corsair H100i V2 RAM: Corsair Vengeance LED 16GB DDR4 3200MHz Case: Phanteks Eclipse P400 TG White PSU: Corsair TX650M Gray Unit
Displays: AORUS AD27QD, DELL UltraSharp U2711 Storage: Samsung 850 EVO 120GB, ADATA SP550 240GB M.2, Kingston UV400 240GB, WD Red 2TB & 1TB
Laptop: Acer Nitro 5 CPU: AMD Ryzen 5 2500U GPU: AMD Radeon RX 560X 4GB RAM: 16GB Storage: 240GB M.2 SSD, 1TB HDD Display: 15.6" IPS

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Morgan MLGman said:

To quote anandtech:

So Intel can pretty much add more cores to their CPUs and simultaneously lower their base clock to keep the same TDP value as on previous gen despite the fact that those chips can draw a lot of power, even twice as much as previous 91W generations (based on the same architechture), don't you think it's made to mislead people who don't know the specifics of how TDP is measured? And that it even varies from vendor to vendor?

Nope, I think it's carefully measured so when OEM and system designers use pl2 or insufficient cooling solutions they can't blame Intel.  It's pretty clear what they do and why they do it, how can something so clearly explained be misleading?

6 minutes ago, Morgan MLGman said:

 


I prefer the way AMD gets their TDP figures because they're a bit more "realistic", considering that I'm pretty sure no 9900K owner runs it at its base clock of 3,6GHz and that fact makes the TDP value useless because you can't even realistically look at this number to buy a good-enough CPU cooler... If you bought a 95W cooling solution to use with a 9900K, you'd have a pretty bad time ^_^

You are welcome to like anything better, but preferring the way AMD do things doesn't make Intel liars or misleading.   Also I don't know any coolers that are sold with watt ratings,  probably a very good reason for that.

6 minutes ago, Morgan MLGman said:

 



To conclude what I mean - Intel's TDP rating is technically not wrong, meaning that it's possible that the 9900K running ONLY at its base clock can be considered a 95W chip. That doesn't change the fact that AMD's own 1800X with the same core & thread count and the same TDP rating draws 50W less of power when both run at stock settings. Both chips have the same base clock speed.
 

It's not even technically not wrong, it's just not wrong full stop.  AMD express theirs differently.

6 minutes ago, Morgan MLGman said:

 

I know that, but I can compare their TDP ratings to the actual power draw of those CPUs. And to be fair, you can't even compare Intel's TDP to Intel's TDP either.

 

No you can't compare Intel's TDP spec to total power draw at some clock range above base.  In fact you can't even use Intel's TDP to calculate power draw beyond base clock.  Why would you? That's not what it's for.

6 minutes ago, Morgan MLGman said:


7820X - same architecture (with a different cache structure), same core count and the same base clock has a 140W TDP
9900K - same architecture, the same base clock & core count has a TDP of 95W

Makes sense, right? :P

Yes actually it does,  I don't even need to know specifically why they are different, All I need to know is that to maintain the base clock under almost full load on all cores I need a bigger cooler for thee 7820X.  Beyond that you are subject to all the variables of silicon lottery, motherboard VRM, cooling solutions flaws, PSY limitations, enclosure design etc. Given I am not designing a cooling solution for it I can buy one of the shelf and 99% sure it will be fine (like most are).


QuicK and DirtY. Read the CoC it's like a guide on how not to be moron.  Also I don't have an issue with the VS series.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Morgan MLGman said:

7820X - same architecture (with a different cache structure), same core count and the same base clock has a 140W TDP
9900K - same architecture, the same base clock & core count has a TDP of 95W

One is Skylake and the other is Coffee Lake, a bit of power efficiency was gained between those (not much). The larger quad channel memory controller and larger PCIe controller also uses more power, quad channel IMC would likely be the larger increase of all of these.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×