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

[Guest]

Was actually offended by this video, thanks Linus. I have the 2018 MacBook and think its great (never mind I got it hugely subsidised and paid it off by selling my old model). It has the portability and build quality you don't find with other companies. Apple's lineup are tough cookies with a slim form factor. It's reliable, and throttling proves that even more. Just misinformed and certainly clickbait. Terrible journalism. 

[Drak3]

1 hour ago, floofer said:

portability

Dell, MSi, HP, ASUS, Acer.

 

1 hour ago, floofer said:

build quality

MBP build quality is average, at best. Using CNC anodized aluminum =/= high build quality. Given the keyboard dust issues, battery expansion issues, and display cable issue, to make that claim is either uninformed or disingenuous.

[DrMacintosh]

1 hour ago, floofer said:

Apple's lineup are tough cookies

 

1 hour ago, floofer said:

It's reliable,

 

[D13H4RD]

3 hours ago, floofer said:

Apple's lineup are tough cookies with a slim form factor. It's reliable, and throttling proves that even more. 

1) If you're talking about the older design MacBook Pros, then maybe sure. I owned (and still have) an MY2009 MBP and it is still going absolutely strong. Everything works well apart from sluggish performance mostly down to its now-craptastic 5400RPM hard drive. 

 

But given just how many issues the 2016-2018 MacBook Pro has, it's not really wise to call it a "tough cookie". Sure, maybe a "small" number of users are affected but given that Apple has to issue a repair program for a keyboard malfunction that has occurred thrice across 3 successive sub-generations of the model, alongside other issues like the construction of the display that allows the ribbon cable to flex to the point of very premature wear and such, the current design MBP is anything but tough. It's average at best. 

 

Perhaps your particular unit is unaffected, and I hope it stays that way. But there is an issue with this particular design (mostly keyboard) and these have to be resolved for the updated design. 

 

2) Throttling is not an indication of toughness. In fact, if a computer is designed to artificially limit its processor due to thermal or power headroom limitations, it's a sign that the computer is not really designed to handle that particular CPU when running at its peak. 

 

Again, not reaching Turbo doesn't necessarily mean it's throttling but it does also mean that the cooling or power solution is limited in some way which does not allow the CPU to clock itself past base for very long or at all. That was very much the case with the 8950HK MBP when it was first released until a firmware update was released which aggressively controlled how much power the CPU would draw so that it won't turbo for very long at all. 

[vorticalbox]

On 5/5/2019 at 10:30 AM, leadeater said:

You just don't understand, they are designed to throttle so it's fine^*.

*Please ignore all MacBook Pro products before 2015 that didn't have this issue or was very minor.

2015 was almost half a decade ago, pretty sure it's fine to ignore them when doing a comparison of recent products.

 

 

[Guest]

3 hours ago, DrMacintosh said:

 

 

Oh man took my 2016 to the shop, they said it wasn’t cable flex. Didn't want to touch it, they said needed whole screen replacement. Said the screen was bent, because I had a case on it. Can’t argue or get them to try without fees, no other Apple servicer in town. 

[Results45]

18 hours ago, DrMacintosh said:

 

 

14 hours ago, floofer said:

Oh man took my 2016 to the shop, they said it wasn’t cable flex. Didn't want to touch it, they said needed whole screen replacement. Said the screen was bent, because I had a case on it. Can’t argue or get them to try without fees, no other Apple servicer in town. 

 

Man, something tells me that it's not that the overall user experience of Apple products is bad, but the seemingly nonsensical ways Apple goes about introducing features, cutting-costs, and being transparent (or not) about the design & support of their products.

 

A few from recent years:

• Being slow to integrate hardware features like Gorilla Glass, larger batteries, and OLED screens
• Maintaining minimalist or "sexy" design at the cost of I/O, build quality, and long-term system performance
• iPhone & iPad "Bendgate" (sub-par shell rigidity)
• Reduced SoC performance in the name of better power management
• Reduced durability of screen-to-body cables (as mentioned before)
• Imposing fear-culturing business practices on both supply-chain partners and service providers ~ both for bargain-rate production contracts and prevent losing market share to aftermarket replacement products.
• Forcing "full-destruction" of iPhones rather than letting recyclers reuse or re-sell functioning parts.

 

I understand that some of this is to be expected from a profit-milking, closed-ecosystem business model, but does Apple really need to go to these lengths?  

[Trik'Stari]

5 minutes ago, Results45 said:

 

Man, something tells me that it's not that the overall user experience of Apple products is bad, but the seemingly nonsensical ways Apple goes about introducing features, cutting-costs, and being transparent (or not) about the design & support of their products.

 

A few from recent years:

• Being slow to integrate hardware features like Gorilla Glass, larger batteries, and OLED screens
• Maintaining minimalist or "sexy" design at the cost of I/O, build quality, and long-term system performance
• iPhone & iPad "Bendgate" (sub-par shell rigidity)
• Reduced SoC performance in the name of better power management
• Reduced durability of screen-to-body cables (as mentioned before)
• Imposing fear-culturing business practices on both supply-chain partners and service providers ~ both for bargain-rate production contracts and prevent losing market share to aftermarket replacement products.
• Forcing "full-destruction" of iPhones rather than letting recyclers reuse or re-sell functioning parts.

 

I understand that some of this is to be expected from a profit-milking, closed-ecosystem business model, but does Apple really need to go to these lengths?  

Don't forget flat out lying to their customers about things. Like whether or not your phone can be recovered or fixed from water damage.

 

*plot twist* It can. It absolutely can. A good place won't charge you unless the recovery succeeds (and they claim a 95% success rate). Apple claims "not physically possible", and will absolutely ban anyone who says otherwise from their community support forums.

 

Apple deserves a class action lawsuit. Potentially the biggest of all time considering their profit margin.

[S w a t s o n]

On 5/7/2019 at 5:00 PM, mr moose said:

 

After this discussion you are being disingenuous about TDP.  It's "Thermal" design power, not "total" design power.

 

I am saying that if you put a 95watt cooler on an Intel CPU with a TDP of 95watts you the CPU will run almost full load at base clock maintaining TjMAX.  If you want to know what size cooler you need for boost clocks and power settings then you'll have to do some research and maybe even some math.

 

But as I said before, it's much easier to look at power draw benchmarks and reviews than it is to go that route, even for enthusiasts. 

This whole TDP discussion is a meme, both Intel and AMD tend to use TDP breakpoints rather than an actual measurement but I do think Intel takes much more liberty. Most of their 95W processors really only need to dissipate 95W of heat (or less) for the boost clock even. The 9900k isnt a 95w TDP cpu no matter how you look at it, it just will almost never ever stay in that TDP in comparison to other INTEL 95W TDP CPUs let alone AMD.

 

Both companies can define it how they want but Intel's definition plays a lot more fast and loose with it imo.

 

So for example, my 3770k with a TDP of 77W uses less than that, OC'd at 4.4GHZ because the TDP takes into account iGP for instance

[Guest]

41 minutes ago, Results45 said:

 

Man, something tells me that it's not that the overall user experience of Apple products is bad, but the seemingly nonsensical ways Apple goes about introducing features, cutting-costs, and being transparent (or not) about the design & support of their products.

 

A few from recent years:

• Being slow to integrate hardware features like Gorilla Glass, larger batteries, and OLED screens
• Maintaining minimalist or "sexy" design at the cost of I/O, build quality, and long-term system performance
• iPhone & iPad "Bendgate" (sub-par shell rigidity)
• Reduced SoC performance in the name of better power management
• Reduced durability of screen-to-body cables (as mentioned before)
• Imposing fear-culturing business practices on both supply-chain partners and service providers ~ both for bargain-rate production contracts and prevent losing market share to aftermarket replacement products.
• Forcing "full-destruction" of iPhones rather than letting recyclers reuse or re-sell functioning parts.

 

I understand that some of this is to be expected from a profit-milking, closed-ecosystem business model, but does Apple really need to go to these lengths? 

I’d still probably buy the laptop for it’s design. I don’t like typical fatter or rugged laptops. It’s nice  and lean, and feels sturdy. Minimalistic feels like the future.

 

Nothing else really comes close when it comes to looks for a Mac.

[mr moose]

2 hours ago, S w a t s o n said:

This whole TDP discussion is a meme, both Intel and AMD tend to use TDP breakpoints rather than an actual measurement but I do think Intel takes much more liberty. Most of their 95W processors really only need to dissipate 95W of heat (or less) for the boost clock even. The 9900k isnt a 95w TDP cpu no matter how you look at it, it just will almost never ever stay in that TDP in comparison to other INTEL 95W TDP CPUs let alone AMD.

 

Both companies can define it how they want but Intel's definition plays a lot more fast and loose with it imo.

 

So for example, my 3770k with a TDP of 77W uses less than that, OC'd at 4.4GHZ because the TDP takes into account iGP for instance

The only reason I am in the discussion is because I consider the TDP from an engineering perspective, not as an end user.  The reason people have so many problems is because they look at the TDP rating then try to appraise it's relevance or accuracy from the perspective of an end user that is not engaged in anything but watching what happens when they use it.    No one in this thread has done the trial to work calculate exactly what they need for their target performance/power curve much less designed their own cooler.   If they had they would be using the Metrics/definitions provided by Intel and realised it is easily done with little effort. 

 

EDIT: This post was not meant to sound condescending, I apologize if it does.  

[Blade of Grass]

On 5/10/2019 at 10:54 PM, mr moose said:

The only reason I am in the discussion is because I consider the TDP from an engineering perspective, not as an end user.  The reason people have so many problems is because they look at the TDP rating then try to appraise it's relevance or accuracy from the perspective of an end user that is not engaged in anything but watching what happens when they use it.    No one in this thread has done the trial to work calculate exactly what they need for their target performance/power curve much less designed their own cooler.   If they had they would be using the Metrics/definitions provided by Intel and realised it is easily done with little effort. 

 

EDIT: This post was not meant to sound condescending, I apologize if it does.  

Out of interest, is the maximum power draw and heat dissipation documented anywhere by Intel?

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, Blade of Grass said:

Out of interest, is the maximum power draw and heat dissipation documented anywhere by Intel?

There is a dedicated thermal design document, I don't remember if it has that in it but it's got a ton of information in it. You can just open up Intel XTU and read the peak power set in that.

[mr moose]

19 hours ago, Blade of Grass said:

Out of interest, is the maximum power draw and heat dissipation documented anywhere by Intel?

I've not seen an absolute figure in any documents I've read.  It's all been a base figure then test and extrapolate from there.  As each processor is slightly different (silicon lottery) it would be very hard to give an exact number.   But it is easy for most enthusiasts to get a upper limit by simply looking at power draw benchmarks.  The reviewer has done all the handwork ensuring an adequate cooling solution is being used (usually over the top)  and either calculated or measured actual power draw for the CPU.  All you have to do is add 20-30Watts for headroom then you know what your working with.

 

Just to be clear, AMD does not produce an absolute figure either as far as I can tell (happy to be corrected if someone knows of one).  But the 2700X is rated at 95W and draws 104.7 under heavy load with a water chiller cooler.  So whilst it's a lot closer to their rated TDP, the fact still remains that the total dissipation required to maintain TjMAX is not something any manufacturer can guarantee.  

[Mindersteve]

On 5/5/2019 at 2:15 AM, TECHNOKID said:

An article I found browsing the web:

 

About the fact that Isheeps blatantly ignore the truth. The fact that Linus is wrong that Macs are slower than pcs, when there is evidence on the contrary. The purpose of the article is to say that Apple devices thermal throttle like pcs, but not further. It is true laptops with i9s thermal throttle, albeit to a lesser extent. Is it right to put a CPU in a thin laptop, when not performing too at least near the full capacity? In Linus's video, he states that the i9 thermal throttles to below the base clock.

 

 

"which makes it decidedly not a Mac thing at all" isn't true as there are no pcs that I know of with an i9 of this form factor.

Original article by iMore: https://www.imore.com/linus-wrong-about-macs-being-slower-pcs-heres-why

The comment section of that article is a delight. /s